text
stringlengths 5
1.89M
| meta
dict | domain
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We study the transient heat generation in a quantum dot system driven by a step-like or a square-shaped pulse bias. We find that a periodically oscillating heat generation arises after adding the sudden bias. One particularly surprising result is that there exists a heat absorption from the zero-temperature phonon subsystem. Thus the phonon population in non-equilibrium can be less than that of the equilibrium electron-phonon system. In addition, we also ascertain the optimal conditions for the operation of a quantum dot with the minimum heat generation.'
author:
- Wei Pei
- 'X. C. Xie'
- 'Qing-feng Sun'
title: 'Transient heat generation in a quantum dot under a step-like pulse bias'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
With the technologic development in the micro-integration of electronic devices, the heat generation problem has sharply emerged. This increasing thermal generation greatly influences the performance and stability of nanoscale electronic devices, and it becomes a main bottleneck for the future advancement of electronic industry. Furthermore, some familiar concepts of heat generation that are applicable in macroscopic systems may not be valid in nanoscale systems. So there is an imperative need to comprehend fully the heating effect and to try to mitigate it.
Owing to difficulties in probing the heating process in nanostructures, not much progress had been made until several state-of-the-art experimental scenarios were conceived in recent years. [@Smit2004; @Tsutsui2006; @Huang2006; @Huang2007; @Tsutsui2008; @Tsutsui2010; @Oron-Carl2008; @Ioffe2008] There are both indirect [@Smit2004; @Tsutsui2006; @Huang2006; @Huang2007; @Tsutsui2008; @Tsutsui2010] and direct [@Oron-Carl2008; @Ioffe2008] methods, which enable the evaluation of the effective local temperatures of nanoscale junctions. It has been experimentally demonstrated that the local heating may induce a substantial temperature increase in single molecular junctions [@Huang2006; @Huang2007; @Tsutsui2008; @Tsutsui2010] because of the inefficient heat dissipation. From a microscopic point of view, the main factor of heat generation is the electron-phonon (e-p) interaction, which transfers the ordered energy of electric current to the disordered vibrational energy of atoms. In some recent measurements of differential conductance, phonon-assisted tunnelling peaks have been observed in various nano-devices (e.g. $\mathrm{C}_{60}$, carbon nanotube, etc.), [@Park2000; @LeRoy2004; @LeRoy2005; @Sapmaz2006; @Huttel2009; @Leturcq2009; @Steele2009] these clearly show the existence of e-p interaction. As for the aspect of theory, on the one hand much efforts have been made to investigate the effects of inelastic e-p scattering on electronic transport through different nanostructures, [@Montgomery2003; @Chen2004; @Chen2005; @Paulsson2005; @GalperinJPCM2007; @Rudzinski2008; @Riwar2009; @Tahir2010; @Fang2011] on the other hand many theoretical works have devoted to understanding the phenomena of heat, various models and methods were suggested as well. [@Chen2003; @Lazzeri2005; @Horsfield2006; @Sun2007; @Galperin2007; @Lu2007; @Liu2009; @Wu2009; @Zhou2011; @Xie2011; @Gurevich2011; @Chi2012] By using the nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) method, a tractable formula of heat generation has been derived. [@Sun2007] But these works mainly focused on the steady-state cases or, at most, the sinusoidal-like ac bias. In order to analyze the transient heat generation and its dynamics, the step-like and the square-shaped pulse biases are considered as the optimal driving forces. [@Plihal2000; @Maciejko2006; @Xing2007] It is not only because they can provide the unambiguous time scales and the transient behaviours of heat generation, but also because any information in computers is presented in bytes that consist of a long series of 0and1digits, they are realized by continuously switching on and off the sharp step pulse.
In this paper, we study the transient behaviours of heat generation in a quantum dot (QD) system driven by a step-like or a square-shaped pulse bias. The QD is described by the Anderson model and the intra-dot e-p interaction is considered. By using the NEGF method, the transient heat generation is derived. We find a sudden bias inducing a periodically oscillating heat generation. Moreover, it can give rise to an energy transfer from the zero-temperature phonon subsystem to the electronic subsystem under certain conditions. However, after the bias goes back to zero and the system restores the equilibrium, the total heat generation at zero-temperature is always positive because of the third law of thermodynamics. In addition, we also discuss how to operate the QD with as little heat generation as possible.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[section\_2\] we describe the model and deduce the formula of the transient heat generation. In Sec. \[section\_3\] we give the numerical results and discussion. Finally, a brief conclusion is presented in Sec. \[section\_4\].
THEORETICAL MODEL {#section_2}
=================
To begin with, we consider a single-level QD connecting to two electrode-leads and coupling to a local vibronic phonon mode. The whole system is described by the typical Hamiltonian: [@Sun2007] $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& {\omega_q}\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}\hat{a}_q + {\lambda_q}[\hat{a}_q
+ \hat{a}_q^{\dagger}] \hat{n}_d
+ {\epsilon_d} \hat{n}_d \nonumber\\
&+& \sum_{\alpha,k}{\epsilon_{{\alpha}k}(t)}\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}
+ \sum_{\alpha,k}{t_{\alpha}}[\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}^{\dagger}\hat{d}
+ \mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.].
\label{original_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Herein, $\hat{n}_d=\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d}$, $\hat{d}$ and $\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}$ ($\alpha=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}$) are electronic annihilation operators in the QD and lead $\alpha$, $\epsilon_d$ and $\epsilon_{{\alpha}k}(t)$ are the corresponding single-particle energies, and $t_{{\alpha}}$ represents the hopping matrix element between the QD and lead $\alpha$. As for the phonon subsystem, $\hat{a}_q$ ($\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}$) is an annihilation (creation) operator for one specific vibronic mode with frequency $\omega_q$. The strength of the e-p interaction is described by the coupling constant $\lambda_q$.
Due to the pulse bias, the electronic level $\epsilon_{{\alpha}k}(t)$ in Eq. (\[original\_hamiltonian\]) is time-dependent: $\epsilon_{{\alpha}k}(t) = \epsilon_{{\alpha}k}+\Delta_{\alpha}(t)$, and $\Delta_{\alpha}(t)$ represents the external time-dependent bias potential. For the step-like pulse case, we assume that the system is initially in equilibrium under the zero bias; at $t = 0$ a bias $V$ is suddenly switched on and remains for $t > 0$, which drives the system out of equilibrium, induces the electric current and then generates heat. Following we study the transient heat generation for $t > 0$. Hereafter we consider that the bias is applied solely on the left lead, so $\Delta_\mathrm{R}(t) = 0$, $\Delta_\mathrm{L}(t) = 0$ for $t < 0$, and $\Delta_\mathrm{L}(t) = V$ otherwise.
In what follows, it is rewarding to make a canonical transformation on the Hamiltonian $\bar{H} = UHU^{\dagger}$, with the unitary operator $U = \exp[(\lambda_q/\omega_q)(\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}-\hat{a}_q)\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d}]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{H} &=& {\omega_q}\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}\hat{a}_q
+ {\tilde{\epsilon}_d}\hat{n}_d \nonumber\\
&+& \sum_{\alpha,k}{\epsilon_{{\alpha}k}(t)}\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}
+ \sum_{\alpha,k}{t_{\alpha}}[\hat{c}_{{\alpha}k}^{\dagger}\hat{d}\hat{X}
+ \mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],
\label{transformed_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\epsilon}_d = \epsilon_d - \lambda_q^2/\omega_q$ is the renormalized electronic level of the QD, and the operator $\hat{X} =
\exp[-(\lambda_q/\omega_q)(\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}-\hat{a}_q)]$. We use the general formula of transient heat generation presented in Ref. , which remains unchange under the canonical transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t) &=& -2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m} \omega_q\lambda_q^2
{\int_{-\infty}^t} dt_1
e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_q(t_1-t)} \{ \nonumber\\
&-& N_q\langle\langle{\hat{n}_d(t)|\hat{n}_d(t_1)}\rangle\rangle^r
+ \langle\langle{\hat{n}_d(t)|\hat{n}_d(t_1)}\rangle\rangle^<\}.
\label{original_heat_generation}\end{aligned}$$ Next we replace the operator $\hat{X}$ by its expectation value ${\langle}\hat{X}{\rangle} =
\exp[-(\lambda_q/\omega_q)^2(N_q+1/2)]$, which is reasonable under the conditions of both $t_{\alpha}\ll\lambda_q$ and $t_{\alpha}\gg\lambda_q$. [@Chen2005; @Mahan1990; @Hewson1980] After this approximation, the electron and the phonon subsystems are decoupled. So we can rigorously employ the Wick’s theorem to deal with the two-particle Green’s function: $
{\langle}T_c[\hat{n}_d(t)\hat{n}_d(t_1)]{\rangle}_{\bar{H}} =
{\langle}T_c[\hat{n}_d(t)]{\rangle}_{\bar{H}} {\langle}
T_c[\hat{n}_d(t_1)]{\rangle}_{\bar{H}} -
{\langle}T_c[\hat{d}^{\dagger}(t)\hat{d}(t_1)]{\rangle}_{\bar{H}}
{\langle} T_c[\hat{d}^{\dagger}(t_1)\hat{d}(t)]{\rangle}_{\bar{H}}$. Then the heat generation $Q(t)$ changes into: $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t) &=& 2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\omega_q\lambda_q^2
{\int_{-\infty}^t} dt_1
e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_q(t_1-t)} \{ \nonumber\\
&-& N_q[\widetilde{G}^r(t,t_1)\widetilde{G}^<(t_1,t)
+ \widetilde{G}^<(t,t_1)\widetilde{G}^a(t_1,t)] \nonumber\\
&+& [\widetilde{G}^<(t,t_1)\widetilde{G}^>(t_1,t)
- \widetilde{G}^<(t,t)\widetilde{G}^<(t_1,t_1)] \},
\label{derived_heat_generation}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{G}^{r,a,<,>}(t,t_1)$ are the standard single-particle Green’s functions of the QD derived from the decoupled Hamiltonian. $N_q = 1/[\exp(\omega_q/k_{\mathrm{B}} T)-1)]$ is the Bose distribution function with temperature $T$. Then by considering the zero temperature case ($T=0$), the expression of transient heat generation reduces to: $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t) &=& 2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\omega_q\lambda_q^2
{\int_{-\infty}^t} dt_1
e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_q(t_1-t)} \nonumber\\
&\times& [\widetilde{G}^<(t,t_1)\widetilde{G}^>(t_1,t)
- \widetilde{G}^<(t,t)\widetilde{G}^<(t_1,t_1)],
\label{reduced_heat_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ and the Green’s functions $\widetilde{G}^{<,>}$ take the forms as: [@Haug1998; @Jauho1994] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{G}^<(t,t_1) &=& \sum_{\alpha} \mathrm{i}
\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha} {\int}\frac{d\epsilon}{2\pi}
f(\epsilon)\widetilde{A}_{\alpha}(\epsilon,t)\widetilde{A}_{\alpha}^*(\epsilon,t_1) \nonumber\\
& & \times \exp[-\mathrm{i}\epsilon(t-t_1)-\mathrm{i}\int_{t_1}^tdt'\Delta_{\alpha}(t')],
\label{less_green_function}\\
\widetilde{G}^>(t,t_1) &=& \widetilde{G}^<(t,t_1)
+\widetilde{G}^r(t,t_1) - [\widetilde{G}^{r}(t,t_1)]^*.
\label{greater_green_function}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[less\_green\_function\]), the linewidth function $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha}
= \Gamma_{\alpha} {\langle}\hat{X}{\rangle}^2$, $\Gamma_{\alpha} =
2\pi\rho_{\alpha} |t_{\alpha}|^2$, with the density of state $\rho_{\alpha}$ of lead $\alpha$. $f(\epsilon) =
1/\{\exp[(\epsilon-\mu)/k_{\mathrm{B}}T]+1\}$ is the Fermi distribution function. To avoid trivial details, we have introduced the quantity $\widetilde{A}_{\alpha}(\epsilon,t)$ defined as: [@Haug1998; @Jauho1994] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_{\alpha}(\epsilon,t) &=& {\int_{-\infty}^t} dt'
\widetilde{G}^r(t,t') \nonumber\\
& & \times \exp[\mathrm{i}\epsilon(t-t') + \mathrm{i}\int_{t'}^tdt''\Delta_{\alpha}(t'')].
\label{quantity_a}\end{aligned}$$ The retarded Green’s function $\widetilde{G}^r(t,t') = -\mathrm{i}\theta(t-t')
\exp[-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\epsilon}_d(t-t')-\widetilde{\Gamma}(t-t')]$ can be easily derived, in which $\widetilde{\Gamma} = (\widetilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{L} + \widetilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{R})/2$. It is independent of the bias potential $\Delta_{\alpha}(t)$. Combining the Eqs. (\[reduced\_heat\_hamiltonian\]–\[quantity\_a\]), the transient heat generation $Q(t)$ can be calculated for arbitrary time-dependent bias $\Delta_{\alpha}(t)$. Once $Q(t)$ is known, the total heat generation $Q_T(t)$ from $t=0$ to the time $t$ is straightforwardly obtained as: $Q_T(t) = \int_{-\infty}^t dt' Q(t')
= \int_{0}^t dt' Q(t')$. Concretely, by taking into account of the step-like pulse bias, $\widetilde{A}_{\alpha}(\epsilon,t)$ is to be simplified: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_\mathrm{R}(\epsilon,t)
&=& \widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon)
= 1/(\epsilon-\tilde{\epsilon}_d + \mathrm{i}\widetilde{\Gamma}),
\label{righr_a}\\
\widetilde{A}_\mathrm{L}(\epsilon,t<0) &=& \widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon),
\label{left_a_time_less_than_zero}\\
\widetilde{A}_\mathrm{L}(\epsilon,t>0)
&=& \widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon+V)+[\widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon)-\widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon+V)] \nonumber\\
& & \times \exp[{\mathrm{i}(\epsilon+V-\tilde{\epsilon}_d + \mathrm{i}\widetilde{\Gamma})t}].
\label{left_a_time_greater_than_zero}\end{aligned}$$ In the following calculation, we will set the chemical potential $\mu=0$ of the equilibrium system at $t<0$ as the zero point of energy, and also assume the symmetric barriers $\widetilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{L} =
\widetilde{\Gamma}_\mathrm{R}$.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION {#section_3}
======================
\
Fig. \[figure\_1\](a) shows the transient heat generation $Q(t)$ versus the time $t$ with fixed $V = 1$ and different renormalized level $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$. While $t<0$, the bias is zero and the system is in equilibrium, so one always has $Q(t)=0$. At $t=0$, the bias is suddenly added, then the current $I(t)$ and the heat generation $Q(t)$ emerge at $t>0$. $Q(t)$ displays a periodically oscillating behaviour with the period $2\pi/\omega_q$. The oscillation is undamped and keeps all along due to only a discrete phonon model being considered here. $Q(t)$ is positive in one half period and negative in other half period, which means that the transporting electron periodically emits and absorbs phonon. Besides, the oscillating amplitude is sensitive to $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$, it is the largest while $\tilde{\epsilon}_d=0$ because of the occurrence of resonant tunnelling with the largest current for that $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$. When $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$ deviates from zero, the oscillating amplitude reduces and gradually approaches zero.
Next we fix the level $\tilde{\epsilon}_d =0$ and investigate the behaviours of $Q(t)$ with different bias $V$. For the positive bias $V$, $Q(t)$ is positive in the pre-half period and negative in the post-half period. But for the negative $V$, $Q(t)$ can be negative in the pre-half period \[see the region of $0<t<\pi/\omega_q \approx
0.33(2\pi/\widetilde{\Gamma})$ in Fig. \[figure\_1\](b)\]. This result is surprising and indicates that the suddenly-added bias causes the phonon to be transferred from the phonon subsystem to the electronic subsystem at once. Notice that the temperature of the system has been set equal to zero, so it means the phonon population can be [*less*]{} than the original zero-T value. With $|V|$ increasing, the oscillating amplitude of $Q(t)$ also increases. For the positive-$Q$ half period, the amplitude increase is very prominent. But for the negative-$Q$ half period, the amplitude increase is small, and even decreases for the large $|V|$. So in the case of large $|V|$ ($|V|>\omega_q$), more phonons are emitted than absorbed, which leads to a net heat generation by the current.
In Fig. \[figure\_1\](c), the total heat generation $Q_T(t)$ is shown. Because of the oscillating $Q(t)$, $Q_T(t)$ also exhibits the oscillating property with time $t$. For the small bias ($0<|V|<\omega_q$), $Q_T(t)$ oscillates along a horizontal line, in which case there is no net heat generation. But for the large bias ($|V|>\omega_q$), an ascending trend will grow more and more noticeably, by considering the large time scale, $Q_T(t)$ is approximately proportional to $t$. In particular, as for $-\omega_q<V<0$, the curves of $Q_T(t)$ always lie below the zero point \[see the curves with $V=-0.5$ and $-1.0$ in Fig. \[figure\_1\](c)\], which means that at any time there is a net phonon absorption from the zero-T phonon subsystem. Intuitively, this seems to be impossible. But in fact, due to the e-p interaction, the equilibrium phonon population $n_{\mathrm{ph}}={\langle}a_q^{\dagger}(t)a_q(t){\rangle}$ at $t < 0$ is not zero, but a finite value even if $T=0$. By using the NEGF method and taking the same approximation as in the derivation of $Q(t)$, $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ can be calculated. It is a function of $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$ behaving like the occupation number of electron on the QD, and we will mention it later in this paper (see Fig. \[figure\_3\]). Then by choosing the same parameters in Fig. \[figure\_1\](c), $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ is about $0.13\lambda_q^2/\widetilde{\Gamma}^2$. From the above results, we find that the suddenly-applied bias can transfer a part of energy of such $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ phonons from the original zero-T phonon subsystem to the electronic subsystem. Due to the system at $t>0$ being in non-equilibrium, this transfer is not prohibited in principle. Furthermore, we have already checked that the total heat absorption $-Q_T(t)$ from the phonon subsystem does not exceed the value of $\omega_q
n_{\mathrm{ph}}\approx 0.20\lambda_q^2/\widetilde{\Gamma}$ in any case.
The response of transient electric current $I(t)$ to the sudden pulse bias is also shown in Fig. \[figure\_1\](d), [^1] in which $I(t)$ quickly rises in a very short time. The rising time scale of $I(t)$ is about $0.1(2\pi/\widetilde{\Gamma})$. However, the rise of $Q(t)$ is within the time scale $(1/4)(2\pi/\omega_q)$. So if we set the parameter $\widetilde{\Gamma}>0.4\omega_q$, the current $I(t)$ will emerge much quicker than $Q(t)$. In this case, the device can finish the operation before the occurrence of heat generation. Additionally, in comparison with $Q(t)$, 1) $I(t)$ is without oscillation and quickly damps to a stable value because of the spectrum of electronic reservoirs (lead $\mathrm{L}$ and $\mathrm{R}$) being continuous, 2) $I(t)$ has the electron-hole symmetry \[e.g. $I(t,-V,-\tilde{\epsilon}_d)= -I(t,V,\tilde{\epsilon}_d)$\], but $Q(t,-V,-\tilde{\epsilon}_d)\not= \pm Q(t,V,\tilde{\epsilon}_d)$, it is because that the phonon subsystem is without the electron-hole symmetry.
\
Up to now, we have only considered a single isolated phonon mode $\omega_q$ in the QD. But for a real device, the QD usually couples to the lead and the substrate, so the phonon mode $\omega_q$ will unavoidably acquire a small line width. This is to be considered in the following discussion with the phonon subsystem having a Lorentzian spectrum: $$\begin{aligned}
A(\omega_q)
= \frac{\theta(\omega_q)}{\pi} \frac{\sigma}{(\omega_q-\omega_q^0)^2 + \sigma^2}.
\label{spectral_function}\end{aligned}$$ Now the oscillations of $Q(t)$ and $Q_T(t)$ gradually damp as shown in Fig. \[figure\_2\]. $Q(t)$ damps to a finite positive value for $|V| \geq \omega^0_q$ or almost zero for $|V|<\omega^0_q$. $Q_T(t)$ damps along a slanting line for $|V| \geq \omega^0_q$ or a horizontal line for $|V| <\omega^0_q$. In particular, for $-\omega^0_q <V<0$, $Q(t)\approx 0$ and $Q_T(t)$ is negative after the system reaches a new steady state at the large time $t$ \[see the curves with $V=-0.5$ and $V=-1.0$ in Fig. \[figure\_2\](b)\]. It means that, in the process of applying the sudden bias, a net energy transfer from the phonon subsystem to the electronic subsystem occurs. The phonon population $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ in the new steady state is less than that of the original zero-T case and it can keep this value for a very long time because of $Q(t)\approx 0$. To pay attention, the system is now in the steady state, not in equilibrium. So $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ being less than the original zero-T value does not indicate that its temperature is lower than $0$, and this result does not breach the third law of thermodynamics either.
\
\
In order to further explain and comprehend the phenomenon of heat absorption from the phonon subsystem at zero temperature, we have calculated the occupation number of zero-T phonon, $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$, and the occupation number of electron, $n_{\mathrm{e}}$, in both equilibrium state and steady state: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\mathrm{e}} &=& \langle \hat{n}_d \rangle = -\mathrm{i}\int
\widetilde{G}^<(\epsilon) d\epsilon/2\pi, \label{ne} \\
n_{\mathrm{ph}} &=& \frac{\lambda_q^2}{4\pi^2} \int \int
{d\epsilon_1} {d\epsilon_2} \nonumber\\
&\times& [\frac{\widetilde{G}^<(\epsilon_1)\widetilde{G}^>(\epsilon_2)}{(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2-\omega_q)^2}
-
\frac{\widetilde{G}^<(\epsilon_1)\widetilde{G}^<(\epsilon_2)}{\omega_q^2}
], \label{nph}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{G}^<(\epsilon)=\mathrm{i}\widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon)
[\sum_{\alpha}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha}f_{\alpha}(\epsilon)]
\widetilde{G}^a(\epsilon)$, $\widetilde{G}^>(\epsilon)=-\mathrm{i}\widetilde{G}^r(\epsilon)
\{\sum_{\alpha}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha}[1-f_{\alpha}(\epsilon)]\}
\widetilde{G}^a(\epsilon)$, and $f_{\alpha}(\epsilon)=1/\{\exp[(\epsilon-\mu_{\alpha})/k_{\mathrm{B}}T]+1\}$ ($\alpha=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}$). See Fig. \[figure\_3\], the occupation number of phonon behaves much like that of electron, which monotonically decreases with the elevated renormalized level of the QD, that is to say, $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ is approximately proportional to $n_\mathrm{e}$ while changing $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$. At $t<0$, there is no bias across the QD ($V_{\mathrm{L}}=0,V_{\mathrm{R}}=0$), so the whole system is in equilibrium. After applying the sudden bias, the system is driven out of equilibrium, until a large time, enters a new steady state ($V_{\mathrm{L}}=-1,V_{\mathrm{R}}=0$). As we can see, both the phonon population $n_{\mathrm{ph}}$ and the electron population $n_{\mathrm{e}}$ experience an obvious falling down from the equilibrium-state case to the steady-state case, it means that a part of zero-T phonons have indeed run away, which results in the heat absorption. To be specific, for $\tilde{\epsilon}_d=0$, the change of the average phonon number at zero temperature is about $0.044\lambda_q^2/\widetilde{\Gamma}^2$, and the corresponding phonon energy is $0.066\lambda_q^2/\widetilde{\Gamma}$. As a matter of fact, the net heat absorption $-Q_T$ in real case will be a little less than this value, in that the electric current can also transfer energy to the phonon subsystem as an offset \[see the approached level of $Q_T$ with $V=-1.0$ in Fig. \[figure\_2\](b)\].
Finally, we deal with the square-shaped pulse bias $\Delta_\mathrm{L}(t)$, in which case $\Delta_\mathrm{L}(t)$ suddenly goes back to $0$ at $t=T_d$. Fig. \[figure\_4\] shows $Q(t)$ and $Q_T(t)$ for the Lorentzian-spectrum phonon subsystem with different $T_d$ and $V$. While the bias going back to $0$, $Q(t)$ and $Q_T(t)$ show strong oscillations once again, which will gradually fade away. In the limit of ($t\rightarrow \infty$), the system restores the equilibrium as initial, $Q(t)$ and $Q_T(t)$ approaches zero and a finite positive value respectively. For $|V|\geq \omega^0_q$, $Q_T(\infty)$ is a large value that is approximately proportional to $T_d$. But for $|V|<\omega^0_q/2$, $Q_T(\infty)$ is almost zero regardless of $T_d$. So if the device is operated in that range of $|V|$, there will not be much net heat generation. In particular, as discussed above, for $-\omega^0_q<V<0$, $Q_T(t)$ can be negative after the first pulse bias, but $Q_T$ is eventually $\geq 0$ when the system recovers the equilibrium state. Actually, because of the third law of thermodynamics, it is prohibited to absorb heat energy from the zero-T phonon subsystem under the condition of equilibrium, no matter how to control the bias.
CONCLUSIONS {#section_4}
===========
In summery, the transient heat generation in the QD driven by a step-like pulse bias is investigated. We find that the suddenly switched-on bias can induce a heat absorption from the zero-temperature phonon subsystem. For a strong QD-lead coupling case, the current-rising process is much quicker than the heat generation, so the device can finish the electronic operation before the emergence of heat generation. In addition, for a small bias, the net heat generation is always very small no matter how to turn on and off the device.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was financially supported by NSF-China under Grants Nos. 10821403, 10974236, and 11074174, China-973 program and US-DOE under Grants No. DE-FG02- 04ER46124.
R. H. M. Smit, C. Untiedt, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Nanotechnology [**15**]{}, S472 (2004).
M. Tsutsui, S. Kurokawa, and A. Sakai, Nanotechnology [**17**]{}, 5334 (2006).
Z. F. Huang, B. Q. Xu, Y. C. Chen, M. Di Ventra, and N. J. Tao, Nano Lett. [**6**]{}, 1240 (2006).
Z. F. Huang, F. Chen, R. D’Agosta, P. A. Bennett, M. Di Ventra, and N. J. Tao, Nature Nano. [**2**]{}, 698 (2007).
M. Tsutsui, M. Taniguchi, and T. Kawai, Nano Lett. [**8**]{}, 3293 (2008).
M. Tsutsui, M. Taniguchi, K. Yokota, and T. Kawai, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**96**]{}, 103110 (2010).
M. Oron-Carl and R. Krupke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 127401 (2008).
Z. Ioffe, T. Shamai, A. Ophir, G. Noy, I. Yutsis, K. Kfir, O. Cheshnovsky, and Y. Selzer, Nature Nano. [**3**]{}, 727 (2008).
H. Park, J. Park, A. K. L. Lim, E. H. Anderson, A. P. Alivisatos, and P. L. McEuen, Nature [**407**]{}, 57 (2000).
B. J. LeRoy, S. G. Lemay, J. Kong, and C. Dekker, Nature [**432**]{}, 371 (2004).
B. J. LeRoy, J. Kong, V. K. Pahilwani, C. Dekker, and S. G. Lemay, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 075413 (2005).
S. Sapmaz, P. Jarillo-Herrero, Y. M. Blanter, C. Dekker, and H. S. J. van der Zant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 026801 (2006).
A. K. Hüttel, B. Witkamp, M. Leijnse, M. R. Wegewijs, and H. S. J. van der Zant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 225501 (2009).
R. Leturcq, C. Stampfer, K. Inderbitzin, L. Durrer, C. Hierold, E. Mariani, M. G. Schultz, F. von Oppen, and K. Ensslin, Nature Phys. [**5**]{}, 327 (2009).
G. A. Steele, A. K. Hüttel, B. Witkamp, M. Poot, H. B. Meerwaldt, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and H. S. J. van der Zant, Science [**325**]{}, 1103 (2009).
M. J. Montgomery, J. Hoekstra, T. N. Todorov, and A. P. Sutton, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**15**]{}, 731 (2003).
Y.-C. Chen, M. Zwolak, and M. Di Ventra, Nano Lett. [**4**]{}, 1709 (2004).
Z.-Z. Chen, R. Lü, and B.-F. Zhu, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 165324 (2005).
M. Paulsson, T. Frederiksen, and M. Brandbyge, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 201101(R) (2005).
M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner, and A. Nitzan, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**19**]{}, 103201 (2007).
W. Rudziński, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 275214 (2008).
R.-P. Riwar and T. L. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 125109 (2009).
M. Tahir and A. MacKinnon, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 195444 (2010).
T.-F. Fang, Q.-F. Sun, and H.-G. Luo, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 155417 (2011).
Y.-C. Chen, M. Zwolak, and M. Di Ventra, Nano Lett. [**3**]{}, 1691 (2003).
M. Lazzeri, S. Piscanec, F. Mauri, A. C. Ferrari, and J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 236802 (2005).
A. P. Horsfield, D. R. Bowler, H. Ness, C. G. Sánchez, T. N. Todorov, and A. J. Fisher, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1195 (2006).
Q.-F. Sun and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 155306 (2007).
M. Galperin, A. Nitzan, and M. A. Ratner, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 155312 (2007).
J. T. Lü and J.-S. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 165418 (2007).
J. Liu, J. T. Song, Q.-F. Sun, and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 161309(R) (2009).
B. H. Wu and J. C. Cao, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 245301 (2009).
L.-L. Zhou, S. S. Li, J. N. Wei, and S. Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 195303 (2011).
Z.-X. Xie, K.-Q. Chen, and W. H. Duan, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**23**]{}, 315302 (2011).
V. L. Gurevich, V. I. Kozub, and M. I. Muradov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**23**]{}, 405302 (2011).
F. Chi and Y. Dubi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**24**]{}, 145301 (2012).
M. Plihal, D. C. Langreth, and P. Nordlander, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 13341(R) (2000).
J. Maciejko, J. Wang, and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 085324 (2006).
Y. X. Xing, Q.-F. Sun, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 125308 (2007).
G. D. Mahan, *Many-Particle Physics* (Plenum, New York, 1990).
A. C. Hewson and D. M. Newns, J. Phys. C: Solid St. Phys. [**13**]{}, 4477 (1980).
H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho, *Quantum Kinetics in Transport and Optics of Semiconductors* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998).
A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 5528 (1994).
[^1]: In the current calculation, we use the same method in Ref. .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper investigates the time-bounded version of the reachability problem for hybrid automata. This problem asks whether a given hybrid automaton can reach a given target location within ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{T}}}$ time units, where ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{T}}}$ is a constant rational value. We show that, in contrast to the classical (unbounded) reachability problem, the timed-bounded version is *decidable* for rectangular hybrid automata provided only non-negative rates are allowed. This class of systems is of practical interest and subsumes, among others, the class of stopwatch automata. We also show that the problem becomes undecidable if either diagonal constraints or both negative and positive rates are allowed.'
author:
- 'Thomas Brihaye[^1]'
- 'Laurent Doyen[^2]'
- 'Gilles Geeraerts[^3]'
- 'Joël Ouaknine[^4]'
- 'Jean-François Raskin'
- James Worrell
title: |
On Reachability for Hybrid Automata\
over Bounded Time[^5]
---
[10]{}
R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, N. Halbwachs, T. A. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, X. Nicollin, A. Olivero, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. , 138(1), 1995.
R. Alur and D. L. Dill. A theory of timed automata. , 126(2):183–235, 1994.
F. Cassez and K. G. Larsen. The impressive power of stopwatches. In [*Proc. of CONCUR*]{}, LNCS 1877, pages 138–152. Springer, 1877.
J. Ferrante and C. Rackoff. A decision procedure for the first order theory of real addition with order. , 4(1):69–76, 1975.
G. Frehse. Phaver: algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past hytech. , 10:263–279, May 2008.
T. A. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. Hytech: A model checker for hybrid systems. In [*Proc. of CAV*]{}, LNCS 1254, pages 460–463. Springer, 1997.
T. A. Henzinger, P. W. Kopke, A. Puri, and P. Varaiya. What’s decidable about hybrid automata? , 57(1):94–124, 1998.
T. A. Henzinger and J.-F. Raskin. Robust undecidability of timed and hybrid systems. In [*Proc. of HSCC*]{}, LNCS 1790, pages 145–159. Springer, 2000.
M. L. Minsky. . Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967. Prentice-Hall Series in Automatic Computation.
J. Ouaknine, A. Rabinovich, and J. Worrell. Time-bounded verification. In [*Proc. of CONCUR*]{}, LNCS 5710, pages 496–510. Springer, 2009.
J. Ouaknine and J. Worrell. Towards a theory of time-bounded verification. In [*Proc. of ICALP ([II]{})*]{}, LNCS 6199, pages 22–37. Springer, 2010.
[^1]: Université de Mons, Belgium
[^2]: LSV, ENS Cachan & CNRS, France
[^3]: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
[^4]: Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK
[^5]: Work supported by the projects: $(i)$ QUASIMODO (FP7- ICT-STREP-214755), Quasimodo: “Quantitative System Properties in Model-Driven-Design of Embedded”, [ http://www.quasimodo.aau.dk/]{}, $(ii)$ GASICS (ESF-EUROCORES LogiCCC), Gasics: “Games for Analysis and Synthesis of Interactive Computational Systems”, [ http://www.ulb.ac.be/di/gasics/]{}, $(iii)$ Moves: “Fundamental Issues in Modelling, Verification and Evolution of Software”, [http://moves.ulb.ac.be]{}, a PAI program funded by the Federal Belgian Government, $(iv)$ the ARC project AUWB-2010–10/15-UMONS-3, $(v)$ the FRFC project 2.4515.11 and $(vi)$ a grant from the National Bank of Belgium.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We derive expressions for the leading-order far-field flows generated by mobile colloids trapped at planar fluid-fluid interfaces. We consider both externally driven colloids and active colloids (swimmers) either adjacent to or adhered to the interface. In the latter case, we assume a pinned contact line. The Reynolds and capillary numbers are assumed small, in line with typical colloidal systems involving air- or alkane-aqueous interfaces. At clean (surfactant-free) interfaces, the hydrodynamic modes are essentially a restricted set of the usual Stokes multipoles in a bulk fluid. To leading order, driven colloids simply exert Stokelets parallel to the interface, while active colloids drive different kinds of fluid motion depending on their trapped configuration. We then consider how these modes are altered by the presence of an incompressible surfactant layer, which occurs at high Marangoni numbers. This limiting behavior is typical for colloidal-scale systems at small capillary numbers, even when scant surfactant is present. Compared to a clean interface, we find that incompressibility substantially weakens flow directed normal to the interface. Interestingly, for both driven and active colloids, we find that the leading-order flow normal to the interface is associated with colloid asymmetry with respect to the interfacial plane. Flow parallel to the interface, however, is not weakened. Moreover, surface-viscous stresses, if present, potentially generate very long-ranged flow on the interface itself and into the surrounding fluids. We examine the limiting forms of such flows. Our results have important implications for advective mass transport enhancement near fluid boundaries.'
author:
- 'Nicholas G. Chisholm'
- 'Kathleen J. Stebe ,'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Driven and active colloids at fluid interfaces
---
Intoduction {#sec:intro}
===========
Fluid-fluid interfaces provide a rich setting for driven and active colloidal systems. Here, a “driven” colloid moves through a fluid due to external forces or torques, for example, a magnetic bead forced by a magnetic field. “Active” colloids, on the other hand, self propel by consuming a fuel source. For example, motile bacteria are active colloids that self-propel by the rotation of one or more flagella. Autophoretic nanorods or Janus particles are other examples of commonly studied active colloids. These catalytic swimmers self-propel via generation of chemical gradients that produce a propulsive layer of apparent fluid slip along the colloid surface. Past work on colloids adhered to interfaces has focused on their usefulness as Brownian rheological probes when embedded in biological lipid membranes or surfactant monolayers, where colloid motion is, in this case, “driven” by thermal fluctuations. For example, colloidal probes have been used to measure surface viscosity of a fluid interface as a function of surfactant concentration [@Sickert2007]. Such measurements require theoretical models of the mobility of the colloid. @Saffman1975 analytically computed the mobility of a flat disk embedded in a viscous, incompressible membrane separating two semi-infinite subphases in the limit of large Boussinesq number, a dimensionless number comparing the membrane viscosity to that of the surrounding fluid. This calculation was extended to moderate Boussinesq numbers by @Hughes1981 and to subphases of finite depth by @Stone1998. Later theoretical work quantified the response of a linearly viscoelastic membrane to an embedded point force [@Levine2002]. The effects of particle anisotropy have been quantified in the context of the mobility of a needle embedded in an incompressible Langmuir monolayer overlying a fluid of varying depth [@Fischer2004]. Finally, the impact of interfacial compressibility and surfactant solubility on the drag on a disk embedded in an interface above a thin film of fluid has also been quantified [@Elfring2016]. The dynamics of (three-dimensional) colloids that protrude into the surrounding fluid phases has also been characterized. Analytical and numerical analyses of the mobility of spheres [@Fischer2006; @Pozrikidis2007; @Stone2015; @Doerr2015; @Doerr2016] and thin filaments [@Fischer2006] can be found in the literature for clean and surfactant-laden interfaces in the limit of small capillary number, a dimensionless ratio of characteristic viscous stresses to interfacial tension.
Active colloids are also strongly influenced by fluid interfaces. Motile bacteria have been the focus of much research in this context due to their relevance to human health and the environment. Seminal work by @Lauga2006 showed, via a resistive-force theory model, that circular trajectories of *E. coli* swimming near a solid boundary are caused by hydrodynamic interaction with the boundary. Similar results are found for free surfaces [@DiLeonardo2011], although the direction of circling is reversed. These theoretical models also predict that there is always an induced velocity toward the boundary, effectively trapping bacterium at the surface. More detailed boundary element simulations have shown the existence of stable trajectories of bacteria near solid boundaries, where the distance from the boundary and curvature of the trajectory reach a steady state [@Giacche2010]. In contrast, similar calculations show only unstable trajectories for swimmers near free surfaces; the swimmer inevitably crashes into the boundary unless it is initially angled steeply enough away to escape it altogether [@Pimponi2016]. Finally, @Shaik2017 analytically computed of the motion of a spherical “squirmer,” a common model for microorganism locomotion, near a weakly deformable interface. Others have investigated motion of autophoretic swimmers at fluid interfaces. Gold-platinum catalytic nanorods are highly motile at aqueous-alkane interfaces, and their rate of rotational diffusion can be used to measure interfacial shear viscosity [@Dhar2006]. Further experiments have shown that partially-wetted, self-propelled Janus particles at air-water interfaces move along circular trajectories with markedly decreased rotational diffusion as compared to their motion in a bulk fluid [@Wang2017]. Theoretical analysis has yielded analytical predictions of the linear and angular velocities of an autophoretic sphere straddling a surfactant-free interface with a freely-slipping, contact line [@Malgaretti2016]. This work has supplied valuable information about the influence of fluid interfaces on active colloid locomotion.
Rather than developing detailed models for specific types of swimmers, an alternative approach is to use far-field models that capture universal features of colloid locomotion. For active colloids, this approach has been used to compute swimming trajectories near solid boundaries [@Spagnolie2012] and fluid interfaces [@Lopez2014]. Such methods are accurate when the colloid is separated from the boundary by a few body lengths [@Spagnolie2012]. Recent work has employed far-field models of active colloids to study trapping of microswimmers near surfactant-laden droplets [@Desai2018] and the density distribution of bacteria near fluid interfaces [@Ahmadzadegan2019].
While active and driven colloids near boundaries have been the subject of past theoretical analysis, the focus has largely been on computing drag (on driven colloids) or swimming trajectories (of active colloids) and how they are influenced by the boundary. The actual flows generated by such colloids at interfaces and the implications of these flows have received less attention. Aside from trapping due to hydrodynamic interactions, active colloids may be trapped at fluid interfaces by contact-line pinning, a phenomenon unique to fluid interfaces, in a variety of configurations, greatly affecting their motility and their induced fluid flows. For instance, recent work suggests that contact-line pinning traps *Pseusomonas aeruginosa* in a variety of different and persistent orientations at aqueous-hexadecane interfaces, leading to a distinct motility patterns [@Deng2020]. Bacteria may also become adhered to passive colloids already attached to the interface, towing them as cargo [@Vaccari2018]. The hydrodynamic implications of such trapped states have not been discussed.
In this article, we use the multipole expansion method to examine the hydrodynamic modes generated by driven and active colloids at fluid interfaces in a variety of different trapped states. We focus on the modes that dominate in the far field, which may be observable in experiment. We focus on the case where the colloid is physically adhered to a fluid interface with a pinned contact line that constrains its motion. We also consider the case where the colloid is adjacent to the interface but not adhered, as might occur due to hydrodynamic trapping. This article is organized as follows. In \[sec:governing-eqs\], we develop the governing equations for the fluid motion due to colloids at two types of fluid interfaces: a clean, surfactant-free interface and an interface that is rendered incompressible by adsorbed surfactant. In \[sec:reciprocal-relations\], we develop a reciprocal relation that applies to two fluids in Stokes flow separated by either of these types of interface. In \[sec:clean-interfaces\], we develop a multipole expansion appropriate for colloids trapped at a clean interface, and we discuss the leading-order modes that are produced in the driven an active cases. We then compare these results to analogous results at an incompressible interface in \[sec:incompressible-interfaces\]. Finally, we conclude in \[sec:conclusion\] by discussing the implications of our results and opportunities for future research.
Governing equations {#sec:governing-eqs}
===================
Equations of motion
-------------------
We consider a colloid adhered to a planar interface between two immiscible Newtonian fluids of viscosities $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, which are quiescent in the far field and together form an unbounded domain. We assume the resulting three-phase contact line is “pinned”, that is, it cannot move relative to the surface of the colloid. For simplicity, we further assume that the interface is flat and lies on the $z=0$ plane. The physical requirements for the assumption of a flat interface to hold are that (i) viscous stress due to flows generated by the particle are negligible compared to surface tension $\gamma$, which determines the equilibrium shape of the interface; (ii) the weight $mg$ of the colloid is also negligible compared to surface tension; and (iii) undulations in the contact line are negligibly small compared to the size of the colloid. Requirement (i) is formally satisfied when $\numCa = \mu U / \gamma \ll 1$, where $\numCa$ is the capillary number, $\mu$ is the fluid viscosity and $U$ is the characteristic velocity of the colloid. For typical colloidal systems at air-aqueous or alkane-aqueous interfaces, $\numCa = O(\num{e-7})$ to $O(\num{e-5})$. Requirement (ii) is satisfied when $\numBo = mg l^2 / \gamma \ll 1$, where $\numBo$ is the particle Bond number and $l$ is the characteristic length scale of the colloid. Requirement (iii) may not be generally satisfied. For isolated passive particles, nanometric contact line distortions alter the capillary energy that traps colloids on interfaces [@Stamou2000], and thermally activated fluctuations at the contact line are hypothesized to alter dissipation in the interface [@Boniello2015]. Neither effect is included here, but the results we present may form the basis for a perturbative method to treat the problem of undulated contact lines.
At the colloidal scale, we may neglect the effects of fluid inertia and assume the flow on either side of the interface is governed by the Stokes equations, $$\label{eq:Stokes}
\div{\ten\sigma}
= - \grad p + \mu \laplace \vec u = \vec 0;
\quad \div{\vec u} = 0,$$ subject to the appropriate boundary conditions on the colloid surface, where $\ten\sigma = -p \ten I + \mu [ \grad\vec u + {(\grad\vec u)}^\T ]$ is the stress tensor, $\ten I$ is the identity tensor, $\vec u = \vec u(\vec x)$ is the fluid velocity, $p = p(\vec x)$ is the hydrodynamic pressure, $\vec x = (x, y, z)$ is the position vector, and $\grad$ is the gradient operator with respect to $\vec x$. Let $V_1$, $V_2$, and $I$ denote the set of points in fluid 1, fluid 2, and on the interface, respectively. We assume that the viscosity changes abruptly across the interface as $\mu(z) = \mu_1 \Ind_{z>0}(z) + \mu_2 \Ind_{z<0}(z)$, where the indicator function $\Ind_P(z)$ is unity if condition $P$ is satisfied by its argument but otherwise vanishes. We further assume that fluid velocity is continuous across the fluid interface, that is, $\lr[]{\vec u}_I = \vec 0$, where $\lr[]{q_*}_I (\vec x) = (\lim_{z \to 0^+} - \lim_{z \to 0^-}) q_*(\vec x)$ denotes the “jump” in quantity $q_*$ across the interface going from fluid 2 to fluid 1. The general tangential stress balance on the fluid interface is $$\label{eq:iface-stress-bal-generic}
\divS{\vec\varsigma} + \vec n \vdot \lr[]{\ten\sigma}_I \vdot \ten I_s = \vec 0 \quad
$$ where $\vec\varsigma = \vec\varsigma(\vec x \in I)$ is the surface stress tensor, $\vec n$ is the unit normal to the interface pointing into fluid 1, $\ten I_s = \ten I - \vec{nn}$ is the surface projection tensor, and $\gradS = \ten I_s \vdot \grad$ is the surface gradient operator. The remaining normal component of the interfacial stress balance is replaced by the kinematic condition $\vec u \vdot \vec n = 0$ on $z=0$.
Clean interface
---------------
We call an interface “clean” if it is free of surfactant molecules. In the absence of temperature gradients, a clean interface is characterized by a uniform surface tension, $\vec\varsigma(\vec x) = \gamma_0 \ten I_s$. Then, $\divS{\vec\varsigma}$ vanishes and \[eq:iface-stress-bal-generic\] reduces to $$\label{eq:iface-stress-bal-clean}
\vec n \vdot \lr[]{\ten\sigma}_I \vdot \ten I_s = \vec 0,$$ which states that the tangential stress on the fluid is continuous across the interface.
Incompressible interface
------------------------
If surfactant is present, gradients in surfactant concentration due to flow exert Marangoni stresses on the surrounding fluids. At interfaces where $\numCa \gg 1$, these gradients need only be infinitesimal to balance viscous stresses due to colloid motion. As a result, the interface is constrained to surface-incompressible motion.
To derive the most conservative estimate for the effects of these Marangoni stresses, consider trace surfactant concentrations, for which the surfactant can be approximated as a two dimensional ideal gas. In this case, the dependence of the surface pressure $\pi = \pi(\vec x \in I)$ on surfactant concentration $\Gamma = \Gamma(\vec x \in I)$ is given by $\pd\pi / \pd\Gamma = k_B T$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $T$ is temperature. Scaling the surface pressure by viscous stresses $\scaled\pi = \pi / \bar\mu U$, where $\bar\mu = (\mu_1 + \mu_2)/2$ is the average surface viscosity, and letting $\scaled\Gamma = \Gamma / \bar\Gamma$, where $\bar\Gamma$ is the average surface concentration over the entire interface, we find $$\scaled\gradS \scaled\pi =
\frac{k_B T \bar\Gamma}{\bar\mu U} \scaled\gradS \scaled\Gamma
= \numMa\, \scaled\gradS \scaled\Gamma$$ where $\numMa$ is the dimensionless Marangoni number and $\scaled\gradS = l\gradS$. To evaluate $\numMa$, we consider typical parameter values for a colloid moving at $U = \SI{10}{\micro\meter/\second}$ at a hexadecane-water interface ($\gamma_0 \approx \SI{50}{\milli\newton/\meter}$) in the surface-gaseous state. The surfactant concentration required to produce a decrease in the surface tension is approximately $\bar\Gamma = \SI{2e3}{\text{molecules}/\micro\meter^2}$. Given $\bar\mu \approx \SI{1}{\milli\pascal\second}$, we estimate that $\numMa = O(10^3)$. Thus, very small perturbations in $\Gamma$ generate sufficient Marangoni stress to balance viscous stresses due to motion of the colloid.
The large $\numMa$ limit has the important consequence that the fluid interface behaves as incompressible layer ($\divS{\vec u} = 0$ for $\vec x \in I$). Assuming bulk-insoluble surfactant, the non-dimensionalized surfactant mass balance on the interface is $$\label{eq:mass-transport-nd}
\scaled\Gamma(\vec x) \scaled\gradS \vdot \scaled{\vec u}
+ \numMa^{-1} (\scaled{\vec u} \vdot \scaled\gradS) \scaled\pi
= {(\numMa\,\numPe)}^{-1} \scaled\laplaceS \scaled\pi,$$ where $\scaled{\vec u} = \vec u / U$, $\numPe = U l / D_s$ is the Peclét number of the surfactant, and $D_s$ is the surface diffusivity of the adsorbed surfactant. Therefore, \[eq:mass-transport-nd\] implies that $\scaled\gradS \cdot \scaled{\vec u} \ll 1$ if $\numMa \gg 1$ and $\numPe_s \gtrsim \numMa^{-1}$. Assuming $l = \SI{10}{\micro\meter}$ and $D_s = \SI{e2}{\micro\meter^2/\second}$ (a typical value for small molecule surfactants), we have $\numPe_s = O(1)$, so surfactant diffusion does not typically restore compressibility of the interface. At larger surfactant concentrations, where departure from the surface-gaseous state is expected, the interface will generally remain incompressible because, except during phase transitions, $\pd\gamma / \pd\Gamma > k_B T$. Thus, we hereafter assume $\gradS \vdot \vec u = 0$ while discussing interfaces with surfactant. Dilute soluble surfactants also obey this constraint, as mass transport rates between the bulk and the interface are typically negligible. Here, we note that we may express the Marangoni number as $\numMa = E / \numCa$, where $E = \pd\scaled\gamma / \pd\scaled\Gamma$ is the Gibbs elasticity. Thus, interfacial incompressibility is the typical circumstance for any interfacial flow at low capillary number [@Blawzdziewicz1999].
A separate effect of increased surfactant concentration is the emergence of significant surface-viscous stresses due to interfacial shearing motion. If we assume Newtonian behavior of the surfactant, the interfacial stress tensor can be expressed as $$\label{eq:iface-stress-tensor-incompr}
\vec\varsigma(\vec x) = -\pi(\vec x) \ten I_s + \mu_s \left[ \gradS\vec u + {(\gradS\vec u)}^\T \right]$$ for $\vec x \in I$, where $\mu_s$ is the surface viscosity. Then, inserting \[eq:iface-stress-tensor-incompr\] into \[eq:iface-stress-bal-generic\] yields the tangential stress balance for an incompressible, surfactant-laden interface $$\label{eq:iface-stress-bal-incompr}
- \gradS\pi + \mu_s \laplaceS \vec u
+ \vec n \vdot \lr[]{\ten\sigma}_I \vdot \ten I_s = \vec 0,$$ which, in conjunction with the surface incompressibility condition, is analogous to the Stokes equations (if $\mu_s = 0$) for a two dimensional fluid that is forced by viscous stresses from the bulk phases.
Reciprocal relation for two fluids separated by an interface {#sec:reciprocal-relations}
============================================================
Lorentz reciprocal theorem across an interface
----------------------------------------------
![ A colloid, depicted in the center of the illustration, is surrounded by two arbitrary fluid regions $V^*_1 \subset V_1$ and $V^*_2 \subset V_2$, which meet at region $I^* \subset I$ on the interface. We assign the inward-facing normal vector $\hat{\vec n}$ to the boundaries of both of these regions. The unit normal $\vec n$ (sans hat) of the interface always points in the $+z$ direction. The boundary of $V_1^*$ consists of the colloid surface $S_1$, the interfacial region $I^*$, and the remaining outer surface $R^\text{o}_1$, with the boundaries of $V_2^*$ being similarly labeled. The boundary of $I^*$ (dashed line), denoted $\partial I^*$, has the counterclockwise oriented tangent vector $\hat{\vec t}$, and we define $\hat{\vec m} = \vec n \times \hat{\vec t}$, which points into $I^*$. The three-phase contact line is represented by the inner part of $\partial I^*$. []{data-label="fig:space"}](space.pdf)
The Lorentz reciprocal theorem provides a relation between the velocity and stress fields of two arbitrary Stokes flows. We may extend this theorem to two fluid regions separated by a clean or incompressible interface, like those illustrated in \[fig:space\], as follows. Consider a region of fluid $V_\alpha^* \subset V_\alpha$ that is fully contained in fluid $\alpha$. Let $(\vec u, \ten\sigma)$ and $(\vec u', \ten\sigma')$ represent the velocity and stress fields of two independent solutions to the Stokes equations \[eq:Stokes\] in $V_\alpha^*$. Integration of $\div{(\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u)}$ over $V_\alpha^*$ and application of the divergence theorem leads to the identity [@Kim1991] $$\label{eq:R-ident-bulk}
\int_{V_\alpha^*} [(\div{\ten\sigma}) \vdot \vec u' - (\div\ten\sigma') \vdot \vec u] \dd V
+ \int_{\partial V_\alpha^*} (\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u) \vdot \dd{\vec S}
= 0$$ where $\partial V_\alpha^*$ denotes the boundary of $V_\alpha^*$, and $\dd{\vec S} = \hat{\vec n} \dd S$ points into $\partial V_\alpha^*$. If we extend \[eq:Stokes\] to the case where there is an external force density $\vec f(\vec x)$ on the fluid, then $\div{\ten\sigma} = -\vec f(\vec x)$ and $\div{\ten\sigma'} = -\vec f'(\vec x)$, which substituted into \[eq:R-ident-bulk\] gives the Lorentz reciprocal theorem, $$\label{eq:R-thm-bulk}
\int_{V_\alpha^*} [\vec f(\vec x) \vdot \vec u' - \vec f'(\vec x) \vdot \vec u] \dd V
= \int_{\partial V_\alpha^*} (\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u) \vdot\dd{\vec S}.$$
If we add the pair of equations given by \[eq:R-thm-bulk\] for each of the two fluid phases $\alpha \in \{1, 2\}$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:R-thm-sandwich}
\int_{V^*} [\vec f(\vec x) \vdot \vec u' - \vec f'(\vec x) \vdot \vec u] \dd V \\
= \oint_R (\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u) \vdot\dd{\vec S}
+ \int_{I^*} \left( \lr[]{\ten\sigma}_I \vdot \vec u'- \lr[]{\ten\sigma'}_I \vdot \vec u \right) \vdot \vec n \dd A,\end{gathered}$$ where $V^* := V_1^* \cup V_2^*$ is the union of the fluid volumes in each phase, $I^* := \partial V_1 \cap \partial V_2$ is the region (at the fluid interface) where $V_1^*$ and $V_2^*$ “touch”, and $R = \partial V^* \setminus I^*$ constitutes the remaining boundaries of $V_1^*$ and $V_2^*$ that are not adjacent to each other. For example, for the fluid region illustrated in \[fig:space\], $R = S_1 \cup S_2 \cup R^\text{o}_1 \cup R^\text{o}_2$, which includes both the surfaces of the colloid (the inner surfaces of $V^*$) and the outer surfaces of $V^*$. In the integral over $I^*$ in \[eq:R-thm-sandwich\], we have used the fact that the fluid velocity is continuous across the interface, $\lr[]{\vec u}_{I^*} = \lr[]{\vec u'}_{I^*} = \vec 0$. This term can be recast using the interfacial stress balance. Letting $\vec t^*$ be an arbitrary vector tangent to the interface, \[eq:iface-stress-bal-generic\] gives $$\label{eq:iface-tangential-stress-bal-forced}
(\divS{\vec\varsigma}) \vdot \vec t^*
+ \vec n \vdot \lr[]{\ten\sigma}_I \vdot \vec t^*
+ \vec f_s \vdot \vec t^*
= 0.$$ The final term of this equation accounts for an additional external surface force density $\vec f_s = \vec f_s(\vec x \in I)$ on the interface. Since there is no fluid flux through interface, both $\vec u$ and $\vec u'$ are tangent to the interface for $\vec x \in I$. Thus, using \[eq:iface-tangential-stress-bal-forced\], \[eq:R-thm-sandwich\] becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:R-thm-general-iface}
\int_{V^*} \left[
\vec f \vdot \vec u' - \vec f' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd{V}
+ \int_{I^*} \left[
\vec f_s \vdot \vec u' - \vec f_s' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd A \\
= \oint_{R} \left(
\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u
\right) \vdot \dd{\vec S}
- \int_{I^*} \left[
(\divS{\vec\varsigma}) \vdot \vec u'
- (\divS{\vec\varsigma'}) \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd{A},\end{gathered}$$ where $\vec\varsigma$ and $\vec\varsigma'$ are the interfacial stress tensors associated with the unprimed and primed flows, respectively.
Clean interface
---------------
For a clean interface, $\vec\varsigma = -\ten I_s \gamma_0$ is constant, so the final integral in \[eq:R-thm-general-iface\] vanishes; $$\label{eq:R-thm-clean-iface}
\int_{V^*} \left[
\vec f \vdot \vec u' - \vec f' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd{V} +
\int_{I^*} \left[
\vec f_s \vdot \vec u' - \vec f_s' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd{A}
= \oint_{R} \left(
\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u
\right) \vdot \dd{\vec S}.$$ For completeness, we have included the possibility of an external surface force density exerted on the interface itself (even though there is physically no material adhered to it). If we assume $\vec f_s = \vec f_s' = \vec 0$, then the integral over $I^*$ in \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\] also vanishes, which is the same as \[eq:R-thm-bulk\] with $\partial V_\alpha^*$ replaced by $R$.
Incompressible interface
------------------------
Assuming an incompressible interface with Newtonian behavior, as described by \[eq:iface-stress-tensor-incompr\], there is a “surface” reciprocal identity for the interface that is analogous to \[eq:R-thm-bulk\] that is given by $$\label{eq:R-id-surface}
\int_{I^*} \left[
(\divS{\vec\varsigma}) \vdot \vec u' - (\divS\vec\varsigma') \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd A
+ \oint_{\partial I^*} { (\vec\varsigma \vdot \vec u' - \vec\varsigma' \vdot \vec u)
} \vdot \hat{\vec m} \dd C
= 0,$$ where the final term on the right-hand-side of this equation is a contour integral over the boundary of $I^*$, denoted $\partial I^*$. The unit vector $\hat{\vec m}$ points into $I^*$, meeting $\partial I^*$ at a right angle. It is defined as $\hat{\vec m} = \vec n \times \hat{\vec t}$, where $\hat{\vec t}$ is the counterclockwise-oriented unit tangent $\hat{\vec t}$ vector of $\partial I^*$ (see \[fig:space\]). in \[eq:R-thm-general-iface\] yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface}
\int_{V^*} \left[
\vec f \vdot \vec u' - \vec f' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd{V}
+ \int_{I^*} \left[
\vec f_s \vdot \vec u' - \vec f_s' \vdot \vec u
\right] \dd A \\
= \oint_{R} \left(
\ten\sigma \vdot \vec u' - \ten\sigma' \vdot \vec u
\right) \vdot \dd{\vec S}
+ \oint_{\partial I^*} \left(
\vec\varsigma \vdot \vec u' - \vec\varsigma' \vdot \vec u
\right) \vdot \vec m \dd C.\end{gathered}$$ Comparing \[eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface\] to the analogous equation for a clean interface \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\], we see that the final term is new. \[eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface\] involves a new contour integral over the boundary of $I^*$. This contour integral over the boundary of $I^*$ accounts for surface pressure gradients, or Marangoni stresses, that enforce the interfacial incompressibility constraint and, if $\mu_s > 0$, for surface-viscous dissipation. While we hereafter restrict ourselves to planar interfaces, we note that \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface,eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface\] hold even if the interface is curved, given that it has the same shape in both the primed and unprimed flow problems.
Clean fluid interfaces {#sec:clean-interfaces}
======================
Green’s function {#ssec:clean-Green}
----------------
Due to the linearity of \[eq:Stokes\] and \[eq:iface-stress-bal-clean\], we may represent the velocity field due to a point force $\vec F$ located at $\vec y = (y_1, y_2, h)$ as $\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F$, where $\ten G$ is the Green’s function for two fluids separated by a clean interface, which satisfies
\[eq:Stokes-G\] $$\begin{aligned}
- \grad \vec P(\ten G; \vec x, \vec y)
+ \mu(z) \laplace \ten G(\vec x, \vec y) &=
\begin{cases}
\vec 0 & h = 0 \\
-\ten I \diracR3(\vec x - \vec y) & h \neq 0
\end{cases}
\\
\label{eq:incompressible-G}
\div{\ten G(\vec x, \vec y)} &= 0
\end{aligned}$$
for $\vec x \in V_1 \cup V_2$, subject to $|\vec u| \to 0$ as $|\vec x| \to \infty$ and
\[eq:BCs-on-G\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:iface-stress-bal-G}
\ten I_s \vdot \lr[]{\vec n \vdot \ten T(\ten G; \vec x, \vec y)}_I &=
\begin{cases}
-\ten I_s \diracR2(\vec x - \vec y) & h = 0 \\
\vec 0 & h \neq 0
\end{cases}
\\
\label{eq:iface-kinematics-G}
\vec t^* \vdot \lr[]{\ten G(\vec x, \vec y)}_I &= \vec n \vdot \vec u = 0
\end{aligned}$$
for $\vec x \in I$. Here, $\vec P(\ten G;\!)$ is the (vectorial) pressure field associated with $\ten G$, $\ten T(\ten G;\!)$ is the stress tensor associated with $\ten G$, and $\diracR{n}(\vec x)$ is the Dirac delta in $\Reals^n$. Note that for $h = 0$, we take the force as being exerted on the interface itself rather than on one of the fluids.
Solving \[eq:Stokes-G,eq:iface-stress-bal-G\] yields $$\label{eq:Gfun-clean}
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) =
\begin{cases}
[\ten J(\vec x - \vec y) + \ten U(\vec x, \vec y^*)] / \mu(h)
& zh \geq 0 \\
\ten V(\vec x, \vec y) / \bar\mu & zh \leq 0 \\
\ten J(\vec x - \vec y) \vdot \ten I_s / \bar\mu & h = 0,
\end{cases}$$ where $\vec y^* = (y_1, y_2, -h)$ is the “image” reflection of $\vec y$ through $z=0$ and $\ten J(\vec x) = (\ten I / r - \vec x \vec x / r^3) / 8\upi$ is the Oseen tensor. The tensors $\ten U$ and $\ten V$ represent hydrodynamic images that are necessary to satisfy continuity of tangential stress \[eq:iface-stress-bal-G\] and continuity of velocity at the interface. The image systems are given by [@Aderogba1978]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:upper-Blake-images}
U_{ij}(\vec x, \vec\xi) &= (\kd^\para_{jk} - n_j n_k) \left[
J_{ik}(\vec x - \vec\xi) - \frac{\mu({\vec\xi \vdot \vec n})}{\bar\mu} V_{ik}(\vec x, \vec\xi)
\right] \\
\label{eq:lower-Blake-images}
V_{ij}(\vec x, \vec\xi) &= \left[
\kd^\para_{jk} + ({\vec\xi \vdot \vec n}) n_{k} \frac{\pd}{\pd\xi_j}
+ \frac12 ({\vec\xi \vdot \vec n})^2 \kd_{jk} \frac{\pd^2}{\pd\xi_l^2}
\right] J_{ik}(\vec x - \vec\xi),\end{aligned}$$
where $\kd_{jk}$ is the Kronecker delta and $\kd^\para_{jk} = \kd_{jk} - n_j n_k$. The tensor indices $i,j,k,l \in \{1,2,3\}$ follow the Einstein summation convention. If, without loss of generality, we assume that the point force at $\vec y$ is located in the upper fluid ($h > 0$), then a Stokeslet, the Green’s function of the Stokes equations in an unbounded fluid, is induced at this point. The flow in the lower fluid ($z < 0$) comprises three image flows: a Stokeslet parallel to the interface, a Stokeslet dipole, and a degenerate Stokes quadrupole (a source doublet), all of which have their singular points at $\vec y$ (outside the physical domain of the lower fluid). These images correspond to each of the terms in \[eq:lower-Blake-images\], respectively. The image system for the upper fluid \[eq:upper-Blake-images\] is similar except that the image singularities are located at the image point $\vec y^*$. The image system $\ten U$ also includes an additional image Stokeslet that is the mirror reflection of the original forcing Stokeslet through $z=0$. Finally, we note that $\ten G$ is self-adjoint, $$\label{eq:self-adjoint-G}
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) = \ten G^\T(\vec y, \vec x),$$ which may be directly verified from \[eq:Gfun-clean\] or proven using \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\] (see \[sec:app:self-adjointness\]). This property will prove useful in the following analysis.
Multipole expansion
-------------------
### Expansion of the boundary integral equation {#sec:expansion-of-bie-clean}
Using the Green’s function \[eq:Gfun-clean\] as the “primed” flow field in the reciprocal relation \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\], we may generate a boundary integral equation for an object at the interface. Consider the interfacially-trapped colloid, illustrated in \[fig:space\], whose upper surface $S_1$ is in contact with fluid 1 and whose lower surface $S_2$ is in contact with fluid 2. An arbitrary volume of fluid $V^* = V^*_1 \cup V^*_2$ surrounds the colloid, which is bounded by $S_1$ and $S_2$ as well as the outer fluid surfaces $R^\text{o}_1$ and $R^\text{o}_2$. Using $\vec y$ as the variable of integration, we make the following substitutions into \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\]: $\vec u'(\vec y) \to \ten G(\vec y, \vec x)$, $\ten\sigma'(\vec y) \to \ten T(\ten G; \vec y, \vec x)$, $\vec f' \to \ten I \diracR3(\vec y - \vec x)$, and $\vec f_s' \to \ten I \diracR2(\vec y - \vec x)$. We also assume that the external force densities vanish, $\vec f = \vec f_s = \vec 0$. Taking the limit of this equation as the outer surfaces $R^\text{o}_1$ and $R^\text{o}_2$ are made arbitrarily far from the colloid, we obtain the boundary integral representation of the velocity field, $$\label{eq:BIE-clean}
\vec u(\vec x) = -\oint_{S_\text{c}} \ten G(\vec x, \vec y)
\vdot [\ten\sigma \vdot \hat{\vec{n}} ](\vec y) \dd S(\vec y)
+ \oint_{S_\text{c}} {[\vec u \hat{\vec n}]}(\vec y) \odot \ten T (\ten G; \vec y, \vec x)
\dd S(\vec y),$$ where $S_\text{c} = S_1 \cup S_2$ represents the surface of the colloid and the operator ‘$\odot$’ denotes complete contraction of its operands, e.g., $(\ten A \odot \ten B)_{j_1 \dots j_m} = A_{i_1 \dots i_n} B_{i_n \dots i_1 j_1 \dots j_m}$ if $\ten A$ is the tensor of lower rank and $(\ten A \odot \ten B)_{j_1 \cdots j_m} = A_{j_1 \cdots j_m i_1 \cdots i_n} B_{i_n \cdots i_1}$ if $\ten B$ is the tensor of lower rank. is clearly similar to the boundary integral equation for external Stokes flows in an unbounded bulk fluid [see, e.g., @Kim1991]. Indeed, it is derived in an analogous manner using the generalized reciprocal relation \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\]. Integrals over $R^\text{o}_1$ and $R^\text{o}_2$ vanish because $\vec u \to \vec 0$ at points arbitrarily far from the colloid. Moreover, integrals over the interface itself do not appear in \[eq:BIE-clean\] because $\ten G$ and $\ten T$ implicitly account for transmission of hydrodynamic stresses through the interface. is valid as long as the volume of the colloid does not change and the colloid does not deform in a manner that would distort the flat shape of the pinned contact line.
To generate a multipole expansion for $\vec u(\vec x)$, we replace $\ten G(\vec x, \vec y)$ and $\ten T(\ten G; \vec x, \vec y)$ in \[eq:BIE-clean\] with their Taylor series in $\vec y$ about an point on the interface as near as possible to the center of the colloid, which we designate as the origin $\vec 0$. This process is slightly complicated by the piecewise nature of $\ten G$ as $\vec y$ passes from one side of the interface to the other. In particular, certain components of $\grad_{\vec y} \ten G(\vec x, \vec y)$ contain a jump discontinuity over the interface at $z=0$. This difficulty is overcome by separating each integral in \[eq:BIE-clean\] into one over $S_1$ and another over $S_2$, so that the integrand is continuous over each surface of integration. Letting $\vec u^{(1)}$ and $\vec u^{(2)}$ denote the contributions from integration over $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively, we may write the expansion as $\vec u(\vec x) = \vec u^{(1)} + \vec u^{(2)}$, where
$$\label{eq:mpx-clean-upper}
\begin{aligned}
\vec u^{(1)}(\vec x) =
-{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}\frac1{n!} {\left( \int_{S_1} [\uvec n \vdot \ten\sigma](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}\dd S(\vec y) \right)}
& \odot \left( {\lim_{\vec y \to \vec 0^+}} {\grad_{\vec y}^{\oprod n}}\ten G^\T(\vec x, \vec y) \right)
\\ +
{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}\frac1{n!} {\left( \int_{S_1} [\vec u \uvec n](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}\dd S(\vec y) \right)}
& \odot \left( {\lim_{\vec y \to \vec 0^+}} {\grad_{\vec y}^{\oprod n}}\ten T(\ten G; \vec y, \vec x) \right)
\end{aligned}$$
and $$\label{eq:mpx-clean-lower}
\begin{aligned}
\vec u^{(2)}(\vec x) =
-{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}\frac1{n!} {\left( \int_{S_2} [\uvec n \vdot \ten\sigma](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}\dd S(\vec y) \right)}
& \odot \left( {\lim_{\vec y \to \vec 0^-}} {\grad_{\vec y}^{\oprod n}}\ten G^\T(\vec x, \vec y) \right)
\\ +
{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}\frac1{n!} {\left( \int_{S_2} [\vec u \uvec n](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}\dd S(\vec y) \right)}
& \odot \left( {\lim_{\vec y \to \vec 0^-}} {\grad_{\vec y}^{\oprod n}}\ten T(\ten G; \vec y, \vec x) \right)
\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\vec y^{\oprod n}}= \vec y \vec y \cdots $ ($n$ times) denotes the $n$-fold tensor product and ${\grad_{\vec y}^{\oprod n}}$ similarly denotes the $n$-fold gradient operator.
Writing $\ten T$ in terms of $\ten G$ as $$T_{ijk}(\ten G; \vec y, \vec x) = \kd_{ij} P_k(\ten G; \vec y, \vec x)
+ \mu(h) \left(
\frac{\pd G_{kj}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_i} +
\frac{\pd G_{ki}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_j}
\right)$$ and collecting terms in $\ten G$, $\gradWRT{y} \ten G$, and so on for higher order gradients of $\ten G$, we arrive at the multipole expansion,
\[eq:mpx-clean\] $$\vec u(\vec x) = \vec u^\text{m0}(\vec x) + \vec u^\text{m1}(\vec x) + \vec u^\text{m2}(\vec x) + \text{h.o.t},
\tag{\ref*{eq:mpx-clean}}$$ where $\vec u^\text{m0}$ is the force monopole (zeroth) moment, $\vec u^\text{m1}$ is the force dipole (first) moment, $\vec u^\text{m2}$ is the quadrupole (second) moment, and so on for higher order terms (h.o.t.). In particular, these first three moments are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
u^\text{m0}_i(\vec x) &= F^{(1)}_i G_{ij}({\vec x, \vec 0^{+}}) + F^{(2)}_i G_{ij}({\vec x, \vec 0^{-}})
\label{eq:mpx-clean-m0} \\
u^\text{m1}_i(\vec x) &=
D^{(1)}_{jk} \frac{\pd G_{ij}}{\pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{+}}) +
D^{(2)}_{jk} \frac{\pd G_{ij}}{\pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{-}})
\label{eq:mpx-clean-m1} \\
u^\text{m2}_i(\vec x) &=
Q^{(1)}_{jkl} \frac{\pd G_{ij}}{\pd y_l \pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{+}}) +
Q^{(2)}_{jkl} \frac{\pd G_{ij}}{\pd y_l \pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{-}}),
\label{eq:mpx-clean-m2}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\vec F^{(\nu)}$, $\ten D^{(\nu)}$, and $\ten Q^{(\nu)}$ are the monopole, dipole, and quadrupole coefficients for fluid $\nu \in \{1,2\}$, respectively. The shorthand notation $\vec 0^+$ indicates the limit as $\vec y$ approaches $\vec 0$ from above the interface (i.e., from fluid 1). Similarly, $\vec 0^-$ indicates the limit as $\vec y$ approaches $\vec 0$ from below. Note that if the colloid is wholly immersed in one fluid, then the multipole coefficients for the other fluid vanish.
At distances, far enough from the colloid that points on the colloid surface are virtually indistinguishable from $\vec 0$, $|\vec x| \gg l $, the leading terms of \[eq:mpx-clean\] closely approximate $\vec u(\vec x)$. The reason is that, at points $|\vec x| \gg |\vec y|$, $\ten G(\vec x, \vec y)$ effectively appears as a Stokeslet and decays as $|\vec x - \vec y|^{-1}$; the image Stokes dipole and degenerate quadrupole terms contained in $\ten U$ and $\ten V$ in \[eq:Gfun-clean\] do not affect the far-field behavior of $\ten G$ because they decay more quickly than the Stokeslet terms. It follows that $\vec u^\text{m0}(\vec x) \sim r^{-1}$, where $r = |\vec x|$. Each successive multipole moment involves a higher-order gradient of $\ten G$. Thus, $\vec u^\text{m1}(\vec x) \sim r^{-2}$, $\vec u^\text{m2}(\vec x) \sim r^{-3}$ and so on for higher-order moments. The lowest order term with a nonzero coefficient dominates the far-field flow. This behavior is analogous to that of the multipole expansion for objects in a bulk fluid.
### Monopole moment
The monopole moment corresponds to a point force exerted at the interface, which follows intuitively from the fact that at large distances $r \gg l$, the colloid is indistinguishable from a single point at the interface. The functional form of the flow is therefore just that of the Green’s function $\ten G$. The prefactors appearing in \[eq:mpx-clean-m0\] are given by $$\label{eq:monopole-coeff-clean}
\vec F^{(\alpha)} = -\int_{S_\alpha} \ten\sigma \vdot \hat{\vec n} \dd S,$$ which is the force exerted on fluid $\alpha \in \{1,2\}$ due to motion of the colloid. There is no need to keep the separate limits on the right-hand side of \[eq:mpx-clean-m0\] because $\ten G(\vec x, \vec y)$ is continuous as $\vec y$ is moved across the interface for fixed $\vec x$. This property is not immediately obvious given the potential viscosity difference between the fluids. Recall, however, the boundary condition \[eq:iface-kinematics-G\] that demands continuity of $\ten G$ as $\vec x$ is brought across the interface for fixed $\vec y$. Since $\ten G$ is also self-adjoint \[eq:self-adjoint-G\], $\vec x$ implies continuity in $\vec y$. Indeed, one may verify directly that all three cases in \[eq:Gfun-clean\] are redundant; the first two cases of this equation reduce to the last as $h \to 0^\pm$.
in \[eq:mpx-clean-m0\] yields the monopole moment as $$\label{eq:monopole-moment}
u^\text{m0}_i(\vec x)
= \frac{1}{\bar\mu} F_k \delta^\para_{kj} J_{ij}(\vec x),$$ where $\vec F = \vec F^{(1)} + \vec F^{(2)}$ is the total force exerted on both fluids. shows that $\vec u^\text{m0}$ is indistinguishable from a Stokeslet in an unbounded fluid of viscosity $\bar\mu$ associated with the effective force $\vec F \vdot \ten I_s$. The component of $\vec F$ normal to the interface does not contribute to the flow at leading order due to the presence of the interface. The “viscosity-averaged” Stokeslet represented by \[eq:monopole-moment\] possesses an axis of symmetry lying in the interfacial plane. The tangential shear stress therefore vanishes at $z = 0$, and \[eq:iface-stress-bal-clean\] is trivially satisfied. More generally, we will find that any mode with mirror symmetry of the velocity field about the interfacial plane has this property and is therefore a viscosity-averaged flow.
### Dipole moment
The functional form of the dipole moment is given by $\gradWRT{y} \ten G(\vec x, \vec y)$ in the limit that $\vec y$ approaches the interface. Thus, this mode corresponds to the flow generated by a pair of opposite point forces at the interface that are displaced by an infinitesimal distance, or, more generally, a linear combination of such force doublets. Its prefactor for phase $\nu$ is given by $$\label{eq:dipole-coeff-clean}
\ten D^{(\nu)} = \int_{S_\nu} \left[ -(\ten\sigma \vdot \hat{\vec n}) \vec y
+ \mu_\nu (\vec u \hat{\vec n} + \hat{\vec n} \vec u) \right] \dd{S(\vec y)},$$ which we decompose as $$\label{eq:dipole-coeff-clean-decomp}
D^{(\nu)}_{jk} = S^{(\nu)}_{jk} + \frac12 \permut_{jkl} L^{(\nu)}_l + \frac13 D_{ii}^{(\nu)} \kd_{jk}$$ where $\ten\permut$ is the permutation tensor. Here, the irreducible tensor $S^{(\nu)}_{jk} = \frac12 ( D^{(\nu)}_{jk} + D^{(\nu)}_{kj} ) - \frac13 D^{(\nu)}_{ii} \kd_{jk}$ is associated with extensional (or contractile) stresses on the fluid, i.e., the stresslet at the interface, and $\vec L^{(\nu)}$ gives the torque exerted by the colloid on fluid $\nu$, $$\label{eq:torque-clean}
\vec L^{(\nu)}
= \ten\permut \vec{:} \ten D^{(\nu)}
= -\int_{S_\nu} \vec y \times (\ten\sigma \vdot \hat{\vec n}) \dd{S(\vec y)},$$ and $\vec L = \vec L^{(1)} + \vec L^{(2)}$ is the total hydrodynamic torque on the system. The last term of \[eq:dipole-coeff-clean-decomp\] is associated with an isotropic stress, which does not produce flow due to fluid incompressibility \[eq:incompressible-G\]. Thus, it makes no contribution to $\vec u^\text{m1}$.
We may rewrite \[eq:mpx-clean-m1\] as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:um1-clean-expanded}
\newcommand\ab{{\alpha\beta}}
u^{\text{m1}}_i(\vec x) =
(D^{(1)}_\ab + D^{(2)}_\ab) \frac{\pd G_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_\beta}(\vec x, \vec 0)
+ D^{(1)}_{\alpha 3} \frac{\pd G_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^+)
+ D^{(2)}_{\alpha 3} \frac{\pd G_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^-) \\
+ \left( D^{(1)}_{3\beta} + D^{(2)}_{3\beta} \right)
\frac{\pd G_{i3}}{\pd y_\beta}(\vec x, \vec 0)
+ \left( D^{(1)}_{33} + D^{(2)}_{33} \right)
\frac{\pd G_{i3}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0)\end{gathered}$$ where we introduce the convention that Greek tensor subscripts, here $\alpha \in \{1, 2\}$ and $\beta \in \{1, 2\}$, only run over the axes parallel to the interface. We have combined the separate limits in the first and penultimate terms of \[eq:um1-clean-expanded\] because gradients of $\ten G$ parallel to the interface are continuous. Furthermore, the same penultimate term vanishes; as we can see from \[eq:Gfun-clean\], $G_{i3}$ vanishes at all points on the interface for $\vec y = \vec 0$. We have also combined the limits in the final term of \[eq:um1-clean-expanded\] since $$\label{eq:G33-continuity-proof}
0 =
\lr[]{\frac{\pd G_{\alpha i}(\vec y, \vec x)}{\pd y_\alpha}}_I =
\lr[]{\frac{\pd G_{3i}(\vec y, \vec x)}{\pd y_\alpha}}_I =
\lr[]{\frac{\pd G_{i3}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_3}}_I.$$ The first equality follows from continuity of parallel gradients, the second from \[eq:incompressible-G\] and the third from \[eq:self-adjoint-G\]. Note that the first two equalities swap the usual roles of $\vec x$ and $\vec y$. Finally, we must maintain the limits on the second and third terms of \[eq:um1-clean-expanded\] because $\lr[]{\pd G_{i\alpha} / \pd y_3}_I \neq 0$. The tangential stress balance on the interface \[eq:iface-stress-bal-G\] requires that $$\label{eq:iface-stress-jump-G}
\newcommand*\xlim[1]{\lim_{\vec x \to \vec 0^{#1}}}
\mu_1 \xlim+ \frac{\pd G_{\alpha k}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd x_3} -
\mu_2 \xlim- \frac{\pd G_{\alpha k}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd x_3} = 0.$$ Therefore, applying \[eq:self-adjoint-G\] to \[eq:iface-stress-jump-G\], we find that the jump in $\pd G_{i\alpha}(\vec x, \vec y) / \pd y_3$ is by a factor of the viscosity ratio as $\vec y$ is moved across the interface for fixed $\vec x$.
Putting \[eq:dipole-coeff-clean-decomp\] in \[eq:um1-clean-expanded\] and evaluating the necessary components of $\gradWRT{y} \ten G$, we may express the dipole moment explicitly in terms of the gradient of the Oseen tensor as $$\label{eq:dipole-moment}
u^\text{m1}_i (\vec x) = -\frac{1}{\bar\mu} \left[
S^{\para}_{jk} + S^{\perp} n_j n_k + \frac12 \permut_{jk3} L_3
+ \frac{\mu(-z)}{\mu_1} A^{(1)}_{jk} + \frac{\mu(-z)}{\mu_2} A^{(2)}_{jk}
\right] \frac{\pd J_{ij}(\vec x)}{\pd x_k},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S^{\para}_{jk} &=
\left(
\kd^\para_{j\alpha} \kd^\para_{k\beta}
- \frac12 \kd^\para_{jk} \kd^\para_{\alpha\beta}
\right) \left(
S^{(1)}_{\alpha\beta} + S^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}
\right)
\label{eq:dipole-coeff-para} \\
S^{\perp} &=
S^{(1)}_{33} + S^{(2)}_{33} = -\kd^\para_{\alpha\beta} \left(
S^{(1)}_{\alpha\beta} + S^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}
\right)
\label{eq:dipole-coeff-perp}\\
A^{(\nu)}_{jk} &=
\left(
\kd^\para_{j\alpha} n_k + n_j \kd^\para_{k\alpha}
\right) \left(
S^{(\nu)}_{\alpha 3} - \frac12 \permut_{3\alpha\beta} L^{(\nu)}_\beta
\right).
\label{eq:dipole-coeff-asym}\end{aligned}$$ Each of the bracketed coefficients on the right-hand side of \[eq:dipole-moment\] make distinct contributions to the dipole moment at the interface. The first coefficient $\ten S^\para$, given by \[eq:dipole-coeff-para\], is a viscosity-averaged stresslet associated with extensional stresses produced by the colloid in the interfacial plane. Similarly, the second coefficient $S^{\perp}$, given by \[eq:dipole-coeff-perp\], is the viscosity-averaged stresslet perpendicular to the interface. Furthermore, $S^{(\nu)}_{33} = -S^{(\nu)}_{11} - S^{(\nu)}_{22}$ because $\ten S^{(\nu)}$ is traceless, so $\ten S^{\perp}$ accounts for extensional stress perpendicular to the interface and planar compression of the interface. The third coefficient is a viscosity-averaged rotlet, or point torque, about the $z$ axis of strength $L_3$. These viscosity-averaged flows exhibit mirror symmetry of the velocity field about $z=0$. Therefore, the tangential shear stress due to these modes vanishes on the interface, as is the case for the monopole moment.
From the corresponding terms in \[eq:dipole-moment\], we see that the contributions to the dipole moment from $\ten A^{(1)}$ and $\ten A^{(2)}$ do not produce viscosity-averaged flows. As anticipated, the flow speed in one phase differs from that in the opposite phase by a factor of the viscosity ratio. (Intuitively, the flow is slower in the more viscous phase.) The difference in flow speed and the requirement that $\lr[]{\vec u}_I = \vec 0$ necessitates that $\vec u^\text{m1}(\vec x \in I) = \vec 0$. Interestingly, from \[eq:dipole-coeff-asym\], we see that the components of the stresslet $S^{(\nu)}_{i3}$ and torque $L^{(\nu)}_i$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$ contribute in a degenerate manner to $\ten A^{(\nu)}$. Although these modes are not viscosity-averaged, we see from \[eq:dipole-moment,eq:dipole-coeff-asym\] that the flow in the upper half-space ($z > 0$) of fluid 1 is equivalent to stresslet in an unbounded fluid (of viscosity $\bar\mu$), given by $\ten S^{\,\text{eff}}_\text{upper} = (\mu_2 / \mu_1) \ten A^{(1)} + \ten A^{(2)}$, with its singular point at $z=0$. For the lower fluid ($z < 0$), the effective stresslet is similarly $\ten S^{\,\text{eff}}_\text{lower} = \ten A^{(1)} + (\mu_1 / \mu_2) \ten A^{(2)}$.
The quadrupolar and higher order moments of \[eq:mpx-clean\] can be similarly decomposed into two subsets of modes; one whose tangential stress vanishes at the interface and another whose velocity vanishes at the interface. Members of the former subset will be mirror-symmetric, viscosity-averaged flows and the latter will have velocities that differ by in magnitude by the viscosity ratio on either side of the interface. Here, we do not detail the higher-order modes further; the force monopole \[eq:monopole-moment\] and force dipole \[eq:dipole-moment\] describe the leading-order flows of driven and active colloids, respectively. Moreover, in many situations, we can infer the leading-order modes of different driven or active colloids in different configurations on or near the interface.
Discussion
----------
### Driven colloids
For colloids driven by an external force $\vec F_\text{ext}$, it is clear that the monopole moment \[eq:monopole-moment\]—a viscosity averaged Stokeslet—is the leading-order far-field flow, except in the case that this force is exactly perpendicular to the interface, in which case $\vec u^\text{m0}$ vanishes. The force balance parallel to the interface is $\vec F \vdot \ten I_s = \vec F_\text{ext} \vdot \ten I_s$; this relationship holds whether or not the colloid is adhered or adjacent to the interface. For an adhered colloid, a purely perpendicular external force generates no motion because the pinned contact line is fixed on its surface.
Of course, if the colloid is adjacent to the boundary, it may translate perpendicular to the interface, in which case a normal external force is balanced by the $z$-component of the hydrodynamic drag. For instance, consider the case where the external force $\vec F_\text{ext} = F_3 \bvec_z$ acts on a colloid immersed completely in fluid 1 that is distance $h$ from the interface. Then, from \[eq:monopole-coeff-clean\], $\vec F^{(1)} = \vec F = F_3 \bvec_z$ and $\vec F^{(2)} = \vec 0$. The monopole moment $\vec u^\text{m0}$ \[eq:monopole-moment\] vanishes because $\vec F \vdot \ten I_s = \vec 0$. The leading order flow therefore falls to the dipole moment. Recall that we “measure” $\ten D^{(1)}$ with respect to a point on the interface ($\vec x = \vec 0$), while the center of the colloid is located at $\vec x = h \bvec_z$. Substituting $\vec y = h \bvec_z + \vec y_\text{c}$ in \[eq:dipole-coeff-clean\], where $\vec y_\text{c}$ is the displacement from the center of the colloid, we find $$\label{eq:dipole-w-offset}
\ten D^{(1)} = -\int_{S_1} (\ten\sigma \vdot \hat{\vec n}) (h \bvec_z + \vec y_\text{c}) \dd{S}(\vec y_\text{c})
= h F_3 \bvec_z \bvec_z + \ten D_\text{c},$$ where $\ten D_c$ is the dipole strength as measured from the colloid center. Thus, the external force on the colloid contributes a factor of $h F_3 \bvec_z \bvec_z$ to $\ten D^{(1)}$ (or a factor of $h F_3$ to $S^\perp$). When the particle is far from the interface, the contribution from the normal force dominates because $|\vec y_\text{c}| \sim l \ll h$. Otherwise, when $h \sim l$, contributions from $\ten D_\text{c}$ are generally significant and are sensitive to particle geometry, its distance to the interface, and the viscosity ratio. An external torque $\vec L_\text{ext}$ on the colloid also drives flow. We first consider a torque about the $z$-axis, $\vec L_\text{ext} = L_{\text{ext},z} \bvec_z$. This torque must be balanced hydrodynamically whether or not the colloid is adhered to the interface, $L_3 = L_{\text{ext},z}$. Note that pinned contact lines do not resist rotation about the $z$-axis. The torque induces a viscosity-averaged rotlet, given by the third bracketed term in \[eq:dipole-moment\]. For colloids that are axisymmetric about the $z$-axis, this is the only non-vanishing mode of \[eq:dipole-moment\]; it is readily shown that $S^\para_{jk} = S^\perp = A^{(\nu)}_{jk} = 0$ due to the azimuthal symmetry of the resulting flow. Of course, these coefficients are generally nonzero for general colloid geometries, so an external torque potentially produces all of the modes represented by \[eq:dipole-moment\].
### Active colloids
![ Panels (a) and (b) illustrate a phoretic active colloid pinned to the interface. In (a), the active cap of the colloid generates a slip velocity that leads to in-plane swimming of a colloid pinned to the interface at velocity $\vec U$. In (b), the colloid active cap instead “pumps” fluid because contact line pinning prevents forward swimming. Panels (c) and (d) illustrate a bacterium also in swimming and pumping configurations. Thrust is generated by a rotating flagellum, which also produces a torque. In (c), this torque is balanced by capillary pinning, so there is a net hydrodynamic torque exerted on the fluid below the interface. For the vertically adhered bacterium (d), the hydrodynamic torque on the upper and lower fluid must vanish, since the body of the bacteria is free to counterrotate about the $z$ axis. The diagrams next to each illustration give appropriate minimal “point-force” models that correspond to the leading-order flows they are expected to generate. The arrows represent the orientation of these forces or torques (circular arrows) relative to the interface (dashed line). []{data-label="fig:active-colloid-configs"}](AC-configs.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![ Dipolar hydrodynamic modes driven by an active colloid at a clean interface viewed level with the interface (top panels) and on the interfacial plane (bottom panels). The directed lines are streamlines in the laboratory frame and the gray lines are contours of constant flow speed. The vector $\vec e$ represents the alignment of the swimmer. (a) Force dipole (stresslet) mode expected for a swimmer moving parallel to the interface (pinned or unpinned), viewed along the interface. The configuration of the swimmer is like that in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]a or c. (b) Stresslet due to an active colloid pinned at the interface, with a configuration as illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]b or d. Modes (a-b) are the same as the force dipole in a bulk fluid with viscosity $\bar\mu$ and are axisymmetric about the swimmer alignment axis indicated by the vector $\vec e$. (c) Flow due to a point torque on the fluid where the torque vector $\vec L$ is parallel to the interface. Such a flow is expected for certain active colloids such as the bacterium illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]c. A degenerate mode is generated by colloids adhered to the interface in an asymmetric manner, e.g., the colloid illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]a. []{data-label="fig:clean-stresslets"}](active_clean.png){width="\linewidth"}
Active colloids self-propel absent external forces or torques. For many kinds of active colloids, self-propulsion is generated by some active, thrust-producing part of the colloid that drives the remaining passive part, as illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]; spatial separation of thrust and drag on the object generate a hydrodynamic dipole. Therefore, in a bulk fluid, an appropriate far-field model of an active colloid is that of a stresslet along the axis of swimming [@Lauga2009], which gives the velocity field $$\label{eq:bulk-axi-dipole}
\vec u^\text{S}(\vec e; \vec x) = -\frac{D}{\mu_\text{b}} \vec e (\vec e \vdot \grad) \ten J(\vec x),$$ where $D$ is the strength of the force dipole, $\mu_\text{b}$ the viscosity of the bulk fluid, and $\vec e$ is a unit vector indicating the swimmer alignment. A similar model makes sense for an active colloid swimming parallel to the interface as illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\](a) and (c). Indeed, the same velocity field as \[eq:bulk-axi-dipole\] is produced by setting $\ten S^{\para} = D \vec e \vec e / 2$ and $S^\perp = -D/2$ in \[eq:dipole-moment\], with $\bar\mu$ replacing $\mu_\text{b}$. The resulting flow profile is illustrated in \[fig:clean-stresslets\]a.
Interestingly, we find a similar mode if we set $S^\perp = D$ (with all other coefficients zero) and $\vec e = \vec n$ in \[eq:dipole-moment\]. This mode is expected of active colloids trapped perpendicular to the interface as depicted in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\](b) and (d). The colloid cannot self-propel in this configuration due to the pinned contact line, so the apparent stresslet \[eq:bulk-axi-dipole\] is not due to balancing hydrodynamic thrust and drag. Instead of swimming, the colloid becomes a fluid pump, resulting in a non-zero net hydrodynamic force on the colloid that is balanced by capillary forces. A minimal model for this pumping configuration is that of a point force exerted along the $z$-axis a small distance $\delta$ from the interface. While the monopole moment vanishes for a force in this direction, the dipole moment does not due to the small but finite separation of the force from the interface. The vertical point force gives $S^\perp = F \delta$ in \[eq:dipole-moment\], which is associated with the flow plotted in \[fig:clean-stresslets\]b. Viewed in the interfacial plane, this flow is sink-like for a pusher ($S^\perp > 0$) and source-like for a puller ($S^\perp < 0$). A pusher causes surface expansion ($\divS \vec u > 0$), as new interface must be created to replace the “sink.” Conversely, a puller causes surface compression.
Another unique feature of active colloids pinned to interfaces is that they may exert an active hydrodynamic torque on the fluid about an axis parallel to the interface. This torque is balanced by surface tension at the pinned contact line. c illustrates this scenario for a motile bacterium pinned by its body and propelled by a rotating flagellum. The effect of this torque on the far-field flow enters through $\ten A^{(1)}$ for a torque on fluid 1 or $\ten A^{(2)}$ for a torque on fluid 2 \[eq:dipole-coeff-asym\]. The resulting flow profile is shown in \[fig:clean-stresslets\]c. The presence of this mode potentially discriminates the far-field flow of adhered versus unadhered swimmers; the net torque must vanish for detached active colloids that are adjacent to the interface. In the case of a bacterium, counterrotation of the body and flagellum instead produce a torque dipole in the far-field, a member of the higher-order quadrupole moment. A perpendicular configuration of the bacterium, as in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\](d) produces a torque dipole as well because the body may freely counterrotate in in the interface.
### Symmetry about the interfacial plane
To conclude this discussion, we return to the motif of two major categories of modes: those which are weighted by the average viscosity, with vanishing tangential stress at the interface, and those whose velocity vanishes on the interface. In particular, the subset of dipolar modes corresponding to $\ten A^{(1)}$ and $\ten A^{(2)}$ in \[eq:dipole-moment\] are the only ones that fall into the latter category. The previous discussion associated $\ten A^{(1)}$ and $\ten A^{(2)}$ with a net hydrodynamic torque on the fluid adjacent to the interface about an axis parallel to the interface. Such torques might arise from active stresses or, for colloids adjacent to the interface, a driving external torque. However, this mode is not uniquely associated with these torques; from \[eq:dipole-coeff-asym\], we see that it also involves the components of the stresslet $S^{(\nu)}_{\alpha 3} $.
To gain a better understanding of these modes, consider a spherical colloid of radius $a$ driven in rigid-body motion, which is adhered to the interface with a contact angle, such that half of the sphere is in each fluid. In this case, we may obtain the velocity field from that of a sphere moving in an unbounded fluid of uniform viscosity $\bar\mu$ [@Ranger1978; @Pozrikidis2007]. If the sphere translates at velocity $\vec U$ in the $z=0$ plane and rotates with angular velocity $\bvec_z \Omega_3$, the fluid velocity in the laboratory frame with its origin at the center of the sphere is $$\label{eq:sphere-flow}
\vec u(\vec x) = \vec F \left(1 + \frac{a^2}{6} \nabla^2 \right) \vdot \ten J(\vec x)
+ \frac12 L_3 \bvec_z \vdot [\grad \times \ten J(\vec x)],$$ where $\vec F = 6 \upi \bar\mu \vec U a$ is the Stokes drag and $L_3 = 8 \upi \bar\mu \Omega_3$ is the torque. This velocity field is mirror-symmetric about the $z=0$ plane, so the tangential stress vanishes on $z=0$. It follows that \[eq:sphere-flow\] trivially satisfies \[eq:iface-stress-bal-clean\] and is therefore also the solution for two fluids of differing viscosities that average to $\bar\mu$; the flow is independent of the viscosity contrast. There is, of course, a normal stress jump across the interface in this case, but it is inconsequential at small $\numCa$—the interface remains flat.
comprises a viscosity-averaged Stokeslet and degenerate quadrupole (or source doublet) at the center of the sphere. This solution implies that, for the sphere described above, the dipole moment completely vanishes unless there is an external torque about the $z$-axis, in which we obtain the viscosity-averaged rotlet described by \[eq:dipole-moment,eq:dipole-coeff-para\]. If there is no external torque on the sphere but it translates along, e.g., the $x$ axis, then we expect a torque about the $y$-axis for differing fluid viscosities. One might naively expect this hydrodynamic torque to produce flow, which clearly contributes to $\ten A^{(\nu)}$ \[eq:dipole-coeff-asym\]. However, for a sphere, it is readily shown that the final two bracketed terms of \[eq:dipole-moment\] cancel. More generally, we expect a viscosity-averaged flow to result for any driven or active colloid with mirror symmetry about $z=0$. If the boundary motion is symmetric about $z=0$, then the resulting fluid flow will reflect this symmetry. By the same arguments for a sphere presented above, identically vanishing tangential stress across the interface implies a viscosity averaged flow. Thus, $\ten A^{(\nu)}$ and the contribution they make to the dipole moment only contribute to the flow when there is some degree of asymmetry about the interfacial plane. For driven colloids, this asymmetry may come from an asymmetric colloid shape or an adhered configuration that places more of the colloid in one fluid (for a sphere, any contact angle other than will do). For active colloids, there will likely be asymmetry in activity or boundary motion, especially if the two fluid phases have differing viscosities or chemical properties. For example, the phoretic swimmer illustrated in \[fig:active-colloid-configs\]a is expected to produce a leading-order stresslet parallel to the interface due to hydrodynamic thrust and drag (\[fig:clean-stresslets\]a). However, we also expect a contribution from the asymmetric mode illustrated by \[fig:clean-stresslets\]c. In experiment, contact line pinning fixes colloids in random configurations at fluid interfaces, so such asymmetric adhered states are likely to be the norm.
Incompressible interfaces and the role of surface viscosity {#sec:incompressible-interfaces}
===========================================================
Green’s function {#ssec:dirty-Green}
----------------
We may define a Green’s function $\ten H$ for an incompressible interface that is analogous to that discussed in \[ssec:clean-Green\] for a clean interface. The major difference is that the interfacial stress balance \[eq:iface-stress-bal-G\] is replaced by
\[eq:iface-stress-bal-H\] $$\begin{aligned}
- \gradS \vec\Pi(\ten H;\!)
+ \mu_s \laplaceS \ten H
+ \ten I_s \vdot \lr[]{\vec n \vdot \ten T(\ten H;\!)}_I &=
\begin{cases}
-\ten I_s \diracR2(\vec x - \vec y) & h = 0 \\
\vec 0 & h \neq 0
\end{cases}
\\
\label{eq:surf-div-H}
\divS{\ten H} &= 0,
\end{aligned}$$
where $\ten\Pi(\ten H;\!)$ is the (vectorial) surface pressure associated with $\ten H$, which enforces the surface incompressibility constraint \[eq:surf-div-H\]. Thus, $\ten H$ satisfies \[eq:Stokes-G\] subject to \[eq:iface-kinematics-G\] and \[eq:iface-stress-bal-H\], with $\ten G$ replaced by $\ten H$ in the former two equations. Like $\ten G$, $\ten H$ is self-adjoint (see \[sec:app:self-adjointness\]); $$\label{eq:self-adjoint-H}
\ten H(\vec x, \vec y) = \ten H^\T(\vec y, \vec x).$$
The functional form of $\ten H$, given by [@Blawzdziewicz1999], is more complicated than that of $\ten G$ owing to the more complex interfacial mechanics. Interestingly, to determine the leading-order moments for colloids at interfaces, it suffices to know $\ten G$ and $\ten H(\vec x, \vec y)$ for $\vec y \in I$ only, that is, the flow due to a point force at the incompressible interface ($h=0$). The relevant derivations are outlined in \[sec:app:Gfuns\]. Letting $\ten H^0(\vec x) = \ten H(\vec x, \vec 0)$ and $\vec s = (x, y)$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hfun} { H^0_{\ga\gb}(\lenBq; \vec x) =
\frac{1}{4\upi \bar\mu} R_0(\lenBq; s, z) \kd_{\ga\gb} +
\frac{1}{2\upi \bar\mu} R_2(\lenBq; s, z) \Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb}
}\end{aligned}$$ and that $H^0_{3j} = H^0_{i3} = 0$, where $\hat{\vec s} = |\vec s| / s$ and $\Irr{\cdot}$ denotes the irreducible (traceless, symmetric) part of the enclosed tensor. Here, $\Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb} = \hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb - \frac12 \kd_{\ga\gb}$. (Note that we regard this operation is being on a two-dimensional vector since $\ga, \gb = \{1,2\}$.) The functions $R_0$ and $R_2$, given by \[eq:rzFn\], depend on the Boussinesq length, $\lenBq = \mu_s / \bar\mu$, as well as position.
The velocity field represented by $\ten H^0$ is everywhere parallel to the interface. As noted by @Stone2015, this result holds generally for Stokes flows driven by arbitrary incompressible surface motion. The $z$ component of the velocity vanishes on the interface as does its derivative in the $z$ direction; $[\pd u_3 / \pd x_3]_{z=0} = -\divS{\vec u} = 0$ because $\div{\vec u} = \vec 0$. The $z$ velocity and all its derivatives also vanish at infinity. As a Stokes flow, $\vec u$ is also biharmonic, $\nabla^4 u_3 = 0 $, but, due to its homogeneous behavior of $u_3$ at the boundaries, $u_3$ is just the trivial solution to this equation and $u_3 = 0$ everywhere. The vanishing behavior of $H_{3j}$ reflects this fact.
At distances $r \gg \lenBq$, bulk viscous effects dominate over surface viscous effects. If $\lenBq$ is vanishingly small compared to the length scale of the colloid $l$, then surface-viscous effects are negligible, and the flow is only modified from that at a clean interface by Marangoni stresses. Thus, we define the dimensionless Boussinesq number as $\numBq = \lenBq/l$, which quantifies the relative importance of surface viscous to bulk viscous effects. In the limit $\numBq \to 0$, we obtain $R_n$ in closed form \[eq:rzFn|Bq=0\], and \[eq:Hfun\] reduces to $$\label{eq:Hfun0|Bq=0}
\lr.|{H^0_{\ga\gb}}_{\numBq=0} =
\frac{\kd_{\ga\gb}}{8\upi\bar\mu r} +
\frac{(r - |z|)^2}{4\upi \bar\mu r s^2} \Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb}.$$ Marangoni stresses do not affect the rate of decay of the flow from the origin, which remains as $r^{-1}$. The flow on the interface is purely radial (although not radially symmetric), and is given by $$\label{eq:Hfun0|Bq=0,z=0}
\lr.|{H^0_{\ga\gb}(\vec x \in I)}_{\numBq=0} =
\frac{\kd_{\ga\gb}}{8\upi\bar\mu r} \hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb.$$ In the opposite limit, $\numBq \gg 1$, surface viscosity has a dominant impact on the flow at distances $r \ll \lenBq$. Here, bulk viscous stresses from the surrounding fluid are very weak compared the interfacial stresses. Then, from \[eq:iface-stress-bal-H\], we recover the equations governing a two-dimensional Stokes flow [@Saffman1975]. Therefore, at distances $r \ll \lenBq$ from the colloid, $$\label{eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo}
\lr.|{H^0_{\ga\gb}}_{\numBq\to\infty} \sim
\frac{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb - \kd_{\ga\gb} \ln s}{4\pi\mu_s},$$ which is constant in $z$ (it is a two-dimensional flow field) and diverges logarithmically as $s$ is made large. Clearly, \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo\] cannot satisfy the homogenous boundary conditions at $r \to \infty$. Of course, this is Stokes’ paradox, and it is resolved by noting that \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo\] is not valid for $r \gtrsim \lenBq$, where bulk viscous effects inevitably become important. Despite the rather complicated form of $R_n$ for finite $\numBq$, its main “role” is simply to transition the flow field between the surface-viscosity-dominated, non-convergent behavior at distances $r \ll \lenBq$ from the colloid to the convergent, $1/r$ decay at distances $r \gg \lenBq$, where surface viscosity has a negligible effect. Interestingly, the surface pressure associated with $\ten H^0$ is independent of $\lenBq$ and is given quite simply by $\ten\Pi^0 = \vec s / 4\upi s^2$.
Multipole expansion
-------------------
### Expansion of the boundary integral equation {#expansion-of-the-boundary-integral-equation}
Using the reciprocal relation \[eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface\] for two fluids separated by an incompressible interface and following a procedure similar to that described in \[sec:expansion-of-bie-clean\], we obtain the boundary integral representation for $\vec u(\vec x)$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:BIE-incompr}
u_k(\vec x) = - \oint_{S_\text{c}} { H_{kj}(\vec x, \vec y) (\hat n_i \sigma_{ij})(\vec y)
}\dd S(\vec y)
+ \oint_{S_\text{c}} { (\hat n_i u_j)(\vec y) T_{ijk}(\ten H; \vec y, \vec x)
}\dd S(\vec y)
\\
- \oint_C { H_{k\beta}(\vec x, \vec y) (\hat m_\alpha \varsigma_{\alpha\beta})(\vec y)
} \dd C(\vec y)
+ \oint_C { (\hat m_\alpha u_\beta) (\vec y)
\Sigma_{\alpha\beta k}(\ten H; \vec y, \vec x)
} \dd C(\vec y),\end{gathered}$$ for $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in \{1,2\}$, where $\hat{\vec m} = \bvec_z \times \hat{\vec t}$, $C$ is the curve in the $z=0$ plane that runs along the three-phase contact line, and $\ten\Sigma(\ten H;\!)$ is the surface stress tensor associated with $\ten H$, which is given by $$\Sigma_{\ga\gb k}(\ten H; \vec y, \vec x) =
-\kd_{\ga\gb} \Pi_k(\ten H; \vec y, \vec x) +
\mu(h) \left(
\frac{\pd H_{k\gb}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_\ga} +
\frac{\pd H_{k\ga}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_\gb}
\right).$$ Comparing \[eq:BIE-incompr\] to \[eq:BIE-clean\], there are two additional terms in \[eq:BIE-incompr\] that account for Marangoni forces and surface-viscous stresses at the contact line. Note that \[eq:BIE-incompr\] assumes that the hole in the interface created by an adhered colloid is of constant surface area.
As before, we may generate a multipole expansion for $\vec u(\vec x)$ by replacing $\ten H$, $\ten T(\ten H;\!)$, and $\ten\Sigma(\ten H;\!)$ in \[eq:BIE-incompr\] with their respective Taylor series in $\vec y$ about the origin $\vec 0$, which we place at an appropriate point on the interface. We may write the expansion as $\vec u = \vec u^{(1)} + \vec u^{(2)} + \vec u^{(\text i)}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mpx-incompr-upper}
\vec u^{(1)} &= \text{same as \cref{eq:mpx-clean-upper}
with \(\ten G\) replaced by \(\ten H\),}
\\
\label{eq:mpx-incompr-lower}
\vec u^{(2)} &= \text{same as \cref{eq:mpx-clean-lower}
with \(\ten G\) replaced by \(\ten H\),}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\newcommand*{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}{\sum_{n=0}^\infty}
\newcommand*\intC[1]{\left( \int_C #1 \dd C(\vec y) \right)}
\newcommand*{\vec y^{\oprod n}}{y_{\gc_1} \cdots y_{\gc_n}}
\newcommand*\gradSyn[1]{\left.
\frac{\pd^n #1}{\pd y_{\gc_1} \cdots \pd y_{\gc_n}}
\right|_{\vec y = \vec 0}} \label{eq:mpx-incompr-iface}
\begin{aligned}
u^{(\text i)}_k (\vec x) =
-&\sum_{n=0}^\infty { \frac1{n!} \intC{[\hat m_\ga \varsigma_{\ga\gb}](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}}
\gradSyn{H_{k\gb}(\vec x, \vec y \in I)}
} \\
+&\sum_{n=0}^\infty { \frac1{n!} \intC{[u_\gb \hat m_\ga](\vec y)\,{\vec y^{\oprod n}}}
\gradSyn{\Sigma_{\ga\gb k}(\ten H; \vec y \in I, \vec x)}
}.
\end{aligned}$$ Collecting terms from \[eq:mpx-incompr-upper,eq:mpx-incompr-lower,eq:mpx-incompr-iface\], we may write $\vec u$ as a multipole expansion analogous to that given by \[eq:mpx-clean-lower\],
\[eq:mpx-incompr\] $$\vec u(\vec x) = \vec u^\text{m0}(\vec x) + \vec u^\text{m1}(\vec x) + \text{h.o.t},
\tag{\ref*{eq:mpx-incompr}}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
u^\text{m0}_i(\vec x) &=
F^{(1)}_i H_{ij}({\vec x, \vec 0^{+}}) +
F^{(2)}_i H_{ij}({\vec x, \vec 0^{-}}) +
F^{(\text i)}_i H_{i\gb}({\vec x, \vec 0})
\label{eq:mpx-incompr-m0} \\
u^\text{m1}_i(\vec x) &=
D^{(1)}_{jk} \frac{\pd H_{ij}}{\pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{+}}) +
D^{(2)}_{jk} \frac{\pd H_{ij}}{\pd y_k}({\vec x, \vec 0^{-}}) +
D^{(i)}_{\gb\gc} \frac{\pd H_{i\gb}}{\pd y_\gc}({\vec x, \vec 0}).
\label{eq:mpx-incompr-m1}
\end{aligned}$$
are analogous to \[eq:mpx-clean-m0,eq:mpx-clean-m1\], respectively, where \[eq:mpx-incompr-m0,eq:mpx-incompr-m1\] each contain an additional term to account for Marangoni and surface-viscous stresses exerted by the colloid on the interface at the contact line. While the particular functional form of the monopole and dipole moments are clearly modified by these interfacial stresses, their physical interpretation remains very similar to those found for a clean interface.
### Monopole Moment
![ Limiting forms of the surface-incompressible monopole moment for (a) $\numBq = 0$ and (b) $\numBq \gg 1$ viewed on the interfacial plane $z=0$. The direction of the point force exerted on the interfacial plane is indicated by the black arrow. The result for a clean interface (c) is also shown for comparison. Interestingly, a purely radial flow is recovered for $\numBq = 0$, while the angular dependence of the clean and the large-$\numBq$ incompressible interface are similar. []{data-label="fig:monopoles"}](monopoles.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Compared with that for a clean interface \[eq:monopole-moment\], the monopole moment also accounts for the force exerted on the interface by the colloid at the contact line due to Marangoni and surface-viscous stresses. This force is given by the prefactor of the final term in this equation, $$F^{(\text i)}_{\gb} = -\oint_C \hat m_\alpha \varsigma_{\alpha\beta} \dd C.$$ Again, $\ten H(\vec x, \vec y)$ is continuous as $\vec y$ is moved across the interface, so we may drop the separate limits in \[eq:mpx-incompr-m0\] to give $$\label{eq:monopole-moment-incompr}
u^\text{m0}_i(\vec x) = \left(
F^{(1)}_j + F^{(2)}_j + F^{(\text i)}_\beta \kd^\para_{\beta j}
\right) H_{ij}(\vec x, \vec 0).$$ Like the clean-interface monopole, the incompressible monopole given by \[eq:monopole-moment\] does not depend on the viscosity contrast between the two fluids. Unlike the case for a clean interface, here, $\vec u^\text{m0}$ does not reduce to an effective, viscosity-averaged flow due to the nontrivial interfacial dynamics. shows the velocity field of the monopole moment in the limits $\numBq \to 0$ and $\numBq \to \infty$, which are given by \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=0,eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo\], respectively.
### Dipole Moment
The dipole moment also has an additional contribution due to interfacial stresses given by the final term in \[eq:mpx-incompr-m1\], whose prefactor is $$D^{(\text i)}_{\beta\gamma} = \oint_C \left[
\hat m_\alpha \varsigma_{\alpha\beta} x_\gamma
+ \mu_s (\hat m_\beta u_\gamma + u_\gamma \hat m_\beta)
\right] \dd C.$$ Noting that only the $z$-component of the gradient of $\ten H$ (with respect to $\vec x$ or $\vec y$) is discontinuous across the interface, we rewrite \[eq:mpx-incompr-m1\] as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:um1-incompr-expanded}
\newcommand\ab{{\alpha\beta}}
u^{\text{m1}}_i(\vec x) =
\lr(){D^{(1)}_\ab + D^{(2)}_\ab + D^{(\text i)}_\ab}
\frac{\pd H_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_\beta}(\vec x, \vec 0)
+ D^{(1)}_{\alpha 3} \frac{\pd H_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^+)
+ D^{(2)}_{\alpha 3} \frac{\pd H_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^-) \\
+ \left( D^{(1)}_{3\beta} + D^{(2)}_{3\beta} \right)
\frac{\pd H_{i3}}{\pd y_\beta}(\vec x, \vec 0)
+ \left( D^{(1)}_{33} + D^{(2)}_{33} \right)
\frac{\pd H_{i3}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0).\end{gathered}$$ The fourth term of \[eq:mpx-incompr-m1\] vanishes because $H_{i3}(\vec x, \vec y)$ vanishes for $\vec y \in I$. Recall, the Green’s function for a clean interface had the same property due to the non-deformability of the interface. The final term of \[eq:um1-incompr-expanded\] also vanishes; the incompressibility of the interface and the surrounding fluid, $\div{\vec u} = \divS{\vec u} = \vec 0 $, implies that $$\label{eq:H-deriv-props}
0 = \lr.|{\frac{\pd H_{\alpha j}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd x_\alpha}}_{x_3 = 0}
= \lr.|{\frac{\pd H_{3j}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd x_3}}_{x_3 = 0}
= \lr.|{\frac{\pd H_{j3}(\vec x, \vec y)}{\pd y_3}}_{y_3 = 0},$$ where the final equality follows from \[eq:self-adjoint-H\].
We may decompose $\ten D^{(1)}$ and $\ten D^{(2)}$ into irreducible tensors as before \[eq:dipole-coeff-clean-decomp\]. A similar decomposition of $\ten D^{(\text i)}$ is $$\label{eq:iface-dipole-coeff-decomp}
D^{(\text i)}_{\ga\gb}
= S^{(\text i)}_{\ga\gb}
+ \frac12 \permut_{\ga\gb3} L^{(\text i)}
+ \frac12 \kd_{\ga\gb} D^{(\text i)}_{\gc\gc},$$ where the irreducible part of $\ten D^{(\text i)}$ is $$S^{(\text i)}_{\ga\gb} =
\frac12 \lr(){D^{(\text i)}_{\ga\gb} + D^{(\text i)}_{\gb\ga}}
- \frac12 \kd_{\ga\gb} D^{(\text i)}_{\gc\gc},$$ which represents the stresslet *on* the interface due to stresses at the contact line. Similarly, the pseudoscalar $L^{(\text i)}$, given by $$\label{eq:torque-on-iface}
L^{(\text i)} = -\bvec_z \vdot \oint_C { \vec y \times [\hat{\vec m} \vdot \ten\varsigma](\vec y)
} \dd C(\vec y),$$ is the torque (about the $z$ axis) exerted on the interface by the colloid. The total torque exerted on the surrounding system (both fluids and the interface) is therefore $\vec L = \vec L^{(1)} + \vec L^{(2)} + L^{(\text i)} \bvec_z$. Recalling the definition of $\ten\varsigma$ \[eq:iface-stress-tensor-incompr\], it is readily shown that surface pressure $\pi$ makes no contribution to $L^{(\text i)}$, and therefore $L^{(\text i)} = 0$ if $\mu_s = 0$. Finally, we note that applying the self-adjoint relation to the first equality in \[eq:H-deriv-props\] gives $ [{\pd H_{j \alpha}(\vec x, \vec y)} / {\pd y_\alpha}]_{y_3 = 0} = 0 $. Comparing this result with \[eq:um1-incompr-expanded\] reveals that the “surface” traces of $\ten D^{(1)}$, $\ten D^{(2)}$, and $\ten D^{(\text i)}$, e.g., $\kd_{\ga\gb} D^{(\nu)}_{\ga\gb}$, are of no dynamical significance. Incompressibility of the surrounding fluids further implies that $S^{(\text 1)}_{33}$ and $S^{(\text 2)}_{33}$ also have no affect on the flow. Recall that, for a clean interface, the modes associated with these components of the stresslet produced radially symmetric modes associated with local expansion or compression of the interface (see \[fig:clean-stresslets\]b). It is no surprise that these source/sink flows vanish for incompressible interfaces. One may easily verify that there exists no radially symmetric vector field on the interface that both satisfies $\divS{\vec u} = 0$ and vanishes at infinity.
![ Limiting forms of the surface-incompressible stresslet (dipole moment) for (a) $\numBq = 0$ and (b) $\numBq \gg 1$ viewed on the interfacial plane $z=0$. The result for a clean interface (c) is shown for comparison. The black arrows indicate the configuration of the force doublet. []{data-label="fig:dipoles"}](dipoles.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
After dropping all vanishing terms, \[eq:dipole-coeff-clean-decomp\] and \[eq:iface-dipole-coeff-decomp\] in \[eq:um1-incompr-expanded\] gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:um1-incompr-irred}
u^{\text{m1}}_i(\vec x) =
\lr(){S^\para_{\ga\gb} + \frac12 \permut_{{\ga\gb} 3} L_3}
\frac{\pd H_{i\ga}}{\pd y_\gb}(\vec x, \vec 0) +
\lr(){S^{(1)}_{l3} - \frac12 \permut_{3lm} L^{(1)}_m}
\frac{\pd H_{i\ga}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^+) \\ +
\lr(){S^{(2)}_{l3} - \frac12 \permut_{3lm} L^{(2)}_m}
\frac{\pd H_{i\ga}}{\pd y_3}(\vec x, \vec 0^-),\end{gathered}$$ where $$S^\para_{\ga\gb} = \left(
\kd_{\ga\gc} \kd_{\gb\gd} - \frac12 \kd_{\ga\gb} \kd_{\gd\gc}
\right) \left(
S^{(1)}_{\gc\gd} + S^{(2)}_{\gc\gd} + S^{(\text i)}_{\gc\gd}
\right).$$ The last two terms of \[eq:um1-incompr-irred\] are analogous to the asymmetric modes discussed for clean interfaces, given by the last two terms of \[eq:dipole-moment\]. Recall that, for a clean interface, these modes have vanishing velocity on the interface. Thus, these modes are also valid for incompressible interfaces. Indeed, for $\vec u(\vec x \in I) = \vec 0$, the interfacial stress balance \[eq:iface-stress-bal-incompr\] reduces to that for a clean interface \[eq:iface-stress-bal-clean\]. We also see from \[eq:um1-incompr-irred\] that the prefactors of these modes do not involve $\ten D^{(\text i)}$ and therefore have no explicit dependence on the interfacial stresses. Thus, we may simply “replace,” without modification, the last two terms in \[eq:um1-incompr-irred\] with the last two terms from \[eq:dipole-moment\], yielding the dipole moment as $$\label{eq:dipole-moment-incompr}
u^\text{m1}_i (\vec x) = -\left(
S^{\para}_{\alpha\beta} + \frac12 \permut_{\alpha\beta 3} L_3
\right) \frac{\pd H^0_{i\alpha}}{\pd y_\beta}
+ \left(
\frac{\mu(-z)}{\bar\mu \mu_1} A^{(1)}_{jk} + \frac{\mu(-z)}{\bar\mu \mu_2} A^{(2)}_{jk}
\right) \frac{\pd J_{ij}(\vec x)}{\pd x_k},$$ where $\ten A^{(\nu)}$ is given, as before, by \[eq:dipole-coeff-asym\]. In contrast, the first term of \[eq:dipole-moment-incompr\] is greatly affected by interfacial stresses. Evaluating the necessary gradient of $\ten H$, we find that (see \[sec:app:Gfuns\]) $$\label{eq:dipole-incompr-para}
\lr.|{\frac{\pd H^0_{\ga\gb}}{\pd y_\gc}}_{\vec y = \vec 0} =
-\lr.|{\frac{\pd H^0_{\ga\gb}}{\pd x_\gc}}_{\vec y = \vec 0} =
\frac{R_1'}{8\upi \bar\mu} \left(
3\hat s_\gc \kd_{\ga\gb} -
\hat s_\ga \kd_{\gb\gc} -
\hat s_\gb \kd_{\gc\ga}
\right) +
\frac{R_3'}{2\upi \bar\mu} \Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb \hat s_\gc},$$ where the functions $R'_n = R'_n(L_B; s, z)$ are given by \[eq:rzFn’\].
shows the velocity field expressed by \[eq:dipole-moment-incompr\] in the limits $\numBq \to 0$ and $\numBq \to \infty$, which are given by \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=0,eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo\], respectively. In the former limit, $R'_n$ reduces to the closed form expression given by \[eq:rzFn|Bq=0\] and decays spatially as $1/r^2$, which is the same as the far-field behavior of the dipole moment for a clean interface. We could also obtain the result for $\numBq = 0$ by evaluating the gradient of \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=0\] directly. We may similarly obtain the limiting behavior for $\numBq \to \infty$ as the two-dimensional Stokeslet dipole, i.e., the gradient of equation \[eq:Hfun0|Bq=oo\], which is given by $$\label{eq:Stokeslet-dipole-2d}
\newcommand*\hs{\hat s}
\lr.|{\frac{\pd H^0_{\ga\gb}}{\pd y_\gc}}_{\numBq\to\infty} \sim
\frac{ 2 \hs_\ga \hs_\gb \hs_\gc
- \hs_\ga \kd_{\gb\gc} - \hs_\gb \kd_{\gc\ga} + \hs_\gc \kd_{\ga\gb}
}{4\upi\mu_s s}.$$ The velocity field represented by \[eq:Stokeslet-dipole-2d\] decays as $1/r$ and hence converges as $|\vec s| \to \infty$. This behavior contrasts with the monopole moment, which diverges logarithmically. However, as a three-dimensional flow, \[eq:Stokeslet-dipole-2d\] has no $z$ dependence and is constant in this direction, which is just another manifestation of Stokes’ paradox. For $\numBq$ large but finite, the required decay of the velocity along the $z$ direction occurs at distances $z \gtrsim \lenBq$. Far beyond the Boussinesq length, where $z/l \gg \numBq$, the $1/r^2$ decay of an inviscid interface is (eventually) recovered.
Discussion
----------
In the context of trapped driven and active colloids, the interpretation of the leading-order monopole and dipole moments is largely the same as that discussed for clean interfaces. However, incompressibility dramatically restructures the behavior of these hydrodynamic modes. For instance, consider the dipolar mode associated with the $S_{33}$ component of the stresslet. At a clean interface, active colloids set up a source or sink flow on the interface (see \[fig:clean-stresslets\]b). These modes vanish for incompressible interfaces because the interface can no longer contract/expand to compensate for the source/sink. The remaining modes are significantly altered by surface incompressibility (see \[fig:monopoles,fig:dipoles\]) with the exception of the asymmetric modes.
Recall that, at clean interfaces, the far-field fluid velocity both parallel and normal to the interface decays at the same rate: generally, $|\vec u| \sim r^{-1}$ for driven colloids and $|\vec u| \sim r^{-2}$ for active colloids (or colloids driven only by an external torque). If surface-viscous stresses are weak, $\numBq \ll 1$, then this far-field behavior also holds for the velocity components parallel to the interface. Namely, $|\vec u^\para| \sim r^{-1}$ for driven colloids and $|\vec u^\para| \sim r^{-2} $ for active colloids, where $\vec u^\para = \ten I_s \vdot \vec u$. However, the leading-order flow normal to the interface is significantly hindered. This hindrance is most severe for symmetric colloids, for which $\ten A^{(\nu)} = \vec 0$. In this case, the monopole and dipole moments only produce flow parallel to the interface, and $u^\text{m0}_3 = u^\text{m1}_3 = 0$. Hence, the fluid velocity normal to the interface is generally quadrupolar to leading order and decays at least as fast as $r^{-3}$. For driven and active colloids trapped in an asymmetric configuration, for which $\ten A^{(\alpha)} \neq \vec 0$, we recover the longer-ranged behavior $u_3 \sim r^{-2}$ associated with the dipole moment. Thus, this mode is of special importance. It may increase the rate at which colloids near the interface are transported toward or away from the interface via hydrodynamic interactions with driven or active colloids trapped at the interface. By the same mechanism, an “active sheet” of many trapped colloids at the interface may enhance mass transport in the $z$ direction. If the colloids comprising the active sheet move about randomly, this enhanced transport will likely lead to active diffusion. On the other hand, directed mass transport could be accomplished through organized motion of the active sheet. These possibilities are ripe opportunities for future research.
While the flow normal to an incompressible interface is hindered in comparison to a clean interface, surface-viscous effects create very long-ranged flow parallel to the interface. Considering first the spatial behavior along the interfacial plane, we find that, for $\numBq \gg 1$ and distances $s \ll \lenBq$ from the colloid, $\vec u^\para \sim \ln s $ for the monopole moment and $\vec u^\para \sim s^{-1}$ for dipole moment. This behavior is simply that of a two-dimensional Stokes flow, which is recovered in the limit of highly viscous interfaces [@Saffman1975]. The divergent behavior of the velocity field is curtailed at distances $s \gtrsim \lenBq$, where bulk-viscous effects inevitably become important. To determine the spatial behavior along the $z$-axis, we observe from \[eq:rzFn,eq:rzFn’\] that, for $s \to 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
R_n(\lenBq; 0, z) &\sim
\frac{e^{2|z|/\lenBq}}{\lenBq} \ExpInt_1 \!\lr(){\frac{2|z|}{\lenBq}}
\\
R'_n(\lenBq; 0, z) &\sim
\frac{e^{2|z|/\lenBq}}{\lenBq\lr||z} \ExpInt_2 \!\lr(){\frac{2|z|}{\lenBq}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\ExpInt_p (x) = \int_1^\infty e^{-xt} / t^p \dd t$ is the generalized exponential integral. We note that [@Olver2010] $$\ExpInt_p(x) \sim
\begin{cases}
[{(-1)}^p / (p-1)!] x^{p-1} \ln x & \text{for}\ x \ll 1 \\
\ExpInt_p(x) \sim e^{-x}/x & \text{for}\ x \gg 1\ \text{and for all}\ p,
\end{cases}$$ which implies that, for $|z| \ll \lenBq$, $R_n \sim \ln |z|$ and $R'_n \sim \ln |z|$. Recalling that $R_n$ and $R'_n$ govern the spatial behavior of the monopole and dipole moments, respectively, we see that both are logarithmically divergent in $z$ as $\numBq$ is made large. Therefore, the “lamellar” motion of the fluid strongly persists up to distances $z = O(\lenBq)$ into the surrounding fluid, regardless of whether the source of the motion is due to a driven or active colloid. At distances $z \gg \lenBq$, we find that $R_n \sim z^{-1}$ and $R'_n \sim z^{-2}$, so the far-field decay expected for $\numBq \ll 1$ is recovered.
We expect this strong lateral fluid motion to significantly enhance spreading of a substance in directions parallel to the interface via Taylor dispersion. The shear flow driving Taylor dispersion is in this case generated by the motion of trapped colloids rather than motion of a bulk fluid relative to a no-slip boundary. The asymmetric modes that produce fluid motion normal to the interface are not modified by surface viscosity. Hence, $u_3 \sim 1/r^2$ for all $\numBq$. Future work will examine the implications of this fluid motion on transport and mixing rates.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Summary
-------
We have determined the leading order far-field flows generated by driven and active colloids trapped at planar fluid interfaces by a pinned contact line for $\numCa \gg 1$. Under these assumptions, the colloid is trapped in a fixed configuration and cannot move perpendicular to the interface. At clean interfaces devoid of surfactant, driven colloids produce “viscosity-averaged” Stokeslets when driven along the interface—the flow is no different than that expected for a colloid driven in an unbounded fluid of viscosity $\bar\mu$. Contact-line pinning at large $\numCa$ prevents such colloids from being driven normal to the interface. Similarly, active colloids produce viscosity-averaged force dipoles (stresslets) aligned in the swimming direction, similar to those generated by a swimmer in an unbounded fluid. This stresslet is associated with balanced hydrodynamic thrust and drag in the swimming direction. However, due to pinning of the contact line, such swimmers also generate additional “pumping” flows that are associated with net hydrodynamic forces and torques on the colloid that are supported by the interface. Some of these modes are associated with a net hydrodynamic force or torque on the colloid, which are supported by the pinned contact line, in contrast to swimmers in the bulk phase. These modes vanish if the colloid is adjacent, rather than adhered, to the interface.
We consider surfactants, which render the interface incompressible even in the limit of scant surface concentrations. This constraint is generally applicable to driven and active colloids which move on interfaces for $\numCa \gg 1$. In this case, the flow modes associated with forced or self-propelled motion along the interface are altered significantly, even if the surfactant is dilute. An interesting feature of these modes is that they only induce “lamellar” fluid motion for which $u_z = 0$ at all distances $z$ from the interface. For active colloids in particular, the pumping mode associated “swimming” directly against the interface (i.e., in a perpendicular configuration) is eliminated for incompressible interfaces. We also find a set of force-dipole pumping modes that induce zero velocity at the interface and therefore persist independent of the interfacial mechanics. One such mode is produced when a pinned active colloid exerts a hydrodynamic torque on the interface. These modes may be of special importance to fluid mixing near boundaries—including solid ones—as they generate fluid motion normal to the interface.
Future work and open issues
---------------------------
A clear direction for future work is to probe experimental systems for signatures of the flow modes reported here. The differences we predict in the flow modes induced by active colloids in the adhered states versus adjacent states may be a useful in distinguishing these two cases in experiment. While we have determined the modes expected to dominate the far-field flow for driven and active colloids based on their trapped configuration the interface, comparison of our results to experimental datasets or computational results accounting for the near-field hydrodynamic details of particular colloids would be extremely valuable.
Several open issues remain. We have not considered the effect of contact-line undulations on the flow. Interestingly, interfacial deformations due to such undulations are expected to decay at the same $1/r^2$ rate as the flow for an active colloid of negligible weight. Thus, these undulations may alter the flows we predict in interesting ways, especially because the contact line of an individual colloid may undulate randomly, being different for every colloid [@Stamou2000; @Kaz2012]. Another use for driven and active colloids at interfaces is to enhance mixing. Enhanced mixing in active colloidal suspensions has been studied extensively in bulk fluids [@Darnton2004; @Pushkin2013; @Lin2011; @Kasyap2014] and also in the vicinity of solid boundaries [@Mathijssen2015; @Mathijssen2018; @Kim2004]. Different behavior is expected for mobile fluid interfaces and will vary depending on the interfacial rheology and the adhered state of the active colloids that populate the interface. Using active or driven colloids to enhance transport processes presents an untapped dimension for interfacial engineering; interfaces are natural sites for many chemical reaction and separation processes. Our work emphasizes the importance of broken symmetry in the generation of mixing by active or passive colloids at interfaces. Such asymmetry naturally arises due to defects in colloid geometry, asymmetric trapped states, and, for active colloids, differences in activity in either fluid phase. Experimentalists seeking to enhance mixing using colloids at fluid interfaces should seek to design systems that maximize these sources of asymmetry. In addition, the effect of the interface on hydrodynamic interactions between swimmers at interfaces has yet to be investigated. Finally, while we have focused on far-field flows, detailed computations of the near-field hydrodynamics of specific types of active colloids in different adhered will also yield useful information such as the predicted trajectories of such colloids.
The authors acknowledge useful discussions with Dr. Mehdi Molaei and Ms. Jiayi Deng as well as financial support from the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant No. DMR-1607878 and CBET-1943394) and the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. Declaration of Interests. The authors report no conflict of interest.
Self-adjoint property of the Green’s functions {#sec:app:self-adjointness}
==============================================
To show that the Green’s function $\ten G$ defined by \[eq:Gfun-clean\] is self-adjoint, i.e., $\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) = \ten G^\T(\vec y, \vec x)$, we make the following substitutions into \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\]: $$\label{eq:sa-subs}
\begin{aligned}
\vec u(\vec x) &\to \ten G(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F, & \vec u'(\vec x) &\to \ten G(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F', \\
\ten\sigma(\vec x) &\to \ten T(\ten G; \vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F, & \ten\sigma'(\vec x) &\to \ten T(\ten G; \vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F', \\
\vec f(\vec x) &\to -\vec F \diracR3(\vec x - \vec y), & \vec f'(\vec x) &\to -\vec F \diracR3(\vec x - \vec y'), \\
\vec f_s(\vec x) &\to -\vec F \diracR2(\vec x - \vec y), & \vec f_s'(\vec x) &\to -\vec F \diracR2(\vec x - \vec y').
\end{aligned}$$ That is, we choose $\vec u$ as the flow field due to a point force $\vec F$ at $\vec y$ and $\vec u'$ the flow field due to another point force $\vec F'$ at point $\vec y'$. The point forces and their locations are arbitrary and may be exerted on either fluid or the interface. Each fluid domain is semi-infinite and bounded only by the interface. With the above substitutions, \[eq:R-thm-clean-iface\] becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sa-intermediate}
0 =
\int_{V^*} \left[
\diracR3(\vec x - \vec y) \vec F \vdot
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F' -
\diracR3(\vec x - \vec y') \vec F' \vdot
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F
\right] \dd V \\ +
\int_{I^*} \left[
\diracR2(\vec x - \vec y) \vec F \vdot
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F' -
\diracR2(\vec x - \vec y') \vec F' \vdot
\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F
\right] \dd A \\ +
\oint_{R} \left\{
[\ten T(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F] \vdot
[\ten G(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] -
[\ten T(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] \vdot
[\ten G(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F]
\right\} \vdot \uvec n \dd S,\end{gathered}$$ where, for brevity, we omit $\ten G$ as an argument to $\ten T$. The integrations in \[eq:sa-intermediate\] are taken to be over an arbitrary volume that may contain points on the interface. If the boundaries of this volume in each fluid, represented by $R$, are made arbitrarily far from the points $\vec y$ and $\vec y'$, then the final integral in \[eq:sa-intermediate\] vanishes; $\ten G \sim r^{-1}$ and $\ten T(\ten G;\!) \sim 1/r^{-2}$, so this integral decays as $L_V^{-1}$ as $L_V \to \infty$, where $L_V$ is the characteristic size of the integration region. Then, using the definition of the Dirac delta, \[eq:sa-intermediate\] simplifies to $$\label{eq:G-is-self-adjoint}
\vec F \vdot \ten G(\vec y, \vec y') \vdot \vec F' =
\vec F' \vdot \ten G(\vec y', \vec y) \vdot \vec F.$$ Since $\vec F$, $\vec F'$, $\vec y$, and $\vec y'$ are all arbitrary, \[eq:G-is-self-adjoint\] implies that $\ten G(\vec y, \vec y') = \ten G^\T(\vec y', \vec y)$, that is, $\ten G$ is self-adjoint.
Using the same procedure, it may be shown that $\ten H$ is also self-adjoint. Making a set of substitutions analogous to those appearing in \[eq:sa-subs\] along with the additional substitutions $\ten\varsigma(\vec x) \to \ten\Sigma(\ten H; \vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F$ and $\ten\varsigma(\vec x) \to \ten\Sigma(\ten H; \vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'$ into \[eq:R-thm-incompressible-iface\], we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sa-intermediate-H}
0 =
\vec F' \vdot \ten H(\vec y', \vec y) \vdot \vec F -
\vec F \vdot \ten H(\vec y, \vec y') \vdot \vec F' \\ +
\oint_{R} \left\{
[\ten T(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F] \vdot
[\ten H(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] -
[\ten T(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] \vdot
[\ten H(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F]
\right\} \vdot \uvec n \dd S \\ +
\oint_{\partial I^*} \left\{
[\ten\Sigma(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F] \vdot
[\ten H(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] -
[\ten\Sigma(\vec x, \vec y') \vdot \vec F'] \vdot
[\ten H(\vec x, \vec y) \vdot \vec F]
\right\} \vdot \uvec m \dd C.\end{gathered}$$ In this case, an additional integral over $\partial I^*$ appears, which is the curve where our arbitrarily chosen fluid region intersects the interface. Both integrals in \[eq:sa-intermediate-H\] vanish as $L_V \to \infty$ provided that the Boussinesq length $\lenBq$ remains finite. For $r \gg \lenBq$, $\ten H$ and $\ten G$ share the same far-field decay behavior, i.e., $\ten H \sim r^{-1}$. From the remaining two terms in \[eq:sa-intermediate-H\], we find $\ten H(\vec y, \vec y') = \ten H^\T(\vec y', \vec y)$.
Computation of the Green’s functions {#sec:app:Gfuns}
====================================
Here, we derive the Green’s functions $\ten G$ and $\ten H$ used in \[sec:clean-interfaces,sec:incompressible-interfaces\], respectively. Consider two immiscible fluids separated by a planar interface on the $z=0$ plane with a point force $\vec f$ applied at the point $(0, 0, h)$. Let $\FT f(\vec k) = \iint_{\Reals^2} f(\vec x^\para)
\exp{[-i \vec k \vdot \vec s]} \dd^2 \vec s$ define the two-dimensional Fourier transform of $f(\vec s)$ in the $x$-$y$ plane, where $\vec s = (x, y)$ is the position vector on the interface. It is convenient to start with the boundary integral form of the Stokes equations for the upper and lower fluids, which, after applying the Fourier transform, are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FT-upper-fluid}
\Ind_{z > 0} \FT u^1_i(\vec k, z) &=
- \FT T_{3 \ga i}(\ten J; \vec k, z) \FT v_\ga(\vec k)
- \frac{1}{\mu_1} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z) \FT t^1_j(\vec k)
+ \frac{\Ind_{h>0}}{\mu_1} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z-h) f_j \\
\label{eq:FT-lower-fluid}
\Ind_{z < 0} \FT u^2_i(\vec k, z) &=
\FT T_{3 \ga i}(\ten J; \vec k, z) \FT v_\ga(\vec k)
+ \frac{1}{\mu_2} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z) \FT t^2_j(\vec k),
+ \frac{\Ind_{h<0}}{\mu_2} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z-h) f_j,\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $J_{ij} = (\kd_{ij}/r + x_i x_j / r^3)/8\upi$ is the Oseen tensor, $T_{ijk}(\ten J;\!) = -\delta_{ij} P_k(\ten J;\!) + (\nabla_i J_{jk} - \nabla_j J_{ik})$, $\vec t^\nu = \bvec_z \vdot \vec\sigma^\nu$ is the surface traction at the interface, and $\vec v(\vec s) = \vec u(\vec s, z=0)$ is the surface velocity on the interface. For notational convenience, we hereafter omit $\ten J$ as an argument to $\ten T$. The Fourier transform of $\ten J$ is given by $$ \label{eq:FT-Stokeslet}
\FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z) = \frac{\delta_{ij}}{2k} e^{-k|z|}
+ \frac{1}{4k^3} \FT{\nabla}_i \FT{\nabla}_j \left[
(1 + k|z|) e^{-k|z|}
\right].$$ where $\FT{\nabla}_i = ik_i + \delta_{i3} (\partial/\partial z$).
The interface, located at $z=0$, obeys the kinematic conditions $\bvec_z \vdot \vec v = 0$ (no flux) and $\vec u^1 = \vec u^2 = \vec v$ (continuity of velocity). These are accompanied by the dynamic condition given by the tangential stress balance at the interface, which in Fourier space is $$\label{eq:FT-interface-clean}
\ten I_s \vdot ({[\FT{\vec t}]}_I + \Ind_{h = 0} {\vec f}) = \vec 0$$ for a clean interface and for an incompressible interface is $$\label{eq:FT-interface-incompr}
\ten I_s \vdot ({[\FT{\vec t}]}_I + \Ind_{h=0} {\vec f}) = i \vec k \FT\pi + \mu_s k^2 \FT{\vec v}; \quad
i\vec k \vdot \vec v = 0,$$ where $k = |\vec k|$.
Multiplying \[eq:FT-upper-fluid,eq:FT-lower-fluid\] by $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, resp., taking the limit as $z \to 0^\pm$, resp., and adding the results gives $$\label{eq:Delta-force-balance-full}
2\bar\mu \kd_{i\gb} \FT v_\gb(\vec k)
+ \left( \mu_1 \lim_{z\to0^+} - \mu_2 \lim_{z\to0^-} \right)
\FT T_{3 \ga i}(\vec k, z) \FT v_\ga (\vec k)
+ \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, 0) \lr[]{\FT t_j}_I (\vec k)
= \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, -h) f_j,$$ where $\bar\mu = (\mu_1 + \mu_2) / 2$ is the average viscosity. Using \[eq:FT-Stokeslet\] and the definition of $\ten T$, we find that the second term on the left-hand side of \[eq:Delta-force-balance-full\] reduces to $$\label{eq:FT-double-layer-jump}
\lim_{z\to0^\pm} \FT T_{3 \ga i} \FT v_\ga
= - \left( \pm\frac{\delta_{i\ga}}{2} + \delta_{i3} \frac{ik_\ga}{2k} \right)
\FT v_\ga,$$ which is the Stokes “double-layer” density for either side of the interface. For a clean interface, \[eq:FT-interface-clean,eq:FT-double-layer-jump\] in \[eq:Delta-force-balance-full\] yields, after a trivial Fourier inversion, $$\label{eq:FT-vel-surf-clean}
\bar\mu \vec v(\vec s) = \ten I_s \vdot \ten J(\vec s - h \bvec_3) \vdot \vec f,$$ which shows that the fluid velocity at the interface is independent of the viscosity contrast and simply corresponds to the projection of the Oseen tensor, shifted to $z=h$, onto the interface at $z=0$.
We may do the same for an incompressible interface by instead using \[eq:FT-interface-incompr\] in \[eq:Delta-force-balance-full\], from which we obtain $$\label{eq:Delta-force-balance}
\left(\bar\mu + \frac12 \mu_s k\right) \FT v_\ga + \frac{ik_\ga}{4k} \pi
= \FT J_{\ga j}|_{z=-h} f_j.$$ Taking the inner product of \[eq:Delta-force-balance\] with $i\vec k$ and solving for $\pi$ yields $$\label{eq:FT-surface-pressure}
\begin{aligned}
\FT\pi(\vec k)
&= -\frac{4}{k} i\vec k \vdot \FT{\mathsfbi J}(\vec k, -h) \vdot \vec f \\
&= \frac{e^{-k |h|}}{k^2} \left[
(k |h| - 1) i\vec k + k^2 h \vec i_z
\right] \vdot \vec f.
\end{aligned}$$ The surface pressure is associated only with the Marangoni effect and depends neither on the bulk nor surface shear viscosities. Letting $\pi(\vec s, h) = \vec\Pi(\vec s, h) \vdot \vec f$ and carrying out the Fourier inversion to real space, we obtain $$\label{eq:surface-pressure}
\newcommand*\rootrq{\sqrt{s^2 + h^2}}
\vec\Pi(\vec s, h)
= |h| \left( \gradS - \bvec_z \frac{\pd}{\pd h} \right) \frac{1}{4\upi\rootrq}
+ \frac{\vec s}{4\upi s^2} \left( 1 - \frac{|h|}{\rootrq} \right),$$ where $s = |\vec s|$. For $h = 0$, this result reduces to $\ten\Pi(\vec s, 0) = \vec s / 4\upi s^2$.
Noting that $\vec v(\vec s) \equiv \ten H(\vec x \in I, \vec y) \vdot \vec f$ for $\vec y = (0,0,h)$, putting \[eq:FT-surface-pressure\] in \[eq:Delta-force-balance\] and solving for $\FT{\vec v}$ yields $$\label{eq:FT-vel-surf-incompr}
\begin{aligned}
\FT{\ten H} (\vec k, z=0, h) &= \frac{2}{2\bar\mu + \mu_s k} \left(
\ten I_s - \frac{\vec{kk}}{k^2}
\right) \vdot \FT{\ten J}(\vec k, -h)
\\
&= \frac{e^{-k |h|}}{2\bar\mu + \mu_s k} \left(
\frac{\ten I_s}{k} - \frac{\vec{kk}}{k^3}
\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Surface incompressibility of \[eq:FT-vel-surf-incompr\] is easily verified by contracting the right-hand side of this equation with $i\vec k$, thereby taking the divergence in Fourier space, which vanishes. We also see from \[eq:FT-vel-surf-incompr\] that a force perpendicular to the interface generates no interfacial flow; $H_{i3}(\vec x \in I, h) = 0$. We therefore conclude that the flow due to the $z$-component of the force is therefore the same as that for a rigid, no-slip wall, as is also noted by @Blawzdziewicz1999.
Now, the self-adjoint property of $\ten H$ (see \[sec:app:self-adjointness\]) permits us to swap the roles of $h$ and $z$ in \[eq:FT-vel-surf-incompr\]; $$\label{eq:FT-Hfun}
\FT{\ten H} (\vec k, z, h=0) = \frac{e^{-k |z|}}{2\bar\mu + \mu_s k} \left(
\frac{\ten I_s}{k} - \frac{\vec{kk}}{k^3}
\right).$$ Remarkably, from the interfacial flow profile due to a point force at $z = h$ \[eq:FT-vel-surf-incompr\], we automatically obtain the flow *at all points* $\vec x$ due to a point force at the interface ($h = 0$). Fourier inversion of \[eq:FT-Hfun\] to real space gives equation \[eq:Hfun\], $$\label{eq:app:Hfun} { H^0_{\ga\gb}(\lenBq; \vec x) =
\frac{1}{4\upi \bar\mu} R_0(\lenBq; s, z) \kd_{\ga\gb} +
\frac{1}{2\upi \bar\mu} R_2(\lenBq; s, z) \Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb}
}.$$ The functions $R_n$ are given by $$\label{eq:rzFn}
R_n(\lenBq; s, z) =
\int_0^\infty \frac{e^{-k|z|}}{2 + \lenBq k} J_n(ks) \dd k,$$ where $J_n$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of order $n$. In the special case that $\lenBq = 0$, we obtain $R_n$ in closed form as $$\label{eq:rzFn|Bq=0}
R_n = \frac{(r - |z|)^n}{2r s^n}.$$ To obtain (surface) gradients of \[eq:app:Hfun\], we may take the tensor product of \[eq:FT-Hfun\] with $\vec k$ and repeat the Fourier inversion process to give $$\frac{\pd H^0_{\ga\gb}}{\pd x_\gc} =
\frac{\pd H^0_{\ga\gb}}{\pd s_\gc} =
\frac{R_1'}{8\upi \bar\mu} \left(
\hat s_\ga \kd_{\gb\gc} + \hat s_\gb \kd_{\gc\ga} -
3\hat s_\gc \kd_{\ga\gb}
\right) -
\frac{R_3'}{2\upi \bar\mu} \Irr{\hat s_\ga \hat s_\gb \hat s_\gc},$$ where $$\label{eq:rzFn'}
R_n(\lenBq; s, z) =
\int_0^\infty \frac{k e^{-k|z|}}{2 + \lenBq k} J_n(ks) \dd k.$$ For $\lenBq = 0$, $R'_n$ reduces to $$\label{eq:rzFn'|Bq=0}
R'_n = \frac{s^n (nr + |z|)}{2 r^3 (r + |z|)^n}.$$
To determine the full flow fields for $h \neq 0$, we can directly sum \[eq:FT-upper-fluid\] and \[eq:FT-lower-fluid\] to eliminate the Stokes double layer, which gives $$\label{eq:BIE-all-fluid}
\FT u_i(\vec k, z; h) =
- \frac1{\bar\mu} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z) \hat q_j(\vec k; h)
+ \frac1{\mu(h)} \FT J_{ij}(\vec k, z-h) f_j$$ where $$\hat{\vec q}(\vec k; h) := \bar\mu \left[
\frac{\FT{\vec t^1}(\vec k)}{\mu_1} - \frac{\FT{\vec t^2}(\vec k)}{\mu_2}
\right]
= \bar\mu \lr[]{\frac{\FT{\ten\sigma}(\vec k) \vdot \vec n}{\mu}}_I$$ is the Stokes single-layer density (in Fourier space). For a clean interface, setting $z=0$ in \[eq:BIE-all-fluid\] and putting \[eq:FT-vel-surf-clean\] into the result yields $$\label{eq:FT-single-layer-density-clean}
\FT{\vec q}(k;h) = 4 k \lr(){\ten I - \frac{\mu(h)}{\bar\mu} \ten I_s} \vdot
\FT{\ten J}(\vec k, -h) \vdot \vec f.$$ After inserting \[eq:FT-single-layer-density-clean\] back into \[eq:BIE-all-fluid\], lengthy algebraic manipulation, followed by inversion to real space, yields the velocity field in terms of the hydrodynamic image system described by $\ten G \vdot \vec f$ \[eq:Gfun-clean\]. A similar procedure could be used to determine $\ten H(\vec x, \vec y)$ for all $\vec y$, but we do not require that result in this paper. Others have performed such computations of $\ten H$ via other approaches [@Blawzdziewicz1999; @Fischer2006].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we consider families of multiparametric $R$-matrices to make a systematic study of the boundary Yang-Baxter equations in order to discuss the corresponding families of multiparametric $K$-matrices. Our results are indeed non-trivial generalization of the $K$-matrix solutions of the ${\cal {U}}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model when distinct reflections and extra free-parameters are admissible.'
---
[On the multiparametric ${\cal {U}}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model]{}\
[^1][ and A. Lima-Santos]{}[^2]\
\
PACS numbers: 05.50+q, 02.30.
Keywords: Integrable lattice models, boundary Yang-Baxter equations
Introduction\[sec:Intro\]
=========================
The Yang-Baxter equation is an operator relation for a matrix $R_{ij}(x)$ defined on the tensor product of two $N$-dimensional vectors spaces $V_{i}$ and $V_{j}$, which reads $$R_{12}(x_{1})R_{13}(x_{1}x_{2})R_{23}(x_{2})=R_{23}(x_{2})R_{13}(x_{1}x_{2})R_{12}(x_{1}),\label{yb}$$ where $x_{a}$ are arbitrary multiplicative spectral parameters.
Search for solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation is a important subject in the studies of exactly solvable models. Actually, a $R$-matrix satisfying the Yang-Baxter equation generates the Boltzmann weights of an vertex model [@BAX] or the factorisable scattering amplitudes between particles in relativistic field theories [@ZAM].
A classification of the solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation for $R$-matrices (with an extra $q$-parameter) was performed by $q$-deformation in a given non-exceptional Lie algebra ${\cal {G}}$ [@FA; @DRI; @JIQ]. This quantum group approach permits us to reduce the problem (\[yb\]) to a linear one, in order to associate a fundamental trigonometric $R$-matrix to each Lie algebra [@BAZ; @JI] or Lie superalgebra [@BAZ1; @Zhang; @WM].
The physical understanding of vertex models includes necessarily the exact diagonalization of their transfer matrices, which can provide us information about the free energy behavior and on the nature of the elementary excitations. This step has been successfully achieved for standard Lie algebras either by the analytical Bethe ansatz [@RE], a phenomenological technique yielding us solely the transfer matrix eigenvalues, or through the quantum inverse scattering method [@QISM; @DEV; @Kulish; @MA], an algebraic technique which gives us also the eigenvectors. Usually these systems are studied with periodic boundary conditions but more general boundaries can also be included in this framework as well. Physical properties associated with the bulk of the system are not expected to be influenced by boundary conditions in the thermodynamical limit. Nevertheless, there are surface properties such as the interfacial tension where the boundary conditions are of relevance. Moreover, the conformal spectra of lattice models at criticality can be modified by the effect of boundaries [@CAR1].
Integrable systems with open boundary conditions can also be accommodated within the framework of the Quantum Inverse Scattering Method [@SK]. In addition to the solution of the Yang-Baxter equation governing the dynamics of the bulk there is another fundamental ingredient, the reflection matrices [@CHER]. These matrices, also referred as $K$-matrices, represent the interactions at the boundaries and compatibility with the bulk integrability requires these matrices to satisfy the so-called reflection equations [@SK; @CHER].
The original formalism of [@SK] was extended to more general systems in [@MEZ], where is assumed that a regular $R$-matrix satisfying the properties PT-symmetry, unitarity and crossing unitarity, one can derive an integrable open chain Hamiltonian with the right boundaries determined by the solutions of the reflection equation, $$R_{21}(x/y)K_{2}^{-}(x)R_{12}(xy)K_{1}^{-}(y)=K_{1}^{-}(y)R_{21}(xy)K_{2}^{-}(x)R_{12}(x/y),\label{re}$$ A similar equation should also hold for the $K^{+}$-matrix at the opposite boundary. When these properties are fulfilled one can follow the scheme devised in [@MEZ] and the matrix $K^{-}(x)$ is obtained by solving the Eq.(\[re\]) while the matrix $K^{+}(x)$ can be obtained from the isomorphism $$K^{-}(x)\mapsto K^{+}(x)^{{\rm t}}=K^{-}(x^{-1}\eta^{-1})V^{{\rm t}}V.\label{auto}$$ Here ${\rm t}$ stands for the transposition, $\eta$ is a crossing parameter and $V$ a crossing matrix, both being specific to each model.
At the moment, the study of general regular solutions of the reflection equations for vertex models based on $q$-deformed Lie algebras [@BAZ; @JI] has been successfully accomplished. See [@LIM1] for instance and references therein.
In reference [@WM1], families of $R$-matrices not previously foreseen by the framework of quantum groups was obtained by the baxterization of the representations of the Birman-Wenzl-Murakami algebra. In this paper we are taking into account these results in order to consider the systems which were presented as rather non-trivial extensions of Jimbo’s ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ $R$-matrix. The main interest of this work is to present families of multiparametric $K$-matrix associated with the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model, by solving its functional reflection equations. $K$-matrices for the Jimbo’s ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model was already derived in [@LIM2]. Here we re-derive these results and also present new solutions for the Jimbo’s ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model as well.
This paper has been organized as follows. In Section \[sec:R\] we present the $R$-matrices which turn out to be highly non-trivial extensions of the ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model, as presented in [@WM1]. In Section \[sec:K\] we present with some details the corresponding matrix elements of the $K$-matrix solutions. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:KC\]. In Appendix $A$ we present the solutions with a block diagonal structure compatible with the $n+1$ distinct $U(1)$ conserved charges of the ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model [@GM]. In Appendix $B$ we present a more general solution for the ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{2}^{(2)}]$ vertex model. In Appendix $C$ we present some special solutions.
The multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model\[sec:R\]
=======================================================================
In what follows we will to consider the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ $R$-matrix as derived in [@WM1] from the representations of a quotient of the braid-monoid algebra denominated Birman-Wenzl-Murakami algebra [@BW; @Mura]. In this situation, the link between braid algebra and the Yang-Baxter equation is made with the help of the baxterization procedure and the permutator, $$P=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}{\rm e}_{i,j}\otimes{\rm e}_{j,i},\label{perm}$$ where $N=2n+2$ and ${\rm e}_{i,j}$ denotes the standard $N\times N$ Weyl matrices.
In fact, by defining a new matrix ${\check{R}}_{ab}(x)=P_{ab}R_{ab}(x)$ one can rewrite the Yang-Baxter equation in a form $${\check{R}}_{12}(x_{1}){\check{R}}_{23}(x_{1}x_{2}){\check{R}}_{12}(x_{2})={\check{R}}_{23}(x_{2}){\check{R}}_{12}(x_{1}x_{2}){\check{R}}_{23}(x_{1}),\label{ybr}$$ and its solution can be rewritten as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\check{R}(x) & = & {\displaystyle \sum_{i\neq n+1,n+2}}(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})\left(x^{2}-q^{2}\right){\rm e}_{i,i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}+q(x^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2}){\displaystyle \sum_{\substack{i\neq j,j^{\prime}\\
i,j\neq n+1,n+2
}
}}{\rm e}_{j,i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,j}\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{2}q(x^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})\sum_{\substack{i\neq j,j^{\prime}\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}[(1+\kappa)\left({\rm e}_{j,i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,j}+{\rm e}_{i,j}\otimes{\rm e}_{j,i}\right)\nonumber \\
& + & (1-\kappa)\left({\rm e}_{j,i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,j^{\prime}}+{\rm e}_{i,j}\otimes{\rm e}_{j^{\prime},i}\right)]+\sum_{i,j\neq n+1,n+2}g_{i,j}(x){\rm e}_{i^{\prime},j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,j^{\prime}}\nonumber \\
& - & (q^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})\left[\sum_{\substack{i<j,i\neq j^{\prime}\\
i,j\neq n+1,n+2
}
}+x^{2}\sum_{\substack{i>j,i\neq j^{\prime}\\
i,j\neq n+1,n+2
}
}\right]{\rm e}_{j,j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{2}(q^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})[(x+1)\left(\sum_{\substack{i<n+1\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}+x\sum_{\substack{i>n+2\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}\right)\left({\rm e}_{j,j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}+{\rm e}_{i^{\prime},i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{j^{\prime},j}\right)\nonumber \\
& + & (x-1)\left(-\sum_{\substack{i<n+1\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}+x\sum_{\substack{i>n+2\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}\right)\left({\rm e}_{j^{\prime},j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}+{\rm e}_{i^{\prime},i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{j^{\prime},j^{\prime}}\right)]\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{i\neq n+1,n+2\\
j=n+1,n+2
}
}\left[b_{i}^{+}(x)\left({\rm e}_{i^{\prime},j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,j^{\prime}}+{\rm e}_{j,i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{j^{\prime},i}\right)+b_{i}^{-}(x)\left({\rm e}_{i^{\prime},j}\otimes{\rm e}_{i\; j}+{\rm e}_{j,i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{j,i}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{i=n+1,n+2}\left[c_{i}^{+}(x){\rm e}_{i^{\prime},i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i^{\prime}}+c_{i}^{-}(x){\rm e}_{i,i}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}+d_{i}^{+}(x){\rm e}_{i^{\prime},i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i}+d_{i}^{-}(x){\rm e}_{i,i^{\prime}}\otimes{\rm e}_{i,i^{\prime}}\right],\nonumber \\
\label{Rhat}\end{aligned}$$ where $i^{\prime}=N+1-i$ and $\zeta=q^{n}$. The respective Boltzmann weights $g_{i,j}(x)$, $b_{i}^{\pm}(x)$, $c_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)$ and $d_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)$ are given by $$g_{i,j}(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
(x^{2}-1)\left[(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})+x^{2}(q^{2}-1)\right]\hfill i=j,\\
(q^{2}-1)\left[\zeta^{2}(x^{2}-1)q^{t_{i}-t_{j}}-\delta_{i,j^{\prime}}(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})\right]\hfill i<j,\\
(q^{2}-1)x^{2}\left[(x^{2}-1)q^{t_{i}-t_{j}}-\delta_{i,j^{\prime}}(x^{2}-\zeta^{2})\right]\quad\quad\hfill i>j,
\end{array}\right.$$ $$b_{i}^{\pm}(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\pm q^{\widetilde{t}_{i}}(q^{2}-1)(x^{2}-1)(x\pm\zeta)\hfill i<n+1,\\
q^{\widetilde{t}_{i}}(q^{2}-1)(x^{2}-1)x(x\pm\zeta)\quad\quad\hfill i>n+2,
\end{array}\right.$$ $$c_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)=\pm\frac{1}{2}(q^{2}-1)(\zeta+1)x(x\mp1)(x\pm\zeta)+\frac{1}{2}(1+\nu\kappa)q(x^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2}),$$ $$d_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)=\pm\frac{1}{2}(q^{2}-1)(\zeta-1)x(x\pm1)(x\pm\zeta)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\nu\kappa)q(x^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2}),$$ where $\kappa=\pm1$ and the lower index $\nu=\pm1$ in the weights $c_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)$ and $d_{\nu}^{\pm}(x)$ indicates the two possible families of models. The explicit expressions for the variables $t_{i}$ and $\widetilde{t}_{i}$ are $$t_{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
i+1\qquad\hfill i<n+1,\\
n+\frac{3}{2}\qquad\hfill i=n+1,n+2,\\
i-1\qquad\hfill i>n+2,
\end{array}\right.\label{ntildet}$$ $$\widetilde{t}_{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
i+\frac{1}{2}\qquad\hfill i<n+1,\\
i-n-\frac{5}{2}\qquad\hfill i>n+2.
\end{array}\right.\label{tildet}$$
As noted in [@WM1] it is not difficult to recognize that expressions (\[Rhat\]-\[tildet\]) for the branch $\kappa=1$ and $\nu=1$ indeed reproduce the usual ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ $R$-matrix [@JI]. This means that in general the $R$-matrix should be considered as a non-trivial generalization of Jimbo’s ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model.
Now, we would like to present some useful properties satisfied by the $R$-matrix $R(x)=P\check{R}(x)$ where $\check{R}(x)$ refers to the matrix given in Eq.(\[Rhat\]). Besides regularity and unitarity this $R$-matrix satisfies the so-called $PT$ symmetry given by $$R_{21}(x)=P_{12}R_{12}(x)P_{12}=[R_{12}]^{t_{1}t_{2}}(x),\label{PT}$$ where the symbol $t_{k}$ denotes the transposition in the space with index $k$. Yet another property is the crossing symmetry, namely $$R_{12}(x)=\frac{\rho(x)}{\rho(\zeta/x)}V_{1}[R_{12}]^{t_{2}}(\zeta/x)V_{1}^{-1},\label{CRO}$$ where $\rho(x)$ is a convenient normalization $$\rho(x)=q(x^{2}-1)(x^{2}-\zeta^{2}),$$ while the only non-null entries of the normalized matrix $V$ are the minor diagonal elements $V_{i,i^{\prime}}$, namely $$V_{i,i^{\prime}}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
q^{i-1}\qquad\hfill i<n+1,\\
q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}\qquad\hfill i=n+1,n+2,\\
q^{i-3}\qquad\hfill i>n+2.
\end{array}\right.\label{vmat}$$
The multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ $K$-matrix\[sec:K\]
=====================================================================
The purpose of this work is to investigate the general families of regular solutions of the reflection equation Eq.(\[re\]). Regular solutions mean that the $K$-matrices have the general form $$K^{-}(x)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}k_{i,j}(x)\; e_{i,j},\label{KM}$$ such that the condition $k_{i,j}(1)=\delta_{i,j}$ holds for all matrix elements.
The direct substitution of the $K$ and the $R$ matrices in the reflection equation, leave us with a system of $N^{4}$ functional equations for the entries $k_{i,j}(x)$. In order to solve these equations we shall make use of the derivative method. Thus, by differentiating the equation Eq.(\[re\]) with respect to $y$ and setting $y=1$, we obtain a set of algebraic equations for the matrix elements $k_{i,j}$ involving the single variable $x$ and $N^{2}$ parameters $$\beta_{i,j}=\left.\frac{dk_{i,j}(y)}{dy}\right|_{y=1}\qquad i,j=1,2,...,N.\label{param.}$$ Although we obtain a large number of equations only a few of them are actually independent and a direct inspection of those equations, in the lines described in [@LIM2], allows us to find the branches of regular solutions. In what follows we shall present our findings for the regular solutions of the reflection equation associated with the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model. The special cases are presented in the appendices.
Non-diagonal matrix elements\[sub:Knd\]
---------------------------------------
All families of solutions have a common structure for its non-diagonal matrix elements $k_{i,j}(x)$ with $i\neq j$ and different of $k_{n+1,n+2}(x)$ and $k_{n+2,n+1}(x)$. The minor diagonal elements are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,i^{\prime}}(x) & = & q^{t_{i}-2n}\Gamma(n)^{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)^{2}k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
\qquad i & \neq & 1,n+1,n+2,N,\label{nd.1}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{N,1}(x)=q^{2n-3}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)^{2}k_{1,N}(x).\label{nd.2}$$ The elements of the first row are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,j}(x) & = & \left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
\qquad j & \neq & n+1,n+2,\label{nd.3}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{1,n+1}(x)=\left(\frac{\beta_{+}+x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.4}$$ $$k_{1,n+2}(x)=\left(\frac{\beta_{+}-x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x).\label{nd.5}$$ The elements of the first column are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,1}(x) & = & q^{t_{i}-3}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
\qquad i & \neq & n+1,n+2,\label{nd.6}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{n+1,1}(x)=q^{t_{n+1}-3}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}-\kappa\epsilon x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.7}$$ $$k_{n+2,1}(x)=q^{t_{n+2}-3}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}+\kappa\epsilon x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x).\label{nd.8}$$ The elements of the last row are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{N,j}(x) & = & \epsilon q^{n-2}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)x^{2}G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
\qquad j & \neq & n+1,n+2,\label{nd.9}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{N,n+1}(x)=\epsilon q^{n-2}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}+\epsilon q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.11}$$ $$k_{N,n+2}(x)=\epsilon q^{n-2}\left(\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,N-1}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}-\epsilon q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x).\label{nd.12}$$ The elements of the last column $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,N}(x) & = & \epsilon q^{t_{i}-n-2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)x^{2}G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
\qquad i & \neq & n+1,n+2,\label{nd.13}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{n+1,N}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{n+1}-n-2}\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}-\kappa q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.14}$$ $$k_{n+2,N}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{n+2}-n-2}\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}+\kappa q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x).\label{nd.15}$$ Moreover, the remained non-diagonal matrix elements above the minor diagonal are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,j}(x) & = & q^{t_{i}-n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
i^{\prime} & > & j,\label{nd.16}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{n+1,j}(x)=q^{t_{n+1}-n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}-\kappa\epsilon x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.17}$$ $$k_{n+2,j}(x)=q^{t_{n+2}-n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}+\kappa\epsilon x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.18}$$ $$k_{i,n+1}(x)=q^{t_{i}-n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}+x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.19}$$ $$k_{i,n+2}(x)=q^{t_{i}-n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}-x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.20}$$ while the remained non-diagonal matrix elements below the minor diagonal are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,j}(x) & = & \epsilon q^{t_{i}-2n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)x^{2}G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
i^{\prime} & < & j,\label{nd.21}\end{aligned}$$ $$k_{n+1,j}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{n+1}-2n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}-\kappa q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.22}$$ $$k_{n+2,j}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{n+2}-2n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,j}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}+\kappa q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.23}$$ $$k_{i,n+1}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{i}-2n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}+\epsilon q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.24}$$ $$k_{i,n+2}(x)=\epsilon q^{t_{i}-2n-1}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,i^{\prime}}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)\left(\frac{x\beta_{+}-\epsilon q^{n}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{nd.25}$$ where we have identified $$\begin{aligned}
G(x) & = & \frac{q^{n-1}+\epsilon}{q^{n-1}+\epsilon x^{2}},\qquad\Gamma(n)=\frac{q^{n-1}+\epsilon}{q+1},\label{nd.26}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\beta_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\beta_{1,n+1}\pm\beta_{1,n+2}\right).$$ Here we observe in Eqs.(\[nd.1\]-\[nd.26\]) the $\kappa$ dependency inherited of the $R$-matrix and the new parameter $\epsilon=\pm1$, besides the $\beta_{i,j}$ parameters.
The block diagonal matrix elements\[sub:Kd\]
--------------------------------------------
Here we also identify a common structure for the diagonal matrix elements $k_{i,i}(x)$ $(i\neq n+1,n+2)$ , namely $$\begin{aligned}
k_{i,i}(x) & = & k_{i-1,i-1}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{i,i}-\beta_{i-1,i-1}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
i & = & 2,...,n.\label{diag.1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{j,j}(x) & = & k_{j-1,j-1}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{j,j}-\beta_{j-1,j-1}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)x^{2}k_{1,N}(x),\nonumber \\
j & = & n+4,...,N.\label{diag.2}\end{aligned}$$ The central elements $k_{i,j}(x)$ $(i,j=n+1,n+2)$ satisfy a relation slightly different from Eq.(\[diag.2\]): $$k_{n+2,n+2}(x)=k_{n+1,n+1}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{n+2,n+2}-\beta_{n+1,n+1}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x),\label{cdiag.1}$$ and $$k_{n+2,n+1}(x)=k_{n+1,n+2}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{n+2,n+1}-\beta_{n+1,n+2}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)xG(x)k_{1,N}(x).\label{cdiag.2}$$
At this point we still have to find the remained matrix elements $k_{1,1}(x)$, $k_{n+1,n+1}(x)$, $k_{n+1,n+2}(x)$ and $k_{n+3,n+3}(x)$ in terms of $k_{1,N}(x)$. This issue proved to be a very difficult task, but we managed to solve it completely as follows.
From the non-diagonal elements presented above one can see that all corresponding parameters given by Eq.(\[param.\]) are determined in terms of $\beta_{1,j}$ $(j=2,...,N)$ and $\beta_{2,1}$. Taking into account the block diagonal terms, we still have to solve several cumbersome algebraic equations with five unknown and $2N$ free parameters. By inspection of these equations we can immediately see that the parameters $\beta_{1,j\text{ }}$for $j=2,..,n-1$ and $\beta_{2,1}$ are determined by $$\beta_{1,j}=\sigma(-1)^{j}\frac{\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}}{\beta_{1,j^{\prime}}},\label{beta1j}$$ $$\beta_{2,1}=-\sigma q^{3-2n}\Gamma(n)^{2}\frac{\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\beta_{1,N-1}}{\beta_{1,N}^{2}},\label{beta21}$$ where it is explicit a $n$-parity given by $\sigma=(-1)^{n}$. After these computations we made the choice $$k_{1,N}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\beta_{1,N}(x^{2}-1),\label{choice}$$ in order to simplify our presentation. Here we note from the general solution that $k_{1,N}(x)$ is an arbitrary function satisfying the regularity condition $k_{1,N}(1)=0$. Therefore, the choice Eq.(\[choice\]) does not imply any restriction as compared to the general case.
From this choice it follows appropriated expressions for $k_{1,1}(x)$ and $k_{n+3,n+3}(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,1}(x) & = & \frac{\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)G(x)}{2(q+1)q^{n}(x^{2}+1)\beta_{1,N}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ -\epsilon\sigma\sqrt{q}(x^{2}-\epsilon\sigma)\left[2(q^{n}+\sigma)+\epsilon(q-1)(x^{2}+\epsilon\sigma)\right]\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.\kappa(q+1)(q^{n}-\epsilon x^{2})\left[\left(q^{n}x^{2}-\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}\right)-\left(q^{n}x^{2}+\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right]\right\} \nonumber \\
\label{k11}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+3,n+3}(x) & = & \frac{\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)G(x)x^{2}}{2(q+1)q^{n}(x^{2}+1)\beta_{1,N}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \sqrt{q}(x^{2}-\epsilon\sigma)\left[2(q^{n}+\sigma)+\epsilon(q-1)(x^{2}+\epsilon\sigma)\right]\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.\kappa(q+1)(q^{n}-\epsilon x^{2})\left[\left(q^{n}-\kappa x^{2}\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}\right)-\left(q^{n}+\kappa x^{2}\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right]\right\} .\nonumber \\
\label{kn3n3}\end{aligned}$$ Now we have several reflection equations involving the diagonal parameters $\beta_{i,i}$ $(i\neq n+1,n+2)$, which are solved by the recurrence relations $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{i,i} & = & \beta_{i-1,i-1}+\sigma(-1)^{i}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{q+1}{q^{n+1-i}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,+3}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right),\nonumber \\
i & = & 2,...,n,\label{bii}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{j,j} & = & \beta_{j-1,j-1}-\epsilon\sigma(-1)^{j}\Gamma(n)\left(\frac{q+1}{q^{N+1-j}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,+3}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right),\nonumber \\
j & = & n+4,...,N,\label{bjj}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_{1,1}$ and $\beta_{n+3,n+3}$ are determined by Eq.(\[param.\]).
Finally, the central terms are determined by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+1,n+1}(x) & = & \frac{\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)G(x)}{4q^{n}(q+1)\beta_{1,N}}\left\{ (1-\epsilon\sigma)\sqrt{q}(q^{n}+\sigma x^{2})(x^{2}+1)\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.\kappa(q^{n}-\epsilon)(q+1)x^{2}\left[\left(q^{n}-\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}\right)-\left(q^{n}+\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.2\left(\kappa\epsilon-1\right)q^{n}(q+1)x(x^{2}-1)\beta_{+}\beta_{-}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\label{kn1n1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+1,n+2}(x) & = & \frac{\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)G(x)}{4q^{n}(q+1)\beta_{1,N}}\left(\frac{x^{2}-1}{x^{2}+1}\right)\left\{ (1+\epsilon\sigma)\sqrt{q}(q^{n}-\sigma x^{2})(x^{2}-1)\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\right.\nonumber \\
& & +\left.\kappa(q^{n}+\epsilon)(q+1)x^{2}\left[\left(q^{n}+\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}\right)-\left(q^{n}-\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.2\left(\kappa\epsilon+1\right)q^{n}(q+1)x(x^{2}+1)\beta_{+}\beta_{-}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\label{kn1n2}\end{aligned}$$ from which we can get the central parameters $$\beta_{n+2,n+1}=\beta_{n+1,n+2}+2\left(\kappa\epsilon+1\right)\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right),\label{bn2n1}$$ $$\beta_{n+2,n+2}=\beta_{n+1,n+1}+2\left(\kappa\epsilon-1\right)\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(n)\left(\frac{\beta_{+}\beta_{-}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right),\label{bn2n2}$$ and then we can find the last parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{1,N} & = & \frac{\sqrt{q}\ (q^{n}-\epsilon)\Gamma(n)}{4q^{n}(q+1)}\left\{ 2(1-\epsilon\sigma)\sqrt{q}\beta_{1,n}\beta_{1,n+3}\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.-\kappa(q+1)\left[\left(q^{n}-\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}\right)-\left(q^{n}+\kappa\right)\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right]\right\} .\label{b1N}\end{aligned}$$ At this point almost all equations are satisfied. For the remaining equations be satisfied is necessary further to impose the constraint $$(\nu-1)\beta_{+}\beta_{-}=0.\label{ceq}$$
Concluding remarks\[sec:KC\]
============================
From the results presented above we can identify 12 families of solutions $S(\nu,\kappa,\epsilon)$ of the the multiparametric ${\cal {U}}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model. For $\nu=1$ we obtain 4 families of solutions (regarding the possibilities of $\kappa=\pm1$ and $\epsilon=\pm1$) characterized by the $n+2$ free parameters $\beta_{1,n},...,\beta_{1,2n+1}$. For $\nu=-1$ the solutions gets duplicated because of the constraint Eq.(\[ceq\]) and we obtain 8 more families of solutions (regarding the possibilities of $\kappa=\pm1$, $\epsilon=\pm1$ and the two possibilities, $\beta_{+}=0$ or $\beta_{-}=0$). In this case the solution presents only $n+1$ free parameters, of course.
We highlight furthermore that the families $S(1,1,\epsilon)$ correspond to the $K$-matrix solutions of the Jimbo’s ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model. The family $S(1,1,1)$ was already found by Lima-Santos in [@LIM2], while the family $S(1,1,-1)$ represents a new $K$-matrix solution for this vertex model.
In the reference [@WM1] the baxterization of the representations of the Birman-Wenzl-Murakami algebra was also used to produce multiparametric solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation invariant by quantum superalgebras. From these representations one can in principle construct new $K$-matrices via our study. Thus, new open vertex models could be derived. It would be interesting to know the type of open lattice models with both bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom that can be obtained. We hope to report on this problem in a future publication.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author Ricardo S. Vieira thanks FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) for financial support. The work of A. Lima-Santos has been supported by CNPq-Brasil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) and FAPESP.
Appendix A: The block diagonal solutions\[sec:Abd\] {#appendix-a-the-block-diagonal-solutionssecabd .unnumbered}
===================================================
As was already mentioned in [@GM], the ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex models have $n+1$ distinct $U(1)$ conserved charges, and the $K$-matrix ansatz compatible with these symmetries is a block diagonal structure.
Looking for the general solution of the corresponding reflection equation we find that the only possible solution is obtained when the two recurrence relations Eq.(\[diag.1\]) and Eq.(\[diag.2\]) are degenerated into $k_{1,1}(x)$ and into $k_{N,N}(x)$, respectively. Thus, the block diagonal structure has the form $$K(x)={\rm diag}\left(k_{1,1}(x),\cdots,k_{1,1}(x),{\cal B}(x),k_{N,N}(x),\cdots,k_{N,N}(x)\right),\label{A.1}$$ $\ $where ${\cal B}$ contains the central elements, $${\cal B}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cc}
k_{n+1,n+1}(x) & k_{n+1,n+2}(x)\\
k_{n+2,n+1}(x) & k_{n+2,n+2}(x)
\end{array}\end{array}\right).\label{A.2}$$ The solution can be obtained by the same procedure described before and in what follows we only quote the final results.
We have found two solutions for any value of $n$. The first solution is given by $$k_{N,N}(x)=\frac{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)(x^{2}+1)+\beta_{n+1,n+2}(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)(x^{2}-1)}{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)(x^{2}+1)-\beta_{n+1,n+2}(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)(x^{2}-1)}x^{2}k_{1,1}(x),\label{A.3}$$ with central elements $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+1,n+2}(x) & = & k_{n+2,n+1}(x)\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\beta_{n+1,n+2}x^{2}(x^{2}-1)(q^{2n}-1)k_{1,1}(x)}{(\kappa\nu x^{2}+q^{n})\left[(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)(x^{2}+1)-\beta_{n+1,n+2}(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)(x^{2}-1)\right]},\nonumber \\
\label{A.4}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+1,n+1}(x) & = & \frac{x(x^{2}+1)\left[(q^{2n}-1)x+(x^{2}-1)\Sigma(n)\right]k_{1,1}(x)}{(\kappa\nu x^{2}+q^{n})\left[(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)(x^{2}+1)-\beta_{n+1,n+2}(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)(x^{2}-1)\right]},\nonumber \\
\label{A.5}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+2,n+2}(x) & = & \frac{x(x^{2}+1)\left[(q^{2n}-1)x-(x^{2}-1)\Sigma(n)\right]k_{1,1}(x)}{(\kappa\nu x^{2}+q^{n})\left[(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)(x^{2}+1)-\beta_{n+1,n+2}(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)(x^{2}-1)\right]},\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Sigma(n)=\epsilon\sqrt{\kappa\nu q^{n}\left[(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)^{2}\beta_{n+1,n+2}^{2}-(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)^{2}\right]}.\label{A.6}$$ The parameter $\epsilon=\pm1$ indicates the existence of two conjugated solutions and $k_{1,1}(x)$ can be any function that satisfies the regularity condition.
Moreover we notice that these solutions degenerate into four diagonal solutions when $\beta_{n+1,n+2}=0$, namely $$k_{n,n}(x)=\cdots=k_{2,2}(x)=k_{1,1}(x),\label{A.7}$$ $$k_{n+1,n+1}(x)=\frac{(q^{2n}-1)x+\epsilon\sqrt{-\kappa\nu q^{n}\left(q^{n}-\kappa\nu\right)^{2}}\left(x^{2}-1\right)}{\left(q^{n}+\kappa\nu x^{2}\right)\left(q^{n}-\kappa\nu\right)}xk_{1,1}(x),\label{A.8}$$ $$k_{n+2,n+2}(x)=\frac{(q^{2n}-1)x-\epsilon\sqrt{-\kappa\nu q^{n}\left(q^{n}-\kappa\nu\right)^{2}}\left(x^{2}-1\right)}{\left(q^{n}+\kappa\nu x^{2}\right)\left(q^{n}-\kappa\nu\right)}xk_{1,1}(x),\label{A.9}$$
$$k_{N,N}(x)=\cdots=k_{n+3,n+3}(x)=x^{2}k_{1,1}(x).\label{A.10}$$
Here we note that the trivial diagonal solution ($K^{-}(x)={\bf I}$ and $K^{+}(x)=V^{t}V$) does not holds for this system [@MEZ].
For the second family of block diagonal solutions, in order to simplify our presentation, we made the choice $$k_{n+1,n+1}(x)=k_{n+2,n+2}(x)=\frac{1}{2}x(x^{2}+1).\label{A.11}$$ With this choice, the remained matrix elements different from zero are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,1}(x) & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu x^{2})}{x(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)^{2}}\left\{ -(x^{2}-1)\left[(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)\beta_{n+1,n+2}+2\Omega(n)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & +\left.(x^{2}+1)(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)\right\} ,\label{A.12}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
k_{N,N}(x) & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{x(q^{n}-\kappa\nu x^{2})}{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)^{2}}\left\{ (x^{2}-1)\left[(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)\beta_{n+1,n+2}+2\Omega(n)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & +\left.(x^{2}+1)(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)\right\} ,\label{A.13}\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+1,n+2}(x) & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{(x^{2}-1)}{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)^{2}}\left\{ \beta_{n+1,n+2}\left[x(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)^{2}-2\kappa\nu q^{n}(x^{2}+1)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)\Omega(n)(x-1)^{2}\right\} ,\label{A.14}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{n+2,n+1}(x) & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{(x^{2}-1)}{(q^{n}-\kappa\nu)^{2}}\left\{ \beta_{n+1,n+2}\left[x(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)^{2}+2\kappa\nu q^{n}(x^{2}+1)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & +\left.(q^{n}+\kappa\nu)\Omega(n)(x+1)^{2}\right\} .\label{A.15}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Omega(n)=\epsilon\sqrt{\kappa\nu q^{n}\left(\beta_{n+1,n+2}^{2}-1\right)}.\label{A.16}$$ In contrast to the first solution there is no way to derive a diagonal solution from these four conjugated solutions.
Appendix B: The multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{2}^{(2)}]$ vertex model\[sec:AD2\] {#appendix-b-the-multiparametric-cal-u_qd_22-vertex-modelsecad2 .unnumbered}
===================================================================================
As mentioned in the section \[sec:K\], the most general $K$-matrix associated with the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{n+1}^{(2)}]$ vertex model has $n+2$ free parameters, namely $\beta_{1,n}$, $\beta_{1,n+1}$, $...,\beta_{1,N-1}$. It is interesting to notice however that only $\beta_{1,n}$, $\beta_{1,n+1}$, $\beta_{1,n+2}$, $\beta_{1,n+3}$ and $\beta_{1,N-1}$ appears explicitly on the solution. For $n=1$, however, an ambiguity arises due to this choice of writing the solution. Indeed, one can realize that in this case some of those free parameters get confused with others (for instance, we would have $\beta_{1,n+1}=\beta_{1,N-1}$ and $\beta_{1,n+2}=\beta_{1,N}$). Therefore, it is clear that the ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{2}^{(2)}]$ vertex model should be treated separately, in order to one find its general solution.
Proceeding in this way, we shall see that the elements out of the diagonals can actually be read direct from the equations (\[nd.1\]-\[nd.25\]), of the solution presented in the section \[sec:K\], if we replace there $\beta_{1,N-1}$ by $\left(\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}\right)/\sqrt{q}$ and make $\epsilon=1$ (the choice $\epsilon=-1$ leads to the trivial solution $K(x)=0$). This means that the elements of the first row are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,2}(x) & = & \left(\beta_{+}+x\beta_{-}\right)G(x)\frac{k_{1,4}(x)}{\beta_{1,4}},\\
k_{1,3}(x) & = & \left(\beta_{+}-x\beta_{-}\right)G(x)\frac{k_{1,4}(x)}{\beta_{1,4}},\end{aligned}$$ and the elements of the first column, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,1}(x) & = & \left(\frac{\beta_{+}-\kappa x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}}\right)\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,4}}G(x)k_{1,4}(x),\\
k_{3,1}(x) & = & \left(\frac{\beta_{+}+\kappa x\beta_{-}}{\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}}\right)\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,4}}G(x)k_{1,4}(x).\end{aligned}$$ For the elements of the last row we have $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,4}(x) & = & \left(x\beta_{+}-\kappa q\beta_{-}\right)\frac{xG(x)}{\sqrt{q}}\frac{k_{1,4}(x)}{\beta_{1,4}},\\
k_{3,4}(x) & = & \left(x\beta_{+}-\kappa q\beta_{-}\right)\frac{xG(x)}{\sqrt{q}}\frac{k_{1,4}(x)}{\beta_{1,4}},\end{aligned}$$ and, on the last column, $$\begin{aligned}
k_{4,1}(x) & = & \frac{\beta_{4,1}}{\beta_{1,4}}k_{1,4}(x),\\
k_{4,2}(x) & = & \left(\frac{x\beta_{+}+q\beta_{-}}{\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}}\right)\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,4}}\frac{xG(x)}{\sqrt{q}}k_{1,4}(x),\\
k_{4,3}(x) & = & \left(\frac{x\beta_{+}-q\beta_{-}}{\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}}\right)\frac{\beta_{2,1}}{\beta_{1,4}}\frac{xG(x)}{\sqrt{q}}k_{1,4}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where, we should remember, for $n=1$ and $\epsilon=1$, we get $$G(x)=\frac{2}{x^{2}+1},\qquad\Gamma(1)=\frac{2}{q+1}.$$
Furthermore, on the main diagonal we have
$$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,1}(x) & = & 1+\frac{\Gamma(1)G(x)k_{1,4}(x)}{4\sqrt{q}\ \left(x^{2}+1\right)\beta_{1,4}^{2}}\left\{ \left(x^{2}-1\right)\left(q+1\right)^{2}\left(\beta_{+}^{2}+\kappa\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.\left[\left(x^{2}-1\right)\left(q^{2}-1\right)+4q\left(x^{2}+1\right)\right]\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\kappa\beta_{-}^{2}\right)\right\} ,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
k_{4,4}(x) & = & x^{2}+\frac{\Gamma(1)G(x)x^{2}k_{1,4}(x)}{4\sqrt{q}\ (x^{2}+1)\beta_{1,4}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \left(q+1\right)\left[\left(x^{2}q-1\right)-3\left(x^{2}-q\right)\right]\left(\beta_{-}^{2}\kappa+\beta_{+}^{2}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.\left[\left(q^{2}x^{2}+1\right)+3\left(x^{2}+q^{2}\right)\right]\left(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}\kappa\right)\right\} .\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
For the central block we can verify that the central matrix elements are still given by the Eqs.(\[cdiag.1\],\[cdiag.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
k_{3,2}(x) & = & k_{2,3}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{3,2}-\beta_{2,3}}{\beta_{1,4}}\right)G(x)xk_{1,4}(x),\\
k_{3,3}(x) & = & k_{2,2}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{3,3}-\beta_{2,2}}{\beta_{1,4}}\right)G(x)xk_{1,4}(x),\end{aligned}$$ but now we have $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,2}(x) & = & \frac{q-x^{2}}{q-1}+\frac{\Gamma(1)G(x)k_{1,4}(x)}{4\sqrt{q}\ \beta_{1,4}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \kappa\left(x^{2}+q\right)\left[(q+\kappa)(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2})-(q-\kappa)(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2})\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.4qx\left(\kappa-1\right)\beta_{+}\beta_{-}\right\} ,\label{d22.8}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,3}(x) & = & \frac{\Gamma(1)G(x)k_{1,4}(x)}{4\sqrt{q}\ (x^{2}+1)\beta_{1,4}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \kappa x(q+1)\left[(q+\kappa)(\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2})-2(q-\kappa)(\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2})\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & -\left.4q(x^{2}+1)(\kappa+1)\beta_{+}\beta_{-}\right\} .\label{d22.9}\end{aligned}$$ After we get the parameters $$\beta_{{3,2}}=\beta_{{2,3}}+2\left(\kappa+1\right)\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(1)\left(\frac{\beta_{-}\beta_{+}}{\beta_{{1,4}}}\right),\label{d22.13}$$ $$\beta_{{3,3}}=\beta_{{2,2}}+2\left(\kappa-1\right)\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(1)\left(\frac{\beta_{-}\beta_{+}}{\beta_{{1,4}}}\right),\label{d22.14}$$ and $$\beta_{2,1}=\frac{2\sqrt{q}}{q-1}\left(\frac{\beta_{+}+\beta_{-}\kappa}{\beta_{1,4}}\right)\left[1-\frac{\kappa\sqrt{q}\ \Gamma(1)\left(q-1\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{+}^{2}-\beta_{-}^{2}}{\beta_{1,4}}\right)\right],\label{d22.12}$$ $$\beta_{4,1}=\frac{\beta_{1,4}\beta_{2,1}^{2}}{\left(\beta_{+}-\kappa\beta_{-}\right)^{2}}.\label{d22.15}$$
The remained reflection equations are also constrained by the Eq.(\[ceq\]) and then we get a solution with 3 free parameters ($\beta_{1,2},\beta_{1,3}$ and $\beta_{1,4}$) for $\nu=1$ and with only 2 free parameters for $\nu=-1$.
Finally, we mention that the block diagonal and the diagonal solutions for the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{2}^{(2)}]$ vertex model can be obtained straightforward from the appendix $A$, taking into account $n=1$.
Appendix C: Special solutions\[sec:As\] {#appendix-c-special-solutionssecas .unnumbered}
=======================================
Again, from the constraint equations Eq.(\[ceq\]) we look at the possibility $\beta_{+}=\beta_{-}=0$. In this case our multiparametric $K$-matrix has the form $$K^{-}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf A}(x) & {\bf 0} & {\bf B}(x)\\
{\bf 0} & {\bf E}(x) & {\bf 0}\\
{\bf C}(x) & {\bf 0} & {\bf D}(x)
\end{array}\right),\label{KC}$$ where the ${\bf 0}^{\prime}s$ are null matrices, ${\bf A}(x)$, ${\bf B}(x)$,${\bf C}(x)$, ${\bf D}(x)$ are $n$ by $n$ matrices and $${\bf E}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
k_{n+1,n+1}(x) & 0\\
0 & k_{n+2,n+2}(x)
\end{array}\right).$$ This results in a $n$ free parameter solution. However, from this special form of the $K$-matrix we have found new solutions, in analogy with appearance of new $R$-matrices satisfied the Yang-Baxter equations.
Our first special solution does not depend on the parameters $\kappa$ and $\nu$ and its non zero matrix elements are only in the diagonals. Making $k_{1,N}(x)=\beta_{1,N}(x^{2}-1)/2$, the main diagonal block matrices are $${\bf A}(x)={\bf I}_{n\times n},\quad{\bf E}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{q-x^{2}}{q-1} & 0\\
0 & \frac{q-x^{2}}{q-1}
\end{array}\right),\text{\quad}{\bf D}(x)=x^{2}{\bf I}_{n\times n}$$ where ${\bf I}_{n\times n}$ is the $n$ by $n$ unity matrix. The minor diagonal matrix elements are $$\begin{aligned}
({\bf B})_{i,j} & = & \frac{1}{2}\beta_{i,j}(x^{2}-1)\delta_{j,i^{\prime},}\quad i=1,2,...,n,\nonumber \\
({\bf C})_{i,j} & = & \frac{1}{2}\beta_{i,j}(x^{2}-1)\delta_{j,i^{\prime}},\quad i=n+3,...,N,\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\beta_{i,j}$ are related by $$\beta_{i,i^{\prime}}\beta_{i^{\prime},i}=\frac{4q}{(q-1)^{2}},\qquad i=1,2,...,n.$$ It means that we have found a new $n$ free parameter solution which has the form of the letter X.
A second special solution was obtained when $n=2$, that is, for the multiparametric ${\cal U}_{q}[D_{3}^{(2)}]$ vertex model. In this case follows from the Eq.(\[KC\]) that the $K$-matrix has the form $$K^{-}(x)=\begin{pmatrix}\begin{array}{cc}
k_{1,1}(x) & k_{1,2}(x)\\
k_{2,1}(x) & k_{2,2}(x)
\end{array} & 0 & 0 & \begin{array}{cc}
k_{1,5}(x) & k_{1,6}(x)\\
k_{2,5}(x) & k_{2,6}(x)
\end{array}\\
0 & k_{3,3}(x) & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & k_{4,4}(x) & 0\\
\begin{array}{cc}
k_{5,1}(x) & k_{5,2}(x)\\
k_{6,1}(x) & k_{6,2}(x)
\end{array} & 0 & 0 & \begin{array}{cc}
k_{5,5}(x) & k_{5,6}(x)\\
k_{6,5}(x) & k_{6,6}(x)
\end{array}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ By solving this problem separately we can see that the elements out of the diagonals can be read directly from the solution presented on the section (\[sec:K\]), provided we set there $n=2$ and $\epsilon=-1$. This means we have $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,2}(x) & = & \frac{\beta_{1,2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{2,1}(x) & = & \frac{\beta_{2,1}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{1,5}(x) & = & \frac{\beta_{1,5}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{2,6}(x) & = & -\frac{\beta_{1,5}x^{2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{q\beta_{1,6}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_{5,1}(x) & = & \frac{q\beta_{1,2}\beta_{2,1}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,5}\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{6,2}(x) & = & -\frac{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{2,1}x^{2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,5}\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{5,6}(x) & = & -\frac{\beta_{1,2}x^{2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}},\\
k_{6,5}(x) & = & -\frac{\beta_{2,1}x^{2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}},\end{aligned}$$ where now $\beta_{2,1}$ is given by $$\beta_{2,1}=\left(\frac{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{1,5}}{q\beta_{1,6}}-\frac{2}{q-1}\right)\frac{\beta_{1,5}}{\beta_{1,6}}.$$
On the minor diagonal, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,5}(x) & = & -\frac{\beta_{2,1}k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,2}},\\
k_{5,2}(x) & = & -\frac{q\beta_{1,2}\beta_{2,1}k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{1,5}^{2}},\\
k_{6,1}(x) & = & -\frac{q\beta_{2,1}^{2}k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,5}^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the elements of the principal diagonal, the ansatz Eqs.(\[diag.1\],\[diag.2\]) still holds, so that we have $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,2}(x) & = & k_{1,1}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{2,2}-\beta_{1,1}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\\
k_{6,6}(x) & = & k_{5,5}(x)+\left(\frac{\beta_{6,6}-\beta_{5,5}}{\beta_{1,N}}\right)x^{2}G(x)k_{1,N}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where now $$\begin{aligned}
k_{2,2}(x) & = & 1+\frac{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{1,5}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}^{2}},\\
k_{5,5}(x) & = & x^{2}+\frac{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{1,5}x^{2}G(x)k_{1,6}(x)}{\beta_{1,6}^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the central block we have $$k_{4,4}(x)=k_{3,3}(x)=\frac{1}{q-1}+\left(\frac{q^{2}-x^{2}}{q-x^{2}}\right)\frac{\beta_{1,2}\beta_{1,5}k_{1,6}(x)}{q\beta_{1,6}^{2}}.$$ In this way we obtain a solution which is valid to any value of $\kappa$ and $\nu$ and which is characterized by the free parameters $\beta_{1,2}$, $\beta_{1,5}$ and $\beta_{1,6}$.
To conclude we mention that this special solution was suggested by the existence of the “almost unitary” solution $$K^{-}(x)={\rm diag}(x^{-2},1,1,1,x^{2}),\label{A.17}$$ previously presented in [@GM], which is valid only to this particular model as well.
[10]{} R.J. Baxter, [*“Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press, New York, 1982.*]{}
A.B. Zamolodchikov and AI.B. Zamolodchikov, [*Ann. Phys. 120 (1979) 253*]{}.
L.D. Faddeev, N.Y. Reshetikhin and L.A. Takhtajan, [*Algebra Analysis 1 (1987) 178*]{}.
V.G. Drinfeld, [*J. Sov. Math. 41 (1988) 898*]{}; [*Proc. Int. Math., AMS Providence 1987, vol. 1, pg. 798*]{}.
M. Jimbo, [*Lett. Math. Phys. 10 (1985) 63*]{}.
V.V. Bazhanov, [*Phys. Lett. B 159 (1985) 321*]{}.
M. Jimbo, [*Comm.Math.Phys. 102 (1986) 247*]{}.
V.V. Bazhanov and A.G. Shadrikov, [*Theor.Math.Phys. 73 (1987) 1302*]{};
R.B. Zhang, A.J. Bracken and M.D. Gould, [*Phys.Lett.B 257 (1991) 133*]{}
W. Galleas and M.J. Martins, [*Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 455*]{}.
N.Y. Reshetikhin, [*Lett.Math.Phys. 14 (1987) 235*]{}
L.D. Takhtajan and L.D. Faddeev, [*Russian Math. Surveys 34, (1979) 11.*]{}
O. Babelon, H.J. de Vega and C.M. Viallet, [*Nucl. Phys. B, 200(1982) 266*]{}.
P.P. Kulish and N.Y. Reshetikhin, [*J.Phys.A:Math.Gen. 16 (1983) L591.*]{}
M.J. Martins, [*Phys.Rev.E 59 (1999) 7220*]{}
J.L. Cardy,[* Nucl. Phys. B 275, (1986) 200.*]{}
E.K. Sklyanin, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21, (1988) 2375.*]{}
I.V. Cherednik,[* Theor. Math. Phys. 61, (1984) 977.*]{}
L. Mezincescu and R.I. Nepomechie, *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24, (1991) 17*; L. Mezincescu and R.I. Nepomechie, *Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6, (1991) 5231*.
R. Malara and A. Lima-Santos,[* J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp., (2006) P09013.*]{}
W. Galleas and M.J. Martins, [*Nucl. Phys. B 732 (2006) 444*]{}.
M.J. Martins and X.-W. Guan, [*Nucl. Phys. B 583 (2000) 721*]{}.
A. Lima-Santos, [*Nucl. Phys. B 612, (2001) 446.*]{}
J. Birman and H. Wenzl, [*Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 313 (1989) 249*]{}.
J. Murakami, [*Osaka J. Math. 24 (1987) 745*]{}.
[^1]: rsvieira@df.ufscar.br
[^2]: dals@df.ufscar.br
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
\
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India\
E-mail:
title: |
Dynamical net charge fluctuations at RHIC\
energies in STAR
---
Introduction
============
The STAR experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) provides the ability to investigate the behaviour of strongly interacting matter at high density and to study the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP). In the year 2010 (Run 10), RHIC started its Beam Energy Scan (BES) program and collided Au+Au ions from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV down to 7.7 GeV covering 112 $<$ $\mu_{B}$ $<$ 410 MeV. This allows one to access and probe broad regions of the QCD phase diagram. Event-by-event net-charge fluctuations have been proposed as an indicator of the QGP formation in heavy ion collisions. The fluctuation in net-charge depends on the squares of the charges present in the system, which depends on the state from which it originates. The system passing through a QGP phase which has quarks as charge carriers should result in a significantly different net-charge fluctuation as compared to Hadron Gas (HG). The variance of the event-by-event difference of the numbers of positive and negative particles scaled by the total charged particle multiplicity, a quantity called $\textit{D}$, should be approximately four times smaller in a QGP medium than in a gas of hadrons. The charge fluctuation is measured in terms of $ \textit{D} $ defined as : $$D=4\dfrac{\langle\delta Q^{2}\rangle}{\langle N_{ch}\rangle},$$ where $\langle\delta Q^{2}\rangle$ is the net charge variance, $Q=N_{+}-N_{-}$ and $N_{ch}=N_{+}+N_{-}$. Here $N_{+}$ and $N_{-}$ are the number of negative and positive particles, measured in specific transverse momentum $(p_{T})$ and pseudorapidity $(\eta)$ window.\
The value of $\textit{D}$ is 4 for an uncorrelated pion gas and is reduced by about 30$\%$ in the presence of resonances. For a thermal system of free quarks and gluons, the value is significantly lower and has been calculated to be $\approx$ 1. [@ebye_1; @ebye_2]\
The event-by-event net-charge fluctuations have also been estimated by calculating the quantity $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ defined as: [@b2; @pruneau; @monika; @prc] : $$\nu_{+-,dyn}=\dfrac{\langle N_{+}(N_{+}-1)\rangle}{\langle N_{+}\rangle^{2}}+\dfrac{\langle N_{-}(N_{-}-1)\rangle}{\langle N_{-}\rangle^{2}}
-2\dfrac{\langle N_{-}N_{+}\rangle}{\langle N_{+}\rangle\langle N_{-}\rangle}$$ which is a measure of the relative correlation of $+$$+$, $-$ $-$ and $+$$-$ pairs. The $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ has been found to be robust against experimental inefficiencies [@robust]. The value of *D* is related to $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ as : $$\langle N_{ch}\rangle \nu_{+-,dyn}=D-4 .$$
Analysis Details and Results
============================
The measurements of net-charge fluctuations as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27 and 39 GeV data collected in years 2010 and 2011 by the STAR experiment are reported. For this analysis, we use charged
![ Dynamical net-charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+-,dyn}$, of charged particles as a function of number of participating nucleons, $\langle N_{part}\rangle$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](icpaqgp_fig/sep14_nudyn.pdf){width="80mm"}
particle tracks from the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) for -0.5 $<$ $\eta$ $<$ 0.5 with transverse momenta in the range 0.2 $<$ $p_{T}$ $<$ 5.0 GeV/$c$. For the
![Dynamical net-charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+-,dyn}$, scaled with the average number of participating nucleons as a function of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](icpaqgp_fig/sep14_scaling.pdf){width="80mm"}
centrality selection, the uncorrected multiplicity of charged particles within 0.5 $<$ $|\eta|$ $<$ 1.0 is used in order to avoid the autocorrelation between the centrality definition and the $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ observable.\
Figure \[fig1\] shows the measurements of $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27 and 39 GeV as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $\langle N_{part}\rangle$. It also includes the previous results from STAR at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 130 and 62.4 GeV, and ALICE results for Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV [@monika; @alice]. The uncertainties shown are only statistical. In all cases, the values of $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ are negative indicating the dominance of the correlation between positive and negative charged particles. The strength of the correlation decreases while going from peripheral to central collisions. Also, the magnitude of fluctuations decreases as the beam energy increases.\
Figure \[fig2\] shows $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ scaled with the average number of participating nucleons, $N_{part}\nu_{+-,dyn}$, as a function of $\langle N_{part}\rangle$. The measured data scaled by the number of participating nucleons exhibits either a weak or no centrality dependence at all of the measured energies.\
The magnitude of the net-charge correlations is affected by the global charge
![$\langle N_{ch}\rangle \nu_{+-,dyn}^{corr}$ (left-axis) and $D$ (right-axis) as a function of beam energy for 0-5% collisions. The theoretical predictions for a Pion Gas, HG and a QGP are also indicated. Systematic uncertainties are not yet included.[]{data-label="fig3"}](icpaqgp_fig/sep16_dval.pdf){width="100mm"}
conservation and the finite size of the colliding system. The contribution of the global charge conservation effect is estimated to be -4/$\langle N_{total}\rangle$, [@pruneau] where $\langle N_{total}\rangle$ is the average number of charged particles produced over the full phase space. The corrected value of $\nu_{+-,dyn}$ is calculated as $$\nu_{+-,dyn}^{corr} = \nu_{+-,dyn} + \dfrac{4}{\langle N_\mathrm{{total}}\rangle}$$ Here the $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ is the efficiency corrected average charged particle multiplicity for Au+Au collisions. Both $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ and $\langle N_{total}\rangle$ have been estimated from the PHOBOS experiment data [@phobos_ntot]. Figure \[fig3\] shows $\langle N_{ch}\rangle \nu_{+-,dyn}^{corr}$ along left y-axis and $D$ along right y-axis as a function of the colliding energy for 0-5% central collisions within $|\eta|$ $<$ 0.5. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The theoretical predictions for Pion Gas, Hadron Resonance Gas and QGP have also been displayed in the figure. It can be observed that the net-charge fluctuations corrected for the global charge conservation when scaled with $\langle N_{ch}\rangle$ decrease with increases in the beam energy. The $D$ measure linearly decreases with increasing energy. The net-charge fluctuations observables approach the expectation for a Pion Gas as the beam energy decreases.\
In summary, we report recent results of the net-charge fluctuations for Au+Au collisions at 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27 and 39 GeV. There is a monotonic reduction in the magnitude of dynamical net-charge fluctuations with increasing number of participants. Dynamical net-charge fluctuations are observed to follow approximate $N_{part}$ scaling. Top 5% central collisions results show that $\langle N_{ch}\rangle \nu_{+-,dyn}^{corr}$ generally decreases with increasing colliding energy.
[20]{} S. Jeon, V. Koch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5435 (1999). S. Jeon, V. Koch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2076 (2000). J. Adams *et al.* \[STAR Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. C 68, 044905 (2003). C. Pruneau, S. Gavin, S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044904 (2002). B.I. Abelev *et al.* \[STAR Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. C 79,024906 (2009). Bhanu Sharma, Madan M. Aggarwal, Nihar Ranjan Sahoo and Tapan K. Nayak,\
Phys. Rev. C. 91, 024909 (2015) J. Nystrand, E. Stenlund, H. Tydesjo, Phys. Rev. C68, 034902 (2003). B. Abelev *et al.* (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 152301 (2013). B. Adler *et al.* (PHOBOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 83 024913 (2011).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'G. Weiglein'
title: SUSY in the Light of Physics and Electroweak Precision Observables
---
Introduction
============
Phenomenological analyses of supersymmetry (SUSY) often make simplifying assumptions that drastically reduce the dimensionality of the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM). One assumption that is frequently employed is that (at least some of) the soft SUSY-breaking parameters are universal at some high input scale, before renormalisation. One model based on this simplification is the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), in which all the soft SUSY-breaking scalar masses $m_0$ are assumed to be universal at the GUT scale, as are the soft SUSY-breaking gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and trilinear couplings $A_0$. The assumption that squarks and sleptons with the same gauge quantum numbers have the same masses is motivated by the absence of identified supersymmetric contributions to flavour-changing neutral interactions and rare decays. Universality between squarks and sleptons with different gauge interactions may be motivated by some GUT scenarios [@GUTs]. However, the universality of the soft SUSY-breaking contributions to the Higgs scalar masses is less motivated, and is relaxed in the non-universal Higgs model (NUHM) [@NUHM1; @NUHM2; @NUHMother].
In a combined $\chi^2$ analysis has been performed of electroweak precision observables (EWPO), going beyond previous such analyses [@ehow3; @ehow4] (see also ), and of $B$-physics observables (BPO), including some that have not been included before in comprehensive analyses of the SUSY parameter space (see, however, ). The set of EWPO included in the analysis of are the $W$ boson mass $\MW$, the effective leptonic weak mixing angle $\sweff$, the total $Z$ boson width $\Ga_Z$ (using for these three observables the recent theory predictions obtained in ), the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $(g-2)_\mu$ (based on , see for recent reviews), and the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson $\Mh$ (obtained from the program [FeynHiggs]{} [@feynhiggs; @mhiggslong; @mhcpv]). In addition, four BPO are included: the branching ratios $\br(b \to s \ga)$ (based on the results of , incorporating also the latest SM corrections provided in ), $\br(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ (based on results from , which are in good agreement with ) and $\br(B_u \to \tau \nu_\tau)$ (based on ), and the $B_s$ mass mixing parameter $\De M_{B_s}$ (based on ).
For the evaluation of the BPO minimal flavor violation (MFV) at the electroweak scale is assumed. Non-minimal flavor violation (NMFV) effects can be induced by RGE running from the high scale, see e.g. , that may amount to $\sim 10\%$ of the SUSY corrections. These additional contributions are neglected in the present analysis.
For each observable, the $\chi^2$ function is constructed including both theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties, as well as statistical errors [@ehoww]. The analysis is carried out in the CMSSM and the NUHM, taking into account the fact that the cold dark matter density is known from astrophysics and cosmology with an uncertainty smaller than $10~\%$ [@WMAP], effectively reducing the dimensionality of the parameter space by one. The combined $\chi^2$ function for the EWPO and the BPO is investigated in the CMSSM and the NUHM. For the CMSSM furthermore indirect constraints on the lightest Higgs-boson mass, $\Mh$, are discussed.
CMSSM analysis including EWPO and BPO {#sec:cmssm}
=====================================
In we show for the CMSSM the combined $\chi^2$ values for the EWPO and BPO, computed as described in , for $\tb = 10$ (upper panel) and $\tb = 50$ (lower panel). We see that the global minimum of $\chi^2 \sim 4.5$ for both values of $\tb$. This is quite a good fit for the number of experimental observables being fitted. There is a slight tension between the EWPO, which show a preference for small $m_{1/2}$, and the BPO, which do not exhibit this behaviour, see for a more detailed discussion. For both values of $\tb$, the focus-point region is disfavoured by comparison with the coannihilation region, though this effect is less important for $\tb = 50$. For $\tb = 10$, $m_{1/2} \sim 300 \gev$ and $A_0 > 0$ are preferred, whereas, for $\tb = 50$, $m_{1/2} \sim 600 \gev$ is preferred, and there is a slight preference for $A_0 < 0$. This change-over is largely due to the impact of the LEP $\Mh$ constraint for $\tb = 10$ and the $b \to s \ga$ constraint for $\tb = 50$.
![The combined $\chi^2$ function for the electroweak observables $\MW$, $\sweff$, $\Ga_Z$, $(g - 2)_\mu$, $\Mh$, and the $b$ physics observables $\br(b \to s \ga)$, $\br(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-)$, $\br(B_u \to \tau \nu_\tau)$ and $\De M_{B_s}$, evaluated in the CMSSM for $\tb = 10$ (upper plot) and $\tb = 50$ (lower plot) for various discrete values of $A_0$. We use $\mt = 171.4 \pm 2.1 \gev$ and $\mb(\mb) = 4.25 \pm 0.11 \gev$, and $m_0$ is chosen to yield the central value of the cold dark matter density indicated by WMAP and other observations for the central values of $\mt$ and $\mb(\mb)$.[]{data-label="fig:chi"}](ehow5.CHI11a.1714.cl.eps "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![The combined $\chi^2$ function for the electroweak observables $\MW$, $\sweff$, $\Ga_Z$, $(g - 2)_\mu$, $\Mh$, and the $b$ physics observables $\br(b \to s \ga)$, $\br(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-)$, $\br(B_u \to \tau \nu_\tau)$ and $\De M_{B_s}$, evaluated in the CMSSM for $\tb = 10$ (upper plot) and $\tb = 50$ (lower plot) for various discrete values of $A_0$. We use $\mt = 171.4 \pm 2.1 \gev$ and $\mb(\mb) = 4.25 \pm 0.11 \gev$, and $m_0$ is chosen to yield the central value of the cold dark matter density indicated by WMAP and other observations for the central values of $\mt$ and $\mb(\mb)$.[]{data-label="fig:chi"}](ehow5.CHI11b.1714.cl.eps "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}
In we display the total $\chi^2$ functions for $\Mh$, as calculated in the CMSSM for $\tb = 10$ (upper panel) and $\tb = 50$ (lower panel) including the information from all EWPO and BPO, [*except*]{} from the direct Higgs search at LEP. This corresponds to the fitted value of $\Mh$ in the CMSSM. In the case of the SM, it is well known that tension between the lower limit on $\Mh$ from the LEP direct search and the relatively low value of $\Mh$ preferred by the EWPO has recently been increasing [@LEPEWWG; @TEVEWWG]. shows that this tension is significantly reduced within the CMSSM, particularly for $\tb = 50$. We see that all data (excluding $\Mh$) favour a value of $\Mh \sim 110 \gev$ if $\tb = 10$ and $\Mh \sim 115 \gev$ if $\tb = 50$. On the other hand, the currently best-fit value for the SM Higgs boson of $\MHSM$ is $76 \gev$ [@LEPEWWG], i.e. substantially below the SM LEP bound of $114.4 \gev$ [@LEPHiggsSM]. Our results for the indirect constraints on $\Mh$ have meanwhile been confirmed by a more elaborate $\chi^2$ fit where all CMSSM parameters and the constraint from the dark matter relic density are included in the fit [@mastercode].
In we have also determined the total $\chi^2$ functions for $\Mh$ based on the information from all EWPO and BPO, [*including*]{} the limit from the direct Higgs search at LEP. In this case the favoured $\Mh$ value for $\tb = 10$ is increased by $\sim 5 \gev$, whereas the difference is only $\sim 1 \gev$ if $\tb = 50$.
![The combined $\chi^2$ function for $\Mh$, as obtained from a combined analysis of all EWPO and BPO [*except*]{} the LEP Higgs search, as evaluated in the CMSSM for $\tb = 10$ (upper plot) and $\tb = 50$ (lower plot) for various discrete values of $A_0$. We use $\mt = 171.4 \pm 2.1 \gev$ and $\mb(\mb) = 4.25 \pm 0.11 \gev$, and $m_0$ is chosen to yield the central value of the cold dark matter density indicated by WMAP and other observations for the central values of $\mt$ and $\mb(\mb)$.[]{data-label="fig:noLEPMh"}](ehow5.Mh13a.1714.cl.eps "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![The combined $\chi^2$ function for $\Mh$, as obtained from a combined analysis of all EWPO and BPO [*except*]{} the LEP Higgs search, as evaluated in the CMSSM for $\tb = 10$ (upper plot) and $\tb = 50$ (lower plot) for various discrete values of $A_0$. We use $\mt = 171.4 \pm 2.1 \gev$ and $\mb(\mb) = 4.25 \pm 0.11 \gev$, and $m_0$ is chosen to yield the central value of the cold dark matter density indicated by WMAP and other observations for the central values of $\mt$ and $\mb(\mb)$.[]{data-label="fig:noLEPMh"}](ehow5.Mh13b.1714.cl.eps "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}
NUHM analysis including EWPO and BPO {#sec:nuhm}
====================================
![The combined EWPO and BPO $\chi^2$ function for a WMAP-compatible in the NUHM (plane of ). We use $\mt = 171.4 \pm
2.1 \gev$ and $\mb(\mb) = 4.25 \pm 0.11 \gev$, and $m_{1/2}$ is adjusted continuously so as to yield the central value of the cold dark matter density indicated by WMAP and other observations for the central values of $\mt$ and $\mb(\mb)$.[]{data-label="fig:A3"}](ehow5.nuhmA311.1714.cl.eps){width=".40\textwidth"}
The NUHM has two more parameters in addition to those of the CMSSM. They characterise the degree of non-universality of the two Higgs mass parameters. After imposing the electroweak vacuum conditions the two parameters can be traded for $\MA$ and $\mu$. It has been pointed out in that $m_{1/2}$ or $\mu$ can be varied such that (essentially) the whole is compatible with the WMAP constraint on the dark matter relic density.
shows the combined EWPO and BPO $\chi^2$ function for a in the NUHM (called plane in ) with $m_0 = 800 \gev$ and $\mu = 1000 \gev$, where $m_{1/2}$ is chosen to vary across the plane so as to maintain the WMAP relationship with $\MA$: $$\frac{9}{8} \MA - 12.5 \gev \le m_{1/2} \; \le \frac{9}{8} \MA +
37.5\gev.
\label{A3}$$ The best-fit point in this example has $\MA \sim 440 \gev$ and $\tb \sim 50$. It has $\chi^2 = 7.1$, which is slightly worse than the CMSSM fits in . We also display the $\De \chi^2 = 2.30$ and 4.61 contours, which would correspond to the 68 % and 95 % C.L. contours in the the overall likelihood distribution, $\cL \propto e^{-\chi^2/2}$, was Gaussian. This is clearly only roughly the case in this analysis, but these contours nevertheless give interesting indications on the preferred region in the . No results are shown in the upper right corner of the plane (with high $\MA$ and high $\tb$) because there the relic density is low compared to the preferred WMAP value. The lower left portion of the plane is missing because of the finite resolution of our scan.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author thanks J. Ellis, S. Heinemeyer, K. Olive and A. Weber for collaboration on the results presented in this paper. Work supported in part by the European Community’s Marie-Curie Research Training Network under contract MRTN-CT-2006-035505 ‘Tools and Precision Calculations for Physics Discoveries at Colliders’.
[999]{}
J. Ellis, S. Kelley and D. Nanopoulos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 260**]{} (1991) 131;\
U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Furstenau, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 260**]{} (1991) 447;\
C. Giunti, C. Kim and U. Lee, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 6**]{} (1991) 1745. J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 539**]{} (2002) 107, hep-ph/0204192. J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and Y. Santoso, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 652**]{} (2003) 259, hep-ph/0210205. V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino, J. Ellis, N. Fornengo, G. Mignola and S. Scopel, [*Astropart. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (1996) 1, hep-ph/9508249;\
M. Drees, M. Nojiri, D. Roy and Y. Yamada, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 56**]{} (1997) 276, \[Erratum-ibid. [**D 64**]{} (1997) 039901\], hep-ph/9701219;\
M. Drees, Y. Kim, M. Nojiri, D. Toya, K. Hasuko and T. Kobayashi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 63**]{} (2001) 035008, hep-ph/0007202;\
P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 56**]{} (1997) 2820, hep-ph/9701301;\
A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and S. Scopel, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 63**]{} (2001) 125003, hep-ph/0010203;\
S. Profumo, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 68**]{} (2003) 015006, hep-ph/0304071;\
D. Cerdeno and C. Munoz, [*JHEP*]{} [**0410**]{} (2004) 015, hep-ph/0405057;\
H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and X. Tata, [*JHEP*]{} [**0507**]{} (2005) 065, hep-ph/0504001. J. Ellis, S. Heinemeyer, K.A. Olive, A.M. Weber and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP*]{} [**0708**]{} (2007) 083, arXiv:0706.0652 \[hep-ph\]. J. Ellis, S. Heinemeyer, K. Olive and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP*]{} [**0502**]{} (2005) 013, hep-ph/0411216. J. Ellis, S. Heinemeyer, K. Olive and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP*]{} [**0605**]{} (2006) 005, hep-ph/0602220. J. Ellis, K. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. Spanos, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 69**]{} (2004) 095004, hep-ph/0310356;\
B. Allanach and C. Lester, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 73**]{} (2006) 015013, hep-ph/0507283;\
B. Allanach, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 635**]{} (2006) 123, hep-ph/0601089;\
R. de Austri, R. Trotta and L. Roszkowski, [*JHEP*]{} [**0605**]{} (2006) 002, hep-ph/0602028; [*JHEP*]{} [**0704**]{} (2007) 084, hep-ph/0611173; arXiv:0705.2012 \[hep-ph\];\
B. Allanach, C. Lester and A. M. Weber, [*JHEP*]{} [**0612**]{} (2006) 065, hep-ph/0609295; arXiv:0705.0487 \[hep-ph\].
G. Isidori, F. Mescia, P. Paradisi and D. Temes, hep-ph/0703035;\
M. Carena, A. Menon and C. Wagner, arXiv:0704.1143 \[hep-ph\]. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, D. Stöckinger, A.M. Weber and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP *]{} [**08**]{} (2006) 052, hep-ph/0604147. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, A.M. Weber and G. Weiglein, arXiv:0710.2972 \[hep-ph\]. S. Heinemeyer, D. Stöckinger and G. Weiglein, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 690**]{} (2004) 62, hep-ph/0312264. S. Heinemeyer, D. Stöckinger and G. Weiglein, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 699**]{} (2004) 103, hep-ph/0405255. M. Passera, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**155**]{} (2006) 365, hep-ph/0509372;\
D. Stöckinger, [*J. Phys.*]{} [**G 34**]{} (2007) R45, hep-ph/0609168;\
J. Miller, E. de Rafael and B. Roberts, hep-ph/0703049;\
F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/0703125. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, [*Comp. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**124**]{} 2000 76, hep-ph/9812320. The code is accessible via [http://www.feynhiggs.de]{} .
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C 9**]{} (1999) 343, hep-ph/9812472. M. Frank, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP*]{} [**02**]{} (2007) 047, hep-ph/0611326;\
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 652**]{} (2007) 300, arXiv:0705.0746 \[hep-ph\]. P. Cho, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 54**]{}, 3329 (1996), hep-ph/9601360;\
A. Kagan and M. Neubert, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C 7**]{} (1999) 5, hep-ph/9805303;\
A. Ali, E. Lunghi, C. Greub and G. Hiller, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 66**]{} (2002) 034002, hep-ph/0112300;\
G. Hiller and F. Krüger, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 69**]{} (2004) 074020, hep-ph/0310219;\
M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste and C. Wagner, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 499**]{} (2001) 141, hep-ph/0010003;\
D. Demir and K. Olive, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 65**]{} (2002) 034007, hep-ph/0107329;\
T. Hurth, hep-ph/0212304;\
K. Adel and Y. Yao, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 49**]{} (1994) 4945, hep-ph/9308349;\
C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 380**]{} (1996) 385, hep-ph/9602281; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 54**]{} (1996) 3350, hep-ph/9603404;\
K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Münz, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 400**]{}, (1997) 206 \[Erratum-ibid. [**B 425**]{} (1998) 414\], hep-ph/9612313. M. Misiak et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} (2007) 022002, hep-ph/0609232. K. Babu and C. Kolda, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{} (2000) 228, hep-ph/9909476;\
S. Choudhury and N. Gaur, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 451**]{} (1999) 86, hep-ph/9810307;\
C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Krüger and J. Urban, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 64**]{} (2001) 074014, hep-ph/0104284;\
A. Dedes, H. Dreiner and U. Nierste, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} (2001) 251804, hep-ph/0108037;\
G. Isidori and A. Retico, [*JHEP*]{} [**0111**]{} (2001) 001, hep-ph/0110121;\
A. Dedes and A. Pilaftsis, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 67**]{} (2003) 015012, hep-ph/0209306;\
A. Buras, P. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 659**]{} (2003) 3, hep-ph/0210145;\
A. Dedes, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 18**]{} (2003) 2627, hep-ph/0309233. J. Ellis, K. Olive and V. Spanos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 624**]{} (2005) 47, hep-ph/0504196. G. Isidori and P. Paradisi, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 639**]{} (2006) 499, hep-ph/0605012. G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and P. Slavich, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 635**]{} (2006) 335, hep-ph/0601135;\
E. Lunghi, W. Porod and O. Vives, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 74**]{} (2006) 075003, hep-ph/0605177. C. Bennett et al., [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**148**]{} (2003) 1, astro-ph/0302207;\
D. Spergel et al. \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**148**]{} (2003) 175, astro-ph/0302209;\
D. Spergel et al. \[WMAP Collaboration\], astro-ph/0603449. LEP Electroweak Working Group, see: [http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/Welcome.html]{}.
Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, see [http://tevewwg.fnal.gov]{}.
LEP Higgs working group, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 565**]{} (2003) 61, hep-ex/0306033. O. Buchmueller et al., arXiv:0707.3447 \[hep-ph\]. J. Ellis, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, K.A. Olive and G. Weiglein, [*JHEP*]{} [**0710**]{} (2007) 092, arXiv:0709.0098 \[hep-ph\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We use high dynamic range, high-resolution $L$-band spectroscopy to measure the radial velocity variations of the hot Jupiter in the $\tau$ Boötis planetary system. The detection of an exoplanet by the shift in the stellar spectrum alone provides a measure of the planet’s minimum mass, with the true mass degenerate with the unknown orbital inclination. Treating the $\tau$ Boo system as a high flux ratio double-lined spectroscopic binary permits the direct measurement of the planet’s true mass as well as its atmospheric properties. After removing telluric absorption and cross-correlating with a model planetary spectrum dominated by water opacity, we measure a 6-$\sigma$ detection of the planet at K$_{p}$ = 111 $\pm$ 5 km$/$s, with a 1-$\sigma$ upper limit on the spectroscopic flux ratio of 10$^{-4}$. This radial velocity leads to a planetary orbital inclination of $i$ = 45 $^{+3}_{-4}$ degrees and a mass of M$_{P}$ = 5.90 $^{+0.35}_{-0.20}$ M$_{\rm Jup}$. We report the first detection of water vapor in the atmosphere of a non-transiting hot Jupiter, $\tau$ Boob.'
author:
- 'Alexandra C. Lockwood, John A. Johnson, Chad F. Bender, John S. Carr, Travis Barman, Alexander J.W. Richert and Geoffrey A. Blake'
title: 'Near-IR Direct Detection of Water Vapor in Tau Boötis b'
---
=
Introduction
============
Since the first detection of an exoplanet around a main-sequence star [@Mayor95], astronomers have discovered hundreds of exoplanets using the radial velocity (RV) technique [@Wright12]. This powerful tool for discovering exoplanets only measures the minimum, or “indicative" mass, ${M_{\rm p} \sin{i}}$, leaving a degeneracy between two interesting properties of the system, one physical and one orbital. While the indicative mass is useful for statistical studies, uniquely measuring the true mass of an exoplanet not only yields a key physical property, but also furthers our understanding of planetary formation and evolution via measurement of the true mass distribution of exoplanets [@Zucker01; @Weiss13]. For example, @HoTurner11 demonstrate that knowledge of the true mass distribution is necessary to convert a minimum mass, ${M_{\rm p} \sin{i}}$, into an estimate of a planet’s true mass for RV-detected systems.
One class of objects for which the planet mass can be directly determined are those that transit their host star. Hundreds of transiting planets have been discovered and characterized, and the ongoing *Kepler* mission has found potential exoplanet candidates numbering in the thousands [@Borucki11; @Batalha13]. Transit events also provide atmospheric information through transmission spectroscopy and secondary eclipses. Investigators have measured spectra of some of the larger transiting planets [@Charbonneau02], leading to the discovery of species such as water, methane and carbon monoxide [@Knutson12; @Berta12; @Crossfield13; @Baskin13]. A variety of spectral retrieval methods have been used to verify the results, confirming the hypothesis that O- and C-bearing gases are present in the atmospheres of hot Jupiters [@Madhusudhan09; @Line12].
Recently, a technique previously used to detect low mass ratio, spectroscopic binary stars has been applied to stars known to host exoplanet systems. The direct RV detection of an exoplanet involves separating the planetary and stellar components spectroscopically. The high flux ratio between the primary and companion makes these detections difficult, but not impossible, thanks to modern infrared echelle spectrographs. @Snellen10 detected CO on HD209458b with a precision of 2 km/s using the R=100,000 Very Large Telescope CRIRES instrument. This detection provided the spectroscopic orbit of the system and determined the true mass of the planet. Indeed, this technique can be applied to non-transiting, RV-detected exoplanets to extract the unknown inclination and true mass. CRIRES was also used to detect CO on $\tau$ Boötis b [@Brogi12], the first ground-based detection of a short-period non-transiting exoplanet atmosphere, a result confirmed shortly thereafter by @Rodler12. These studies provide the true mass of the planet and probe the chemical composition of its atmosphere. A combination of high signal-to-noise, high spectral resolution, and coverage of multiple CO overtone lines was required to achieve the sensitivity required for these detections.
Despite the agreement between the two groups, the direct detection of exoplanets, especially $\tau$ Boob, has a storied history. @CollCam99 first reported a detection of reflected light from $\tau$ Boob more than a decade ago and @Wiedemann01 reported a possible detection of CH$_4$ in the planet’s atmosphere soon thereafter, using the same orbital solution. However, the planetary velocity from the earlier results disagrees with more recent findings discussed above.
Here we report a detection of water vapor in the atmosphere of $\tau$ Boob, using spectroscopic observations centered around 3.3 $\mu$m. The $\tau$ Boötis system is a stellar binary comprised of a F-type ‘A’ component and a M-dwarf ‘B’ component. The hot Jupiter $\tau$ Boob orbits the larger ‘A’ component with a period of 3.312 days and a minimum (indicative) mass M$\sin{i}$ = 3.87M$_{Jup}$ [@Butler97]. Our detection confirms the mass determined by @Brogi12 and serves to further characterize the atmospheric chemistry of this exoplanet. Data from five epochs reveal orbital motion of $\tau$ Boob that is consistent with that reported by @Brogi12. The planetary template spectrum used in the cross-correlation is dominated by water vapor opacity, providing strong evidence of water in the atmosphere of a non-transiting hot Jupiter for the first time.
Methods
=======
Observations and Data Reductions
--------------------------------
We observed the $\tau$ Boo system on five separate nights in March 2011, May 2011, and April 2012 (Table \[table:tau\_boo\_obs\]), chose to optimize phasing near orbital quadrature, allowing for maximum separation of stellar and planetary lines. We use the Near Infrared Echelle Spectrograph (NIRSPEC) [@Mclean95] at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which provides high resolution (R $\sim$ 25,000 for a 3-pixel slit) in multiple orders at the wavelengths of interest to study near-infrared water emission. We obtained spectra covering 3.404-3.457 $\mu$m, 3.256-3.307 $\mu$m, 3.121-3.170 $\mu$m, and 2.997-3.043 $\mu$m. Each epoch covers a total elapsed time of approximately one hour, and is comprised of a continuous sequence of hundreds of exposures.
We extract NIRSPEC spectra using a custom Interactive Data Language (IDL) optimal extraction pipeline, similar to that described by @Cushing04. The spatial profile weighting intrinsic to optimal extraction provides a reliable method for detecting and removing bad pixels due to detector defects and cosmic rays. It adjusts for seeing variations that occur over the course of an observation, and can also minimize the contamination from nearby stars that happen to fall on the slit. We have determined that the contamination from the M-dwarf companion $\tau$ BooB is negligible in all epochs of our extracted $\tau$ BooA spectra. Arc lamps typically used for wavelength calibration do not provide useful reference lines in the thermal infrared. Instead, we wavelength calibrate our spectra using unblended telluric features with accurately known rest wavelengths. Between 15 and 30 individual telluric lines are used for each order.
Date JD - 2450000 Phase (rad) $V_{bary}$ (km/s) S/N$_{3\mu m}$
------------- -------------- ------------- ------------------- ----------------
21 May 2011 5702.8542 0.3199 -17.36 6525
03 Apr 2012 6021.0625 0.3847 2.26 4768
01 Apr 2012 6019.0625 0.7810 3.02 2871
14 Mar 2011 5634.9375 0.8164 11.75 5467
24 Mar 2011 5644.9375 0.8353 7.39 6575
: L-band observations of Tau Boo b
\[table:tau\_boo\_obs\]
We first correct the bulk telluric absorption with TERRASPEC [@Bender12], a synthetic forward-modeling algorithm that uses the line-by-line radiative transfer model LBLRTM [@Clough05] to generate a synthetic absorption function for the Earth’s atmosphere (hereafter, TAF). The TAF includes continuum absorption and line absorption for 28 molecular species, with line information provided by the HITRAN 2008 database [@Rothman09]. Vertical mixing profiles for the seven most prominent species (H$_2$O, CO$_2$, O$_3$, N$_2$O, CO, CH$_4$, and O$_2$) can be scaled or adjusted from the LBLRTM default profiles, which include the US Standard 1976, tropical, midlatitude, and subartic models. These models represent the average atmosphere for their respective latitudes (in 1976), which is a good initial guess for the instantaneous atmosphere corresponding to a single observation. We use the tropical model to provide initial vertical profiles for spectroscopy obtained from Mauna Kea.
TERRASPEC convolves the TAF with an instrumental broadening profile (hereafter, IP), which is measured from the data. The IP is parameterized as a central Gaussian surrounded by satellite Gaussians offset by a fixed percentage of the Gaussian width, and with adjustable amplitudes. This is similar to the IP parameterization described by @Valenti95 for use with $\mathrm{I_2}$ absorption cells. Typically 2-4 satellite Gaussians serve to model the IP. The instrumental broadened TAF is then multiplied by a low-order wavelength dependent polynomial to correct for the combined effects of blaze sensitivity and stellar continuum. TERRASPEC uses the least-squares fitting algorithm `MPFIT` [@Markwardt09] to optimize the parameters comprising the TAF, IP, and continuum. The FWHM of the profile is consistently $1.3\times10^{-4} \mu$m, which yields $R = \lambda / \Delta \lambda = 24,000$. Spectral regions containing stellar absorption are excluded from the optimization by adaptive masks.
The initial telluric correction can be significantly affected by the instrumental fringing. We therefore mask strong stellar lines from the telluric corrected spectrum, and analyze the remaining spectral range with a Lomb-Scargle periodogram [@Scargle82] to measure the frequency and power of the individual fringes present in our spectra. Two prominent fringes are seen at $\sim$1.75 cm$^{-1}$and 2.18 cm$^{-1}$. We then calculate the composite fringe function as the product of the individual fringes, and divide it into the non-telluric-corrected spectrum. The defringed spectrum is then reprocessed with TERRASPEC, yielding the telluric-free and continuum-normalized stellar spectrum, a measurement of the TAF, and a parameterization of the IP. This process was often iterated 2-3 times to ensure full removal of fringing and telluric absorption. Regions with atmospheric transmission $\leq$40% of the continuum value, determined from the TAF, are masked and excluded from the final planet search. Figure \[fig:tell\_res\] demonstrates the telluric removal process.
![The longest wavelength order of data from 14 March 2011. *Top:* The original wavelength-calibrated data. *Middle:* Telluric-removed spectra with stellar features overlaid (dotted line). *Bottom:* Stellar- and telluric-removed spectrum.[]{data-label="fig:tell_res"}](fig1.eps)
Two-Dimensional Cross Correlation
---------------------------------
Next we use a two-dimensional cross correlation analysis, TODCOR [@Zucker94], to simultaneously extract the planetary and stellar velocity shifts. We generated a synthetic stellar model of the $\tau$ BooA spectrum using a recent version of the LTE line analysis code MOOG [@Sneden73] and the MARCS grid of stellar atmospheres [@Gustafsson08]. The input linelist was created by detailed matching of a synthetic solar spectrum to the ATMOS ATLAS-3 infrared solar spectrum [@Abrams96], starting from the solar linelist generated by Sauval [see @Hase06]. Using the MARCS solar model and solar abundances in @Grevesse07, adjustments were then made to the atomic line parameters, in particular the $gf$-values and damping constants, to fit the solar spectrum. For $\tau$ Boo, a stellar atmosphere with effective temperature T$_{\rm eff}$ = 6375 K, surface gravity $\log{g}$ = 4.0, and metallicity \[m/H\] = +0.25 was adopted, based on a review of abundance analyses in the literature. Individual abundances were set by matching observed lines for elements that were well measured by NIRSPEC (Fe, Si, Mg, Na); otherwise, an abundance of +0.25 was used.
A plane-parallel model was calculated for $\tau$ Boob using the PHOENIX stellar and planetary atmosphere code [@Barman01; @Barman05]. The planet is very hot, with an equilibrium dayside temperature between 1600–2000 K, depending on the day-to-night redistribution of incident stellar flux. Only 2$\pi$ redistribution (T$_{\rm eq}$ $\sim$2000K) was used here. With an unknown planet radius, the surface gravity was arbitrarily set to $10^4$ cm$/$sec$^{2}$. As discussed above, water lines are the primary signal we seek in the planetary spectrum and to accurately model these we use the best available water line list from the ExoMol group [@Barber06]. A final high-resolution spectral template was calculated at 10$\times$ the observed resolution ($\Delta \lambda = 0.05$ [Å]{}).
For every epoch, the target spectrum is cross-correlated to determine the cross-correlation function (CCF) for each order. The planet/star spectroscopic flux ratio is set to 10$^{-5}$, the same order of magnitude as the expected photometric contrast between the two objects. We also tested flux ratios from 10$^{-3}$ to 10$^{-7}$ and the shape of the resulting maximum likelihood function remains the same because the analysis is only weakly sensitive to the absolute contrast ratio.
Maximum Likelihood Analysis
---------------------------
To find the most likely solution, each CCF must be converted into a probability, or likelihood, $\mathcal{L}$. To do this, we start with a relationship between $\mathcal{L}$ and the familiar $\chi^{2}$ statistic $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_{i}}\prod_{i} \exp{ \left(- \frac{ \chi^{2}_{i}}{2}\right)} \nonumber \\
\log \mathcal{L} &=& \kappa - \frac{\chi^{2}}{2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\kappa$ is a constant that does not matter when comparing relative likelihoods, assuming $\sigma_{i} = \sigma = \rm{const}$. Denoting the observed spectra as $S_i$ and the template spectra as $f_i \equiv f(\lambda_i + \Delta\lambda)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{2} &=& \sum_i \frac{(S_i - f_i)^2}{\sigma^{2}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\sigma^2} \sum_i (S_i^2 + f_i^2 - 2 S_i f_i)\end{aligned}$$
Each part of the quotient can be summed individually. For a continuum-normalized spectrum with N points, this results in $$\sigma^{2} = \frac{1}{N}\sum S_{i}^2$$ $$\label{eqn:step}
\chi^{2}_{i} = \mathrm{const} - \sum \frac{S_{i} f_i}{\sigma^{2}}$$
The second term on the right-hand-side of Eqn \[eqn:step\] is simply the [CCF]{}. Thus, the [CCF]{} and $\mathcal{L}$ are related by: $$\log \mathcal{L} = \mathrm{const} + CCF$$
The goal is to maximize $\sum \log L$ for both the stellar and planetary velocity shifts, where the sum is over all spectral orders for an individual epoch. Figure \[fig:cc\_all\] (top panel) demonstrates that the stellar velocity clearly stands out as the most likely solution for one epoch, as is the case for all other epochs as well. Our NIRPSEC spectra have insufficient RV precision to be sensitive to the orbital motion of $\tau$ BooA so the stellar RV is therefore fixed at the systemic value. Barycentric movement is accounted for.
The maximum likelihood (ML) solution of the planet’s orbit is much more complex. The likelihood is proportional to the CCF, a two-dimensional surface that reflects coherence in features between template spectra and those of the target. Due to the multiplicity of rovibrational transitions in the asymmetric top spectrum of hot water, the correlation coefficient remains large ($>$0.9) over significant offsets. This results in multiple “peaks” at incorrect velocity lags, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:cc\_all\]. Thus, a single epoch would lead to a degeneracy of solutions. Fortunately, we do not worry about alignment between planet and telluric spectra because not only are the spectra very different, but the combined systemic and planetary RV shifts the planetary spectrum sufficiently to avoid collisions between spectral features.
![*A:* The ML function of the stellar velocity shift using the data from 24 March 2011. *B-F:* The ML function for the planet signal for 24 March 2011, 14 March 2011, 1 April 2012, 21 May 2011, and 3 April 2011, respectively. Note the changing sign of planetary velocities for each epoch, which are anti-correlated with the sign of the stellar RV shift. The vertical lines correspond to the velocity shift at a given epoch for an orbital solution with K$_{p}$=70 (dashed), K$_{p}$=90 (dotted), and K$_{p}$=110 km$/$s (solid).[]{data-label="fig:cc_all"}](fig2.eps)
Orbital Solution
----------------
To break the degeneracy several epochs of data must be brought to bear. Using the known period of the planet, we calculate the orbital phase of each epoch (Table \[table:tau\_boo\_obs\]) and use that to find the most likely planetary velocity consistent with a circular Keplerian orbit (the estimated planetary eccentricity is small, e $\sim$0.02, [@Butler97; @Brogi12]). Since the absolute orbital velocity of the planet is known from the period, we are actually interested in K$_{p}$, or semi-amplitude. A range of K$_{p}$ is tested, each corresponding to a different inclination of the planet, as well as a unique mass. Furthermore, each K$_{p}$ leads to a different velocity lag at a given phase, such that $$\label{eqn:planetvel}
v_{pl} = \mathrm{K}_{p} \sin(\omega~t + \phi) + \gamma$$ where $\omega = 2~\pi / P$, $\phi$ is a phase lag that can be set to zero by choosing the proper starting date, and $\gamma$ is the combined stellar barycentric and systemic velocities ($V \sin{i} $$\approx$ 15 km$/$s [@Butler06] and $V_{bary}$ listed in Table \[table:tau\_boo\_obs\]) . We then seek the best-fitting K$_p$ by maximizing the sum of the likelihood of $v_{pl}$ for all epochs, whose highest value indicates the most likely solution for K$_{p}$.
Results
=======
It is clear that the ML curve for each epoch in Figure \[fig:cc\_all\] shows multiple peaks. Only one of these peaks per epoch can be the true peak that results from the planet signal in our spectra; the other peaks are artifacts caused by chance misalignments. The molecular lines in the model water spectrum can align by chance with both signal and noise features in the observed spectra and with other molecules in the planetary atmosphere that have not been included in the planetary template. However, the true peaks can be distinguished from artifacts by requiring a multi-epoch orbital solution that is consistent with a Keplerian orbit. The dashed, dotted, and solid lines in Fig. \[fig:cc\_all\] represent the $v_{pl}$ for three Keplerian solutions with K$_{p}$ = 70 km$/$s, 90 km$/$s, and 110 km$/$s, respectively. While none correspond to the highest peak for all epochs, certain orbital solutions find peaks more often than troughs. To find the most likely orbit, the likelihoods at every epoch for a given K$_p$ are combined. The second panel in Figure \[fig:ML\_kp\] presents this composite maximum likelihood, along with the corresponding planetary mass. This function represents the sum of the log likelihoods of all five epochs. There are two peaks in the likelihood function, at K$_{p}\sim$ 70 km$/$s and 111 km$/$s. We have demonstrated empirically the degenerate effects of cross-correlating a water spectrum. Now we explore the systematics of the analysis and consider how both the properties of the individual stellar and planetary template autocorrelation functions, as well as the correlation of the two template spectra, can affect the composite likelihood function.
![The normalized log likelihood as a function of planetary velocity, K$_{p}$. *A:* Results from synthetic spectra, composed of the stellar and planetary templates, with a planetary signal injected at 70 km$/$s and analyzed with the same procedures applied to the data. *B:* The data analyzed using a planet-to-star flux ratio of 10$^{-5}$ for a water vapor around a planet with $T_{eq}$ $\sim$2000 K. *C:* Same as *A* but for a signal injected at 110 km$/$s.[]{data-label="fig:ML_kp"}](fig3.eps)
To do this, synthetic data sets are subjected to the same analysis as the original data. Synthetic target spectra of just the stellar and planetary templates are used, each shifted to the correct velocity for a given epoch. The results are given in Fig. \[fig:ML\_kp\], whose top panel shows the normalized log likelihood from a planetary spectrum injected at 70 km$/$s, with a planet-to-star flux ratio of 10$^{-5}$. The proper signal is clearly retrieved. However, the third panel shows that at an injected planetary radial velocity of 110 km$/$s and the same contrast ratio, a double-peaked log likelihood results. Thus, following exactly the same procedure as was used for the observations, a “perfect” target spectrum with no noise and no (terrestrial) atmosphere retrieves both the correct and an additional signal, with a structure that mimics the data, likely as a result of the complex hot water spectrum near 3 $\mu$m.
At a sufficiently high planet-to-star flux ratios, the true planetary signal should dominate the posterior likelihood. Indeed, using a flux ratio of 10$^{-3}$, @Birkby13 detect water absorption from another (transiting) hot Jupiter, HD189733b. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:ML\_comp\] shows that when the flux ratio of the planetary signal is increased to this level, the singular correct velocity is retrieved. We can constrain the spectroscopic contrast of $\tau$ Boob relative to its host star by comparing the data to these synthetic fits. The simulations show that for $\alpha \geq$10$^{-4}$, the correct 110 km$/$s solution should present a larger maximum likelihood. Since our data do not demonstrate this, we can put a 1-$\sigma$ upper limit on the high resolution spectroscopic flux ratio of 10$^{-4}$ at $\sim$ 3.3 microns. The left panel of Figure \[fig:ML\_comp\] shows that a planetary signal of 70 km$/$s would be uniquely retrieved for all realistic flux ratios.
Conclusions & Future Work
=========================
The detection of $\tau$ Boob has been a difficult quest. Contradictory results have been published over the past 15 years and the difficulty in both thoroughly removing the telluric absorption and also extracting the diminutive planetary signal is not to be underestimated. Multiple observations at different wavebands improve the validity of the detection, and facilitate a variety of statistical tests to ensure an accurate measurement.
Here, the validity of the most likely solutions for the RV of $\tau$ Boob are explored. Of the two prominent velocities that fit the data, one is shown to result from the systematics of the cross-correlation analysis performed on this high flux ratio spectroscopic binary system. Interestingly, previous velocity studies of the planet in reflected light [@CollCam99] and methane [@Wiedemann01] retrieved values close to this artifact. We suggest that residual water vapor in the atmosphere, after the telluric removal, might have been responsible for the false value previously reported from infrared observations. As methods for telluric corrections have improved over the past decade, this problem can be overcome and the correct radial velocity retrieved.
Our analysis gives a 6-$\sigma$ detection of the planet at K$_{p}$ = 111 $\pm$ 5 km$/$s for $\tau$ Boob, with a 1-$\sigma$ upper-limit on the 3.3 $\mu$m planet/star spectroscopic flux ratio of 10$^{-4}$. To determine the significance of our detection, we injected synthetic signals at a variety of planetary velocities and planet-to-star spectroscopic flux ratios and constructed the chi-square surface of the maximum likelihood fits. The orbital velocity is in good agreement with previous RV amplitude detections via CO by @Brogi12 and @Rodler12, and our analysis reveals the presence of water vapor in the planet’s atmosphere. Furthermore, using a stellar mass of 1.341$^{+0.054}_{-0.039}$ M$_\odot$ [@Takeda07] and a stellar velocity semi-amplitude of 0.4664 $\pm$ 0.0033 km$/$s [@Brogi12], we derive a planetary mass of M$_{P}$ = 5.90 $^{+0.35}_{-0.20}$ M$_{\rm Jup}$ with an orbital inclination of $i$ = 45 $^{+3}_{-4}$ degrees.
The technique presented here is in its nascent stages, and the work is by no means complete. Additional quantitative characterization of the physical properties (temperature, opacity) and composition (and thus estimates of vertical mixing) of $\tau$ Boob’s atmosphere will require both significant simulations of the atmospheric radiative transfer and data analysis along with additional data at longer and shorter wavelengths. Such work is beyond the scope of this letter, but expanded studies of $\tau$ Boo using the same methods described above, but also including molecules such as CH$_{4}$ and CO at longer wavelengths than examined here, are underway. Indeed, although the mole fractions of methane should be insignificant for $\tau$ Boob, we have searched for the molecule using the methods described herein and have no detection to report in our data. With careful analysis in the future, the relative abundances of these molecules in the atmospheres of non-transiting exoplanets can be ascertained. Further applications of this technique, using water and methane as template molecules, to a variety of additional hot Jupiter exoplanets will be reported elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
===============
The W.M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and NASA, and was made possible by the financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. ACL and GAB gratefully acknowledge support from the NSF GRFP and AAG programs, JAJ the generous grants from the David and Lucile Packard and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations, and CFB support from the Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds, which is supported by the Pennsylvania State University, the Eberly College of Science, and the Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium. We thank Jacques Sauval for kindly providing a copy of his solar linelist. Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the significant cultural role of the summit of Mauna Kea.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M. C., [Goldman]{}, A., [Gunson]{}, M. R., [Rinsland]{}, C. P., & [Zander]{}, R. 1996, , 35, 2747
, R. J., [Tennyson]{}, J., [Harris]{}, G. J., & [Tolchenov]{}, R. N. 2006, , 368, 1087
, T. S., [Hauschildt]{}, P. H., & [Allard]{}, F. 2001, , 556, 885
—. 2005, , 632, 1132
, N. J., [Knutson]{}, H. A., [Burrows]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 773, 124
, N. M., [Rowe]{}, J. F., [Bryson]{}, S. T., [et al.]{} 2013, , 204, 24
, C. F., [Mahadevan]{}, S., [Deshpande]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2012, , 751, L31
, Z. K., [Charbonneau]{}, D., [D[é]{}sert]{}, J.-M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 747, 35
, J. L., [de Kok]{}, R. J., [Brogi]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2013, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1307.1133
, W. J., [Koch]{}, D. G., [Basri]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2011, , 736, 19
, M., [Snellen]{}, I. A. G., [de Kok]{}, R. J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 486, 502
, R. P., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Williams]{}, E., [Hauser]{}, H., & [Shirts]{}, P. 1997, , 474, L115
, R. P., [Wright]{}, J. T., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [et al.]{} 2006, , 646, 505
, D., [Brown]{}, T. M., [Noyes]{}, R. W., & [Gilliland]{}, R. L. 2002, , 568, 377
, S. A., [Shephard]{}, M. W., [Mlawer]{}, E. J., [et al.]{} 2005, , 91, 233
, A., [Horne]{}, K., [Penny]{}, A., & [James]{}, D. 1999, , 402, 751
, I. J. M., [Barman]{}, T., [Hansen]{}, B. M. S., & [Howard]{}, A. W. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.6580
, M. C., [Vacca]{}, W. D., & [Rayner]{}, J. T. 2004, , 116, 362
, N., [Asplund]{}, M., & [Sauval]{}, A. J. 2007, , 130, 105
, B., [Edvardsson]{}, B., [Eriksson]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2008, , 486, 951
, F., [Demoulin]{}, P., [Sauval]{}, A. J., [et al.]{} 2006, , 102, 450
, S., & [Turner]{}, E. L. 2011, , 739, 26
, H. A., [Lewis]{}, N., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 754, 22
, M. R., [Zhang]{}, X., [Vasisht]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2012, , 749, 93
, N., & [Seager]{}, S. 2009, , 707, 24
, C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. [Bohlender]{}, D. [Durand]{}, & P. [Dowler]{}, 251
, M., & [Queloz]{}, D. 1995, , 378, 355
, I. S., [Becklin]{}, E. E., [Figer]{}, D. F., [et al.]{} 1995, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2475, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. A. M. [Fowler]{}, 350–358
, F., [Lopez-Morales]{}, M., & [Ribas]{}, I. 2012, , 753, L25
, L. S., [Gordon]{}, I. E., [Barbe]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2009, , 110, 533
, J. D. 1982, , 263, 835
, C. 1973, , 184, 839
, I. A. G., [de Kok]{}, R. J., [de Mooij]{}, E. J. W., & [Albrecht]{}, S. 2010, , 465, 1049
, G., [Ford]{}, E. B., [Sills]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2007, , 168, 297
, J. A., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Marcy]{}, G. W. 1995, , 107, 966
, L. M., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Rowe]{}, J. F., [et al.]{} 2013, , 768, 14
, G., [Deming]{}, D., & [Bjoraker]{}, G. 2001, , 546, 1068
, J. T., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [Howard]{}, A. W., [et al.]{} 2012, , 753, 160
, S., & [Mazeh]{}, T. 1994, , 420, 806
—. 2001, , 562, 1038
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It is conventional wisdom that staggered fermions do not feel gauge field topology. However, the response of staggered fermion eigenmodes to the topology of the gauge field can depend quite sensitively on the way in which the staggered fermion action is improved. We study this issue using a variety of improved staggered quark actions. We observe that the separation between the “would be” zero modes and the non-chiral modes increases with the level of improvement. This enables the “zero modes” to be identified unambiguously. The distribution of the remaining non-chiral modes is compared with the predictions of Random Matrix Theory. Satisfactory agreement is obtained.'
address:
- 'Physics Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, V5A 1S6'
- 'TRIUMF, 4004 Westbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 2A3'
author:
- 'Kit Yan Wong and R. M. Woloshyn'
title: Topology and Staggered Fermion Action Improvement
---
It is a long standing problem that staggered fermions do not feel gauge field topology on coarse lattices. In particular, studies of the microscopic eigenvalue spectrum of the staggered Dirac operator, upon comparison with the analytic results predicted by Random Matrix Theory (RMT), show that only the trivial topological charge sector is probed by the operator [@Damgaard2000]. On the other hand, it has been suggested that lattice artifacts, in particular flavour changing interactions associated with the staggered quark action, are the main cause for this failure and other related topological problems [@Kogut1998]. The staggered quark action describes four quark flavours in the continuum limit and the eigenvalue spectrum has a 4-fold degeneracy in this limit. At finite lattice spacing, the flavour changing interactions break the flavour symmetry and the degeneracy is lifted. Consequently, staggered fermions do not have exact zero modes at finite lattice spacing because the continuum chiral modes (if there are any) are scattered on the lattice. One thus expects staggered fermions to show better topological properties if flavour changing effects can be suppressed.
In this project, this issue is examined using a variety of improved staggered quark operators, which are designed to suppress flavour changing effects by smoothing out the quark-gluon interaction vertex [@Lepage]. We observe that the “would be” zero modes are visibly decoupled from the non-chiral modes as the level of improvement increases. The effect of changing the lattice spacing on the eigenvalue spectrum is also studied. We again observe that separation between the “zero modes” and the non-chiral modes increases as one approaches the continuum limit. This enables the “zero modes” and subsequently the gauge field topological indices to be identified. Although the charge indices obtained by using different operators do not agree on a configuration by configuration basis, the charge distributions are found to have no significant difference. Finally, distribution of the remaining non-chiral modes is compared with the predictions of RMT.
The unimproved staggered Dirac operator is $$D_{x,y} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu} \eta_{\mu}(x)
\left[ U_{\mu}(x)\delta_{x+\mu,y}-
U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(y)\delta_{x-\mu,y} \right],
\label{unimpaction}$$ where $\eta_{\mu}(x)=(-1)^{x_{1}+\ldots+x_{\mu-1}}$ is the standard fermion phase. A variety of improvement schemes are considered here. The basic improved version is the $\mathcal{O}(a^{2})$ improved Asq operator [@Orginos1999], which includes an additional 3-link Naik term and replaces the gauge field in (\[unimpaction\]) with Fat7 effective links (sum of the original link and the nearby paths, up to 7-link staples). Further improvement iterates this fattening procedure with an additional SU(3) unitarization step between successive iterations, giving the improved Asq operators $(\mathrm{UFat7})^{n}\times\mathrm{Asq}$ [@Follana2003]. The HYP-improved operators $(\mathrm{HYP})^{n}$ [@Hasenfratz2001] are constructed in the similar fashion but only those links within the hypercube containing the original link are included in the fattening process. We refer the readers to the respective papers for further details.
Simulations are done with the standard Wilson gauge field action at three values of coupling, $\beta=5.85, 6.0$ and $6.2$. About $1000$ configurations are generated for each $\beta$. The lattice sizes are $10^{4}$, $12^{4}$ and $16^{4}$ respectively so that the physical volumes are $\sim(1.2fm)^{4}$ in all cases. We compute the eigenvalues ($\lambda^{2}$) and chirality ($\chi$) of the lowest $10$ eigenstates of $-D^{2}$ for all operators listed above. The corresponding eigenvalues of $D$ are $\pm i\lambda$. Since $D^{2}$ connects either even-even or odd-odd sites on the lattice, only half of the spectrum is computed. For comparison, the lowest $5$ eigenvalues (in each chiral sector) are also computed for the overlap operator [@Neuberger1998] on the $10^4$ lattice.
\[rb\]\[rb\][unimproved]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
\[rb\]\[rb\][Asq]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
\
\[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\beta=5.85$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
\[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{HYP}$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
The effect of improvement on the eigenvalue spectrum is shown in figure \[spectrum\] where $|\chi|$ is plotted against $\lambda$ for the different operators at a fixed coupling $\beta=5.85$. It is observed that the “would be” zero modes separate from the non-chiral modes with higher level of improvement. In addition, as the level of improvement increases, the continuum 4-fold degeneracy emerges where the scattered eigenmodes begin to form quartets (remember that only half of the spectrum is computed so the data points form doublets). Note also that at this coupling the Asq operator still retains large lattice artifacts so the “would be” zero modes cannot be identified. Further improvement is required.
We next study the dependence of the eigenvalue spectrum on $\beta$. The spectra of the $\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$ operator at $\beta=6.0$ and $6.2$ are given in figure \[betaspectrum\]. Again, the “would be” zero modes are well separated from the non-chiral modes and the continuum 4-fold degeneracy is better realized as one approaches the continuum limit. To quantify the separation between the “zero modes” and the non-chiral modes, the ratio of eigenvalues between the smallest non-chiral mode and the largest “zero mode” is plotted in figure \[ratioplot\]. The ratios increase from one order of magnitude at $\beta=5.85$ to three orders of magnitude at $\beta=6.2$ for the improved staggered operators. Theoretically, the ratio is infinite for the overlap operator because exact zero modes exist on the lattice for overlap fermions. It is finite here solely because of computational precision. Results here also show that improvement using fat-links or hyper-cubic blocking are equally efficient.
\[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\beta=6.0$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
\[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\beta=6.2$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$\lambda$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$|\chi|$]{}
\[ct\]\[ct\][Configuration]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Ratio]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{HYP}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][overlap]{} \[lb\]\[lb\][$\beta=5.85$]{}
\[ct\]\[ct\][Configuration]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Ratio]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{HYP}$]{} \[lb\]\[lb\][$\beta=6.2$]{}
Because of lattice artifacts, the topological charge indices obtained by using different operators do not agree on a configuration by configuration basis. In the present case we find that the charge indices determined by using different operators agree at about 60-70%, compared to 28% if the values were completely random. It is then important to check whether the charge distributions are also different because physical observables, e.g., the susceptibility, are related to the average of the topological charge. The distributions obtained by three different operators are given in figure \[qdist\]. It can be observed that there is no significant difference among the results. Consequently, one would expect topological quantities obtained by these operators to agree.
\[lb\]\[lb\][(a)]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$Q$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Percentage]{}
\[lb\]\[lb\][(b)]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$Q$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Percentage]{}
\[lb\]\[lb\][(c)]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$Q$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Percentage]{}
Finally distribution of the remaining non-chiral modes is compared with the predictions of RMT. In particular, we focus on the cumulative distribution of the smallest non-chiral modes [@Damgaard2000]. The results are shown in figure \[rmtgraph\]. Agreement with the predictions of RMT is evident and is comparable to that obtained with overlap fermions[@bieten].
\[rb\]\[rb\][$\mathrm{UFat7}\times\mathrm{Asq}$]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\beta=5.85$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=0$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=1$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=2$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$z$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Probability]{}
\[rb\]\[rb\][overlap]{} \[rb\]\[rb\][$\beta=5.85$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=0$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=1$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][$Q=2$]{} \[ct\]\[ct\][$z$]{} \[cb\]\[cb\][Probability]{}
In summary, we have shown that the eigenvalue spectrum of the staggered Dirac operator is very sensitive to lattice artifacts. Better continuum properties are obtained by using improved staggered operators. The topological charge distributions calculated using different operators show no significant difference. Finally, distribution of the smallest non-chiral mode is compared with the predictions of RMT and satisfactory agreement is obtained.
Two related works with similar conclusions were also reported at this conference [@Follana2004].
We are very grateful to J. B. Zhang for providing the eigenvalue solver for the overlap operator and to H. Trottier for many useful discussions. The computations were performed using WestGrid facilities. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[9]{}
See P.H. Damgaard [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B **495**, 263 (2002), and references therein.
J.B. Kogut, J.F. Lagaë and D.K. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 054504 (1998).
G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D **59**, 074502 (1999).
K. Orginos, D. Toussaint and R.L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D **60**, 054503 (1999).
HPQCD Collaboration, E. Follana [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.Suppl.) **129**, 447 (2004).
A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev. D **64**, 034504 (2001).
H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. B **417**, 141 (1998).
W. Bietenholz, S. Shcheredin and K. Jansen, JHEP **07**, 033 (2003).
E. Follana, A. Hart and C.T.H. Davies, hep-lat/0406010; S. Dürr, C. Hoelbling and U. Wenger, hep-lat/0406027.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The formation and destruction of topologically quantized magnetic whirls, so-called skyrmions, in chiral magnets is driven by the creation and motion of singular hedgehog defects. These can be identified with emergent magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles. We investigate how the energetics of and forces between monopoles and antimonopoles influence their creation rate and dynamics. We study a single skyrmion line defect in the helical phase using both micromagnetic simulations and a Ginzburg-Landau analysis. Monopole-antimonople pairs are created in a thermally activated process, largely controlled by the (core) energy of the monopole. The force between monopoles and antimonopoles is linear in distance and described by a string tension. The sign and size of the string tension determines the stability of the phases and the velocity of the monopoles.'
author:
- Christoph Schütte
- Achim Rosch
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Dynamics and energetics of emergent magnetic monopoles in chiral magnets
---
Small magnetic fields and thermal fluctuations can stabilize in chiral magnets lattices of magnetic whirls, so-called skyrmions [@muhlbauer2009skyrmion]. A skyrmion line is characterized by its topological property: the magnetization winds once around the unit-sphere for each plane cutting the line defect. This topological property is at the heart of a number of interesting properties of skyrmions [@fert2013skyrmions; @schulz2012emergent; @do2009skyrmions; @zang2011dynamics; @jonietz2010spin]. It is, for example, the main reason for a highly efficient coupling of the magnetic structure to electric currents: When an electron spin follows the local magnetization it picks up a Berry phase.
![(color online) a) Initial magnetic configuration: a skyrmion oriented along a (-1,-1,2) direction embedded into a helical phase. b-d) The skyrmion unwinds by the creation of a monopole-antimonopole pair which move apart (c.f. Fig. \[fig2\]a).\[fig1\]](overall.png "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}\
![(color online) a) Initial magnetic configuration: a skyrmion oriented along a (-1,-1,2) direction embedded into a helical phase. b-d) The skyrmion unwinds by the creation of a monopole-antimonopole pair which move apart (c.f. Fig. \[fig2\]a).\[fig1\]](i123.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
This Berry phase can be described as an Aharonov-Bohm phase of an ‘artificial’ electromagnetic fields. Each skyrmion line carries precisely one flux quantum of such an emergent magnetic field. The corresponding Lorentz force on the electron can be directly measured in Hall experiments and leads also to a Magnus force on the skyrmion in the presence of a current. Experimentally, one finds that skyrmions can be manipulated by extremely low electric currents, more than 5 orders of magnitude smaller than currents which are typically needed to move magnetic domain walls [@jonietz2010spin; @schulz2012emergent].
Skyrmion lattices and single skyrmions can be observed by neutron scattering [@muhlbauer2009skyrmion; @munzer2010skyrmion], Lorentz-force electron microscopy [@yu2010near; @yu2010real] or magnetic force microscopy [@milde2013unwinding]. With these techniques, not only regular lattices of skyrmion lines have been detected, but also single skyrmions and the crossover from the skyrmion phase to the helical phase. In the helical phase, the generic magnetic state of chiral magnets for vanishing magnetic field, $B=0$, the magnetization rotates slowly perpendicular to a propagation vector ${{\bf q}}$.
Skyrmions have by now been observed in a wide range of chiral magnets, including good metals, doped semiconductors and even insulators. Using a different microscopic mechanism [@heinze2011spontaneous] tiny nanoskyrmions have also been stabilized in a hexagonal $\text{Fe}$ film of one-atomic-layer thickness on a $\text{Ir}(111)$ substrate. In these systems the creation of single skyrmions can be triggered by a current passing through a magnetic tip of a scanning tunneling microscope [@heinze2011spontaneous; @romming2013writing].
As skyrmions are topologically stable, it is an interesting question how they can be created or destroyed. In a recent magnetic-force microscopy experiment [@milde2013unwinding], it was shown that neighboring skyrmions merge when a transition from a skyrmion lattice phase to a phase with a simple helical order is induced by reducing the external magnetic field. A theoretical analysis and numerical simulations showed, that the destruction of skyrmions is driven by singular magnetic defects: The winding number of the skyrmions can only change at singular points where the magnetization vanishes. These singular points define hedgehog defects which act as sources and sinks of skyrmions and their associated magnetic fields. They can thereby considered as emergent magnetic monopoles (MPs) and antimonopoles (AMPs) [@milde2013unwinding]. In metals their motion induces forces on the electrons which can be described by emergent electrodynamic fields [@schulz2012emergent; @freimuth2013; @takashima2014].
In this paper, we study the creation and motion of MPs and AMPs. Motivated by the experimental setup in Ref. [@milde2013unwinding], we investigate how skyrmions are destroyed and replaced by the helical phase. Previous numerical simulations [@milde2013unwinding] qualitatively investigated this process starting from a dense skyrmion lattice. The simulations showed that the MP dynamics drives the transition. For a quantitative analysis of this process, it is useful to simplify the problem by considering only the last step of the transition: the destruction of the last skyrmion line. This helps to eliminate finite size effects in the numerical simulations: boundary effects have an influence on the energy difference of $N$ and $N-1$ skyrmions for large $N$. Such problems are absent for a single skyrmion line, $N=1$, considered in the following.
We use two different numerical methods, micromagnetic simulations based on the stochastic Landau Lifshitz Gilbert (sLLG) equation and variational calculations based on a Ginzburg Landau description of helical magnets. The stochastic Landau Lifshitz Gilbert equations (sLLG) [@garcia1998langevin] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sLLG}
\frac{d\mathbf{S_r}}{dt} = -\mathbf{S_r} \times \left[ \mathbf{B}_\mathbf{r}^{\text{eff}} + \mathbf{B}_\mathbf{r}^{\operatorname{fl}}(t) \right] + \alpha\, \mathbf{S_r} \times \frac{d\mathbf{S_r}}{dt}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective magnetic field $\mathbf{B}^{\text{eff}}_\mathbf{r}=-\frac{\delta H}{\delta \mathbf{S_r}}$ is obtained from the Hamiltonian $H$ $$\begin{aligned}
H = &-J \sum_{\boldsymbol{r,\hat n =\hat x, \hat y,\hat z}} \boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}} \cdot \boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}+{\boldsymbol{\hat{n}}}} - \boldsymbol{B}\cdot \sum_{\boldsymbol{r}} \boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}}\nonumber\\
&- K \sum_{\boldsymbol{r,\hat n =\hat x, \hat y,\hat z}} \boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}+{\boldsymbol{\hat{n}}}} \cdot \boldsymbol{\hat{n}}
\label{eq:LatticeHamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ We use a cubic lattice and $K$ parametrizes the spin-orbit interactions ($K/J = \text{arctan}(2\pi/10)$ in our simulations). The Gilbert damping $\alpha$ (we choose $\alpha=0.04$) describes spin relaxation. To simulate the creation of MPs, it is essential to include the effects of thermal fluctuations which are described by a randomly fluctuating magnetic field $\mathbf{B}^\text{fl}_\mathbf{r}(t)$ with
![Examples of trajectories of MPs (black) and AMPs (red) after a quench to $B=0$ ($T=0.7$) obtained from sLLG simulations (vertical axis: coordinate parallel to the skyrmion orientation, numbers: winding numbers of the magnetic texture) a) A MP-AMP pair is created in the middle of the sample and moves to the edge (c.f. Fig. \[fig1\]). b) An AMP is created at the surface and moves to the bottom. c, d) Events with both pair creation and pair annihilation.\[fig2\]](t1.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
$$\begin{aligned}
&\langle \mathbf{B}^\text{fl}_\mathbf{r}(t) \rangle = 0, \quad
\langle B^\text{fl}_{i,\mathbf{r}}(t)B^\text{fl}_{j,\mathbf{r}}(t') = 2 \alpha k_B T \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t') \end{aligned}$$
consistent with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, see Ref. \[\] for further implementation details. The magnetic fields is applied in the $(-1,-1,2)$ direction, which is chosen perpendicular to the $(111)$ direction to avoid a tilting of helical phase which has an ordering vector in $(111)$ direction. At $t=0$ we start from a configuration described by a helical spin state which has a single skyrmion embedded, see Fig. \[fig1\]a.
In Fig. \[fig1\]b-d the red line tracks the center of mass, $\int {{\bf r}} \rho_t dx dy$, of the skyrmion where $\rho_t=\frac{1}{4 \pi} \hat M\cdot (\partial_x \hat M \times \partial_y \hat M)$ is the topological charge density. The three figures show an event (also displayed in Fig. \[fig2\]a), where the skyrmion string is cut into two by the creation of a MP-AMP pair: As the winding number $\int \rho_t dx dy$ changes at the end of the skyrmion string from $-1$ to $0$, there has to be a topological defect (a hedgehog) at the end of the string. The hedgehog with winding number $+1$ ($-1$) can be viewed [@milde2013unwinding] as a magnetic MP (AMP) and is denoted by $-$ sign ($+$ sign) in Fig. \[fig1\], respectively.
In Fig. \[fig2\] we show typical trajectories of MPs and AMPs obtained from sLLG simulations after the magnetic field has been switched to $0$. For $B=0$ the skyrmion state is unstable, therefore MPs and AMPs are created spontaneously by thermal fluctuations. As the MPs move predominantly parallel to the skyrmion orientation, we show on the vertical axis the projection of the MP coordinate onto the $(-1,-1,2)$ axis. In the bulk, MPs and AMPs are always created as pairs due to their topology. MPs move ‘up’, AMPs ‘down’ to reduce the winding number (see Fig. \[fig1\]). Single MPs or AMPs can only be created at the top or bottom layer (Fig. \[fig2\]b,c,d). Fig. \[fig2\]c and d show that also MP and AMP annihilate each other when they come close to each other.
![(a) Average MP velocity, $v$ (right legend), and average bulk creation rate, $\Gamma$ (left legend), as a function of the temperature $T$ for $B=0$ (error bars: standard deviation of the mean)\[fig3\]. (b) $v$ and $\Gamma$ as a function of the applied magnetic field $B$ for $T=0.7$ and $T=0.8$. ](rateAndv.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
To describe the dynamics of MPs and AMPs two quantities are of main interest: the creation rate $\Gamma_{m\bar m}$ of MP-AMP pairs (defined per length of the skyrmion line) and the average velocity of MPs. In the supplementary material we also discuss briefly the creation rate $\Gamma_m^s$ of single MPs at the surface of the sample. In Fig. \[fig3\], $\Gamma_{m\bar m}$ is plotted as a function of $T$. The fit shows that the $T$ dependence is consistent with a simple activated behavior $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{m\bar m}\sim \Gamma_0 e^{-\frac{E_0}{k_B T}}\label{exp}\end{aligned}$$ with $E_0 \approx 5.8\,J$ for the chosen parameters. The creation rate of MPs also strongly depends on the magnetic field, see Fig.. \[fig3\]b, $\Gamma_{m\bar m}\propto e^{-B/B_0}$. A comparison of simulations at $T=0.7$ and $T=0.8$ (not shown) seems to suggest that the exponential dependence arises from a combination of the $B$ dependence of the activation energy $E_0$ and of the prefactor $\Gamma_0$ but a definite conclusion is not possible from the available data. The average velocity of the MPs depends only weakly on $T$ but as a function of magnetic field, it is suppressed by a factor of about $3$ in the considered $B$ range, see Fig. \[fig3\]a and b.
![Energy of a MP-AMP pair as a function of their distance obtained from minimization of the GL free energy ($t_0 =- 1.6$ [@supplement]) for $B=0.14$ to $0.22$ (bottom to top). For large distances (here we use units where the pitch of the helical phase is $2 \pi$ [@supplement]) the force is linear and therefore described by a string tension (see Fig. \[fig5\])\[fig4\]](2mon.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
To explain the results of the sLLG simulations, we consider the energetics of MP-AMP pairs. It is mainly determined by two factors: the free energy needed locally to create the singular magnetic configuration of a MP (the [*core energy*]{}, $E_c$) and the free energy per length of a skyrmion. The latter gives rise to a [*string tension*]{}, $T_S$: the skyrmion pulls at the MP with a constant force, $F=T_S$. The system gains the energy $T_S \Delta x$ when the MP moves the distance $\Delta x$, thus shortening the length of the skyrmion string. The string tension can also be viewed as resulting from an interaction potential of MPs and AMPs linear in distance, see below.
![Energy $E_0$ of a MP-AMP pair, sum of their core energies, $2 E_c$ (both left axis), and string tension $T_S$ (right axis) as a function of the magnetic field $\mathbf B_z$ ($t_0=-1.6$, see [@supplement]). At the dashed line the string tension changes sign.\[fig5\]](EcTMax.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
To corroborate this physical picture using an alternative theoretical approach, we have calculated the energetics of skyrmions and MP-AMP pairs using a Ginzburg Landau (GL) description of the free energy. We use the standard Ginzburg Landau functional for chiral magnets [@bak1980theory] discretized on a 50$\times$50$\times 50$ lattice, see Ref. \[\] for details. Our main goal is to obtain the free energy of a MP-AMP pair as a function of their distance $D$. To fix $D$ we use that in the continuum the magnetization $M$ vanishes in the core of each MP and AMP. We therefore fix their positions by demanding that $M=0$ at two lattice sites with distance $D$. It turns out that this procedure works only as long as the forces on the MPs and AMPs are not stronger than the pinning energy due to setting $M=0$ at one site. This limits our GL study to a finite field range, parameters not too far [@supplement] from $T_c$, and not too small distances $D$. A typical result is shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. For large distances the energy is linear in $D$. The slope is - by definition - the string tension $T_S$, shown in Fig. \[fig5\] as function of magnetic field. As expected, $T_S$ is exactly given by the energy per length of a skyrmion. As a function of $B$, $T_S$ changes its sign at a critical value $B_c$. For $B<B_c$ the skyrmion is not stable, $T_S>0$ and MP and AMP repel each other at large distances. For $B>B_c$ a single skyrmion has a lower energy than the helical state, $T_S<0$, and the MP-AMP interaction is attractive for long distances. We have checked that in our sLLG simulation (not shown) this leads to the spontaneous creation of skyrmions in this regime. Note that the bulk phase transition is not given by $B_c$ due to skyrmion-skyrmion interactions in a dense skyrmion lattice.
For $T_S>0$, the MP-AMP energy is always negative for sufficiently large $D$. The creation rate is, however, strongly suppressed by the fact that for small $D$ a MP-AMP pair has a large, positive energy. The main contribution to this energy is the core energy, $E_c$, of a single MP or AMP which can be obtained by a linear extrapolation of $\Delta E$ in Fig. \[fig4\] to $D=0$, which gives $2 E_c$. The figure shows, however, that there is a short range attraction of the MP-AMP pair. Therefore we expect that instead of $2 E_c$, the maximum $E_0=\max_D \Delta E$ controls the MP-AMP creation rate of Eq. \[exp\]. $2 E_c$ and $E_0$ are plotted for comparison in Fig. \[fig5\].
A quantitative comparison of the sLLG simulation and the GL calculation was not possible in our study as the range of parameters where each method can be applied, did not overlap. One can, however, compare the results qualitatively. First, the velocity of MPs is expected to be given by the product of the string tension $T_s$ and an effective friction coefficient. Assuming approximately constant friction, we expect from the $B$ (Fig. \[fig5\]) and $T$ (see supplement [@supplement]) dependence of $T_s$ that the MP velocity drops with $B$ for $B>B_c$ and rises when lowering $T$ as indeed observed in the sLLG simulations, see Fig. \[fig3\]. More dramatically, an increase of the core energy for increasing $B$ should give rise to an exponential decrease of the MP-AMP creation rate $\sim e^{-E_c/k_B T}$ as a function of $B$, as observed numerically in Fig. \[fig3\]a.
In conclusion, string tension and core energy of monopoles are the dominating factors which determine the creation rates and the dynamics of monopoles. These quantities are the key to understand how skyrmion lines (and lattices thereof) can be created and destroyed in three-dimensional bulk materials. A related question – especially relevant for future skyrmion-based devices – is, how skyrmions in two-dimensional films can be created and destroyed [@romming2013writing; @iwasaki2013current; @sampaio2013nucleation]. When one replaces the $z$ axis, e.g. in Fig. \[fig1\], by a time axis, one realizes that a monopole spin-configuration can be viewed as an instanton describing the destruction or creation of a two-dimensional skyrmion. We expect that the corresponding instanton action which controls the creation rates, will be dominated by a contribution related (but not identical) to the core energy of the monopole.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Izhar Oppenheim
bibliography:
- 'bibl.bib'
title: 'An intermediate quasi-isometric invariant between subexponential asymptotic dimension growth and Yu’s Property A'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Claim]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{}
**Abstract**. We present the notion of asymptotically large depth for a metric space which is (a priory) weaker than having subexponential asymptotic dimension growth and (a priory) stronger than property A.\
\
**Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)**. 51F99, 20F65 **Keywords**. Property A, Asymptotic dimension growth
Introduction
============
In [@Grom] Gromov introduced the notion of finite asymptotic dimension to study infinite groups. This notion gained more popularity when in [@Yu2] Yu showed that groups with finite asymptotic dimension satisfy the Novikov conjuncture. Later, in [@Yu], Yu defined a weaker notion called property A (which can be viewed as a non equivariant notion of amenability) and proved that groups with property A also satisfy the Novikov conjuncture. It has been shown that finite asymptotic dimension imply property A (see for instance [@Will]\[Theorem 1.2.4\]) and that there are groups with infinite asymptotic dimension for which property A holds (see for instance [@Dr]\[section 4\] to see that for the restricted wreath product, $\mathbb{Z} \wr \mathbb{Z}$, the asymptotic dimension is infinite and property A holds).\
Also, in [@Dr] the notion of polynomial asymptotic growth was discussed and it was shown that polynomial asymptotic growth implies property A. Later, in [@Oz], it was shown that subexponential asymptotic growth implies property A. In this article, we shall introduce another notion that we name asymptotically large depth. We’ll show having asymptotically large depth implies property A and is implied by than having subexponential asymptotic growth (thus providing another proof to the fact that subexponential asymptotic growth implies property A). We have no new examples of using this notion so far, but it is our hope that using this notion of asymptotically large depth will open a new way of proving property A for finitely generated groups.\
**Structure of this paper**: In section 2, we recall basic definitions regarding property A, give a first definition of asymptotically large depth and show that it implies property A for discrete metric spaces of bounded geometry. In section 3, we prove equivalent definitions for asymptotically large depth that are maybe more intuitive. In section 4, we show that subexponential asymptotic growth implies asymptotically large depth. In section 5, we recall some definitions regarding quasi-isometry and show that asymptotically large depth is a quasi-isometric invariant.
Asymptotically large depth - first definition and property A
============================================================
Property A
----------
Let us start by recalling some basic definition regarding discrete metric spaces:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space.\
$X$ is called discrete if there is $c>0$ such that $$\forall x,y \in X, d(x,y) < c \Rightarrow x=y.$$ A discrete metric space $X$ is said to have bounded geometry if $$\forall M>0, \sup_{x \in X} \vert B(x,M) \vert < \infty .$$
The motivating example of discrete metric spaces with bounded geometry is $X = \Gamma$ a finitely generated group with the word metric with respect to some finite generating set $S$.
Property A was defined in [@Yu] for general discrete metric spaces. We shall focus our attention on discrete metric spaces of bounded geometry and therefore we shall not state the original definition here, but only an equivalent definition for discrete metric spaces of bounded geometry (the equivalence to the original definition is proven in [@HR]\[Lemma 3.5\] or [@Will]\[Theorem 1.2.4\]).
Let $(X,d)$ be a discrete metric space with bounded geometry. $X$ has property A if there is a family of functions $\lbrace a_k^x \in l^1 (X) \rbrace_{x \in X}$ such that the following holds (we denote the norm of $ l^1 (X)$ by $\Vert . \Vert$):
1. For every $k$ there is $S_k >0$ such that for every $x$, $a_k^x$ is supported on $B(x,S_k)$.
2. For every $R>0$ we have that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sup_{x,y \in X, d(x,y) <R} \dfrac{\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert}{\Vert a_k^x \Vert} =0.$$
Asymptotically large depth and connection to property
-----------------------------------------------------
Given a metric space $(X,d)$ and $\mathcal{U}$ a cover of $X$. Recall that $\mathcal{U}$ is called uniformly bounded if there is $S_\mathcal{U} >0$, such that $\forall U \in \mathcal{U}, diam (U) <S_\mathcal{U}$.\
For $x \in X$ will define $m_\mathcal{U} (x)$ to be the multiplicity of $\mathcal{U}$ at $x$, i.e.,: $$m_\mathcal{U} (x) = \vert \lbrace U \in \mathcal{U}: x \cap U \neq \emptyset \rbrace \vert$$ $\mathcal{U}$ will be called locally finite if $m_\mathcal{U} (x) < \infty$ for every $x \in X$.\
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. We shall say that $X$ has asymptotically large depth if it has a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. There is $\varepsilon >0$ and a function $f: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ with $\lim f(k) = \infty$ such that for every $k$, $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$
In the case in which $X$ is bounded and $U =X$, define $d(x,X \setminus U) = d(x, \emptyset) = \infty$. This definition takes care of the trivial case in which $X$ is bounded.
The motivation behind the above definition comes from the frequent use of the distance $d(x,X \setminus U)$ in proofs of properties that imply property A. For example, one can see $d(x,X \setminus U)$ appearing in the proof that finite asymptotic dimension implies property A in [@Will]\[proposition 2.2.6\] or in the proof that subexponential asymptotic dimension growth implies property A in [@Oz]). The main theme of such proofs is that if one can find a sequence of covers such that each point $x$ is “deep enough” in enough sets (i.e., $d(x,X \setminus U)$ is large enough in enough sets) then we get property A. The idea behind the definition above is to try to take this idea to the extreme and find a very weak notion of each point $x$ being “deep enough”. The above definition might not seem very enlightening - a cleaner and maybe more intuitive version is given in theorem \[subexp function\] below.
\[property A\] Let $(X,d)$ be a discrete metric space with bounded geometry. If $X$ has asymptotically large depth then it has property A.
We shall construct a family of functions $\lbrace a_k^x \in l^1 (X) \rbrace_{x \in X}$ as in the definition of property A stated above.\
For $k \in \mathbb{N}$, choose $x_U \in U$ for every $U \in \mathcal{U}_k$ and denote $\delta_U = \delta_{x_U} \in l^1 (X)$. Define $a_k^x : X \rightarrow l^1 (X)$ as following: $$a_k^x = \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k} \left( e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} -1 \right) \delta_U.$$ First, we’ll show that we can take $S_k$ to be the uniform bound on the diameter of the sets in $\mathcal{U}_k$. Indeed, if $x \notin U$, then $d(x,X \setminus U) =0$ and therefore $e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} -1 =e^0-1=0$. This yields that $a_k^x$ is supported on the set $$\bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} U \subseteq B(x, S_k).$$ Second, for any $R>0$ and any $x,y \in X$ with $d(x,y) <R$ we have that $$a_k^x - a_k^y = \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k} \left( e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} - e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) \delta_U.$$ If $d(x,X \setminus U) > d(y,X \setminus U) \geq 0$, then $$0 \leq e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} - e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} = e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \left( 1- e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U) - d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) \leq e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right).$$ Therefore, by symmetry, we get that $$\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert \leq \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right) \left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} + \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, y \in U} e^{\frac{d(y,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right).$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume $$\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \geq \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, y \in U} e^{\frac{d(y,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}},$$ and therefore $$\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert \leq 2 \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right) \left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}}\right).$$ Notice that $$\Vert a_k^x \Vert = \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} \left( e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} - 1 \right) = \left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) - m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x) .$$ Therefore we get $$\dfrac{\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert}{\Vert a_k^x \Vert } \leq \dfrac{2 \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right) \left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}}\right)}{\left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) - m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)} =$$ $$= \dfrac{2 \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right)}{1 - \dfrac{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}{\left( \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) }} \leq \dfrac{2 \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right)}{1 -\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}}= \dfrac{2 + 2 \varepsilon}{\varepsilon} \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right),$$ where the last inequality is due to the condition in the definition of asymptotically large depth. The computation above yields that for every $k$ and every $R>0$ we have that $$\sup_{x,y \in X, d(x,y) <R} \dfrac{\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert}{\Vert a_k^x \Vert } \leq \dfrac{2 + 2 \varepsilon}{\varepsilon} \left( 1 - e^\frac{-R}{f(k)} \right) .$$ Recall that $\lim f(k) = \infty$ and therefore for every $R>0$, we have that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sup_{x,y \in X, d(x,y) <R} \dfrac{\Vert a_k^x - a_k^y \Vert}{\Vert a_k^x \Vert } =0,$$ which finishes the proof.
Equivalent definitions
======================
\[definitions\] Let $(X,d)$ a metric space. The following are equivalent:
1. $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
2. $X$ has a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. There is $\varepsilon >0$ and a sequence $\lbrace c_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $c_k > 1, \forall k$ and $\lim c_k =1$ such that for every $k$ $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$
3. There is $\varepsilon >0$ such that for any number $c>1$, $X$ has a cover $\mathcal{U} (c)$, such that:
1. $\mathcal{U} (c)$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U} (c)} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U} (c), x \in U} c^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$
4. $X$ has a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. There is a function $f' : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ with $\lim f' (k) = \infty$ such that for every $k$, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f' (k)}} \right) = \infty.$$
5. $X$ has a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. There is a sequence $\lbrace c_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $c_k > 1, \forall k$ and $\lim c_k =1$ such that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) =\infty.$$
6. For any $k>0$ and any $c>1$, $X$ has a cover $\mathcal{U} (c,k)$, such that:
1. $\mathcal{U} (c,k)$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U} (c,k)} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U} (c,k), x \in U} c^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq k.$$
$(1) \Rightarrow (2)$: Let $f: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ as in the definition of asymptotically large depth, and take $c_k = e^{\frac{1}{f(k)}}$. Since $f(k) >0$ and $\lim f(k) = \infty$ we get that $c_k >1$ and $\lim c_k =1$. We finish by taking $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ to be as in the definition of asymptotically large depth and noticing that for every $k$, $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k}} \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) = \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k}} \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$ $(2) \Rightarrow (3)$: Take $\varepsilon>0$ to be the same as in $(2)$. Let $c>1$ and let $\lbrace c_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence in $(2)$. Since $\lim c_k =1$, there is some $k_0$ such that $c>c_{k_0}$. Take $\mathcal{U} (c) = \mathcal{U}_{k_0}$ and finish by $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U} (c)} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U} (c), x \in U} c^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_{k_0}} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_{k_0}, x \in U} c_{k_0}^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$ $(3) \Rightarrow (1)$: Take $\varepsilon>0$ to be the same as in $(3)$. For every $k \in \mathbb{N}$, take $\mathcal{U}_k = \mathcal{U} (e^\frac{1}{k})$ and $f(k)=k$. Finish by $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k (x)}} \sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) = \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U} (e^\frac{1}{k})} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U} (e^\frac{1}{k}), x \in U} (e^\frac{1}{k})^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon.$$ $(4) \Rightarrow (5), (5) \Rightarrow (6), (6) \Rightarrow (4)$: Same proofs as $(1) \Rightarrow (2), (2) \Rightarrow (3), (3) \Rightarrow (1)$.\
$(4) \Rightarrow (1)$: Obvious.\
$(1) \Rightarrow (4)$: Take $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ as in $(1)$ and $f' (k) = \sqrt{f(k)}$. For $x \in X$ denote: $$A (x) = \lbrace U \in \mathcal{U}_k : x \in U, e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}} \geq 1 + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \rbrace,$$ $$B (x) = \lbrace U \in \mathcal{U}_k : x \in U, e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}} < 1 + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \rbrace .$$ Since for every $x$ we have by assumption $$\left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f(k)}} \right) \geq 1 + \varepsilon,$$ we get that $A(x)$ is not empty. For any $x \in X$ we have that: $$\frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f' (k)}} = \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}})^{\sqrt{f(k)}} \geq$$ $$\geq \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in A(x)} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}})^{\sqrt{f(k)}} = \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in A(x)} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}}) (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1} \geq$$ $$\geq \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in A(x)} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}}) (1+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1} \geq$$ $$\geq (1+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}}) - \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in B(x)} (e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f (k)}}) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq (1+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1} ( 1+ \varepsilon - (1+\frac{\varepsilon}{2})) = \frac{\varepsilon}{2} (1+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1}$$ Since this is true for any $x \in X$, we get that $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f' (k)}} \right) \geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2} (1+ \frac{\varepsilon}{2})^{\sqrt{f(k)}-1},$$ and since $\lim f(k) = \infty$, we get $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} e^{\frac{d(x,X \setminus U)}{f' (k)}} \right) = \infty.$$
Recall that a monotone increasing function $g:\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ is said to have subexponential growth if for every $b>1$, $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{g(t )}{b^t} = 0,$$ or equivalently, if for every $b>1$ $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{b^t}{g(t )} = \infty .$$
\[subexp function\] Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. $X$ has asymptotically large depth if and only if there is a monotone increasing function $g: \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with subexponential growth and a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $X$ such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) =\infty.$$
Assume that $X$ has asymptotically large depth, then by $(5)$ in theorem \[definitions\] we have that $X$ has a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. There is a sequence $\lbrace c_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $c_k > 1, \forall k$ and $\lim c_k =1$ such that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) =\infty.$$
Denote by $S_k$ the bound of the diameters of the sets in $\mathcal{U}_k$. Notice that for every $U \in \mathcal{U}_k$ and for every $x \in X$ we have $S_k \geq d(x, X \setminus U)$. By $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) =\infty,$$ we get that $\lim S_k = \infty$. By passing to a subsequence we can assume that $\lbrace S_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is strictly monotone increasing and that $\lbrace c_k \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is monotone decreasing. Define $$g(t) = \begin{cases}
c_1^t & t \in [0,S_1] \\
g(S_{k-1}) + c_k^{S_{k-1} + t} - c_k^{S_{k-1}} & S_{k-1} < t \leq S_k
\end{cases} .$$ $g(t)$ is monotone increasing and since $\lbrace c_k \rbrace$ is monotone decreasing we have that: $$\forall t \geq S_{k-1}, g(t) \leq g(S_{k-1}) + c_k^{S_{k-1} + t} - c_k^{S_{k-1}},$$ and $$\forall t \leq S_{k}, g(t) \geq c_k^t .$$ For every $b >1$, there is $k$ such that $b > c_k$ and therefore for every $t \geq S_{k-1}$ we have $$\dfrac{g(t)}{b^t} \leq \dfrac{g(S_{k-1}) + c_k^{S_{k-1} + t} - c_k^{S_{k-1}}}{b^t} = \dfrac{g(S_{k-1}) - c_k^{S_{k-1}}}{b^t} + c_k^{S_{k-1}} \left( \dfrac{c_k}{b} \right)^t,$$ and therefore, $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{g(t)}{b^t} =0 .$$ Notice that for every $k$ we have $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) \geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} c_k^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right).$$ (again, we use the fact that for every $U \in \mathcal{U}_k$ and for every $x \in X$ we have $S_k \geq d(x, X \setminus U)$).\
So we get $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) =\infty.$$ In the other direction, assume that there is a monotone increasing function $g: \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with subexponential growth and a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $X$ such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) =\infty.$$
Note that by the above condition, we have that $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} g(t) = \infty$. Let $\lbrace T_k \rbrace$ be a monotone increasing sequence such that $\lim T_k = \infty$ and such that for every $k$, we have $$\forall t \geq T_k, g (t) \leq (1+\frac{1}{k})^t .$$ By passing to a subsequence of $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, we can assume that for every $k$, we have $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) \geq 2 g(T_k) .$$ Note that $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, d(x,X \setminus U) \geq T_k} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) - \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U, d(x,X \setminus U) \leq T_k} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq 2g(T_k) - g(T_k) = g (T_k).$$ Therefore $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} (1+\frac{1}{k})^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, d(x,X \setminus U) \geq T_k} (1+\frac{1}{k})^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) \geq$$ $$\geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, d(x,X \setminus U) \geq T_k} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) \geq g(T_k).$$ Since $\lim g (T_k) = \infty$ we get that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} (1+\frac{1}{k})^{d(x,X \setminus U)} \right) = \infty,$$ so we are done by $(5)$ in theorem \[definitions\].
Connection with asymptotic dimension growth
===========================================
Recall that given a metric space $(X,d)$ and a cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$, $\lambda >0$ is called a Lebesgue number of $\mathcal{U}$ if for every $A \subset X$ with $diam (A) \leq \lambda$ there is $U \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $A \subset U$. Denote by $L (\mathcal{U})$ the largest Lebesgue number of $\mathcal{U}$. Denote further the multiplicity of $\mathcal{U}$ as $$m (\mathcal{U} ) = \sup_{x \in X} m (x).$$ In [@Dr] the asymptotic dimension function was defined as: $$ad_X (\lambda ) = \min \lbrace m (\mathcal{U}) : \mathcal{U} \text{ is a uniformally bounded cover of } X \text{ such that } L(\mathcal{U}) \geq \lambda \rbrace-1.$$ A space $X$ has subexponential dimension growth if $ad_X (\lambda )$ grows subexponentially.
If $X$ has subexponential dimension growth, then $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
We assume without loss of generality that $X$ is unbounded. We’ll use the definition given in theorem \[subexp function\] to prove that $X$ has asymptotically large depth.\
Take $g (t) = t(ad_X ( 2 t)+1)$, since $X$ has subexponential dimension growth we get that $g (t)$ is monotone increasing and grows subexponentially. For every $k \in \mathbb{N}$ let $\mathcal{U}_k$ be a uniformly bounded cover of $X$ such that $L (\mathcal{U}_k ) \geq k$ and $m(\mathcal{U}_k) = ad_X (k) +1$. Notice that $L(\mathcal{U}_k) \geq k$ implies that for every $x \in X$ there is $U \in \mathcal{U}_k$ such that $d(x, X\setminus U) \geq \frac{k}{2}$. This implies that for every $x \in X$ we have: $$\frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \geq \frac{1}{m (\mathcal{U}_k)} g (\frac{k}{2} ) = \frac{ad_X (k) + 1}{m (\mathcal{U}_k)} \dfrac{k}{2} = \dfrac{k}{2}.$$ Therefore $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (x)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, x \in U} g(d(x,X \setminus U)) \right) =\infty,$$ and we are done.
Let $X$ be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. If $X$ has sub exponential dimension growth, then $X$ has property A.
Combine the above proposition with theorem \[property A\].
The above corollary was already proven in [@Oz] using a different averaging method.
Invariance under Quasi-isometry
===============================
First let us recall the following definitions and facts about coarse maps and quasi-isometries.
Let $\phi : X \rightarrow Y$ a map of metric space.\
$\phi$ is called *effectively proper*, if for every $R>0$ there is $S (R) >0$ such that for every $x \in X$, $\phi^{-1} (B (f(x) , R)) \subseteq B (x, S (R) )$.\
$\phi$ is called *bornologous* if there is a map $\rho : \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ such that for every $x, x' \in X$ the following holds: $$d_Y (\phi (x), \phi (x') ) \leq \rho (d_X (x, x')).$$ $\phi$ is called a *coarse embedding* if it is both effectively proper and bornologous.\
$\phi$ is called *large scale Lipschitz* if there are constants $A \geq 1, C \geq 0$ such that for every $x, x' \in X$ the following holds: $$d_Y (\phi (x), \phi (x') ) \leq A d_X (x, x') +C.$$ $\phi$ is called a *quasi-isometric embedding* if there are constants $A \geq 1, C \geq 0$ such that for every $x, x' \in X$ the following holds: $$\frac{1}{A} d_X (x,x') - C \leq d_Y (\phi (x),\phi (x')) \leq A d_X (x,x') + C .$$ $X$ and $Y$ are said to be *quasi-isometric* if there are quasi-isometric embeddings $\phi :X \rightarrow Y, \overline{\phi} : Y \rightarrow X$ such that $$\sup_{x \in X} d_X (x, \overline{\phi} (\phi (x))) < \infty, \sup_{y \in Y} d_Y (y, \phi (\overline{\phi} (y))) < \infty .$$
\[length spaces\] Let $X$ be a length space and $Y$ be any metric space. Then $\phi : X \rightarrow Y$ is bornologous if and only if it is large scale Lipschitz.
See lemma 1.10 in [@Roe].
\[MS lemma\] Let $X$ be a proper geodesic metric space and let $\Gamma$ be group acting by isometries on $X$ such that the action is cocompact and proper, then $\Gamma$ is finitely generated and quasi-isometric (with respect to the word metric) to $X$.
See [@GH]\[proposition 10.9\].
Next, we’ll show the following:
Let $X,Y$ metric spaces and $\phi: X \rightarrow Y$ that is effectively proper and large scale Lipschitz. If $Y$ has asymptotically large depth then $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
Let $A,C$ be the constants of the $\phi$ and is the definition of large scale Lipschitz. For $\mathcal{U}$ that is a cover of $Y$, define $$\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}) = \lbrace \phi^{-1} (U) : U \in \mathcal{U} \rbrace .$$ Note that $\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U})$ is a cover of $X$ and if $R$ is a bound on the diameter of sets in $\mathcal{U}$, then $S (R)$ is a bound on the diameter of the sets in $\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U})$ and in particular, if $\mathcal{U}$ is uniformly bounded then $\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U})$ is uniformly bounded. Also, note that for every $x \in X$ we have $m_{\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U})} (x) \leq m_{\mathcal{U}} (\phi (x))$. Last, note that if $x \in \phi^{-1} (U), x' \notin \phi^{-1} (U)$ ,then $\phi (x) \in U, \phi (x') \notin U$ and therefore $$d_Y (\phi (x), Y \setminus U) \leq d_Y ( \phi (x), \phi (x')) \leq A d_X (x,x') +C.$$ Since this is true for every $x \in \phi^{-1} (U), x' \notin \phi^{-1} (U)$, this yields that for every $x \in \phi^{-1} (U)$, we have that $$\dfrac{d_Y (\phi (x), Y \setminus U) - C}{A} \leq d_X (x , X \setminus \phi^{-1} (U)) .$$ After all those observations, we are ready to prove the proposition using the definition given in theorem \[subexp function\]: $Y$ has asymptotically large depth if and only if there is a monotone increasing function $g_Y : \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with subexponential growth and a sequence of covers $\lbrace \mathcal{U}_k\rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $Y$ such that:
1. For each $k$, $\mathcal{U}_k$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite.
2. $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{y \in Y} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (y)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, y \in U} g_Y (d_Y (y,Y \setminus U)) \right) =\infty.$$
Denote now $g_X (t) = g_Y (At+C)$. $g_X$ is monotone increasing as a composition of monotone increasing functions and for every $b>1$, we have $$\lim_{ t \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{g_X (t)}{b^t} = \lim_{ t \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{g_Y (At+C)}{b^t} = \lim_{ t \rightarrow \infty} b^{\frac{C}{A}} \left( \dfrac{g_Y ( At+C)}{(b^\frac{1}{A})^{At+C}} \right) = 0 ,$$ and therefore $g_X (t)$ has subexponential growth. To finish, notice that by the above observations, $\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}_k)$ is uniformly bounded and locally finite for each $k$ and $$\inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}_k)} (x)} \sum_{\phi^{-1} (U) \in \phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}_k), x \in \phi^{-1} (U)} g_X (d_X (x,X \setminus \phi^{-1} (U))) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (\phi (x))}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, \phi (x) \in U} g_X (\dfrac{d_Y (\phi (x), Y \setminus U) - C}{A}) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (\phi (x))}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, \phi (x) \in U} g_Y (d_Y (\phi (x), Y \setminus U)) \right) \geq$$ $$\geq \inf_{y \in Y} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\mathcal{U}_k} (y)}\sum_{U \in \mathcal{U}_k, y \in U} g_Y (d_Y (y,Y \setminus U)) \right) .$$ Therefore $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \inf_{x \in X} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}_k)} (x)} \sum_{\phi^{-1} (U) \in \phi^{-1} (\mathcal{U}_k), x \in \phi^{-1} (U)} g_X (d_X (x,X \setminus \phi^{-1} (U))) \right) = \infty,$$ and we are done.
The above proposition has the following corollaries:
Let $X,Y$ metric spaces and $\phi: X \rightarrow Y$ a quasi-isometric embedding. If $Y$ has asymptotically large depth then $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
Obvious.
From this corollary we get:
Asymptotically large depth is a quasi-isometry invariant, i.e., if $X$ and $Y$ are quasi-isometric then $X$ has asymptotically large depth if and only if $Y$ has asymptotically large depth.
Combine the above corollary with lemma \[MS lemma\] to get:
Let $X$ be a proper geodesic metric space and let $\Gamma$ be group acting by isometries on $X$ such that the action is cocompact and proper, then $\Gamma$ has asymptotically large depth if and only if $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
Also, by using lemma \[length spaces\] and the above proposition, we get:
Let $X,Y$ metric spaces such that $X$ is a length space and let $\phi: X \rightarrow Y$ be a coarse map. If $Y$ has asymptotically large depth, then $X$ has asymptotically large depth.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We describe a new, distance-independent method for calculating the magnetic activity strength in low mass dwarfs, L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$. Using a well-observed sample of nearby stars and cool standards spanning spectral type M0.5 to L0, we compute “$\chi$”, the ratio between the continuum flux near H$\alpha$ and the bolometric flux, f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$. This ratio may be multiplied by the measured equivalent width of the H$\alpha$ emission line to yield L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$. We provide $\chi$ values for all objects in our sample, as well as fits to $\chi$ as a function of color and average values by spectral type. This method was used by @we04 to examine trends in magnetic activity strength in low mass stars.'
author:
- 'Lucianne M. Walkowicz'
- 'Suzanne L. Hawley'
- 'Andrew A. West'
title: |
The $\chi$ Factor:\
Determining the Strength of Activity in Low Mass Dwarfs
---
Introduction
============
Low mass stars are the most populous objects in our Galaxy, comprising roughly 70$\%$ of the stars in the Solar Neighborhood and almost half of the Galactic stellar mass \[@he97\]. Until the last decade, the low luminosities of these stars prevented their study by large scale spectroscopic surveys. However, efforts such as the Palomar/MSU Nearby Star Spectroscopic Survey \[@re95a, @ha96, @gi02, @re02\], 2MASS followup \[@gi00b; @gi00a\], and NLTT followup \[@re04, @le03\] have characterized global properties of nearby M dwarfs with samples numbering $\gtrsim$ 1000 objects. Recently, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has made it possible to study spectroscopic samples approaching 10,000 low mass stars \[@we04\].
In particular, these surveys have provided insight into the magnetic behavior of low mass stars. There are many diagnostics by which a star may be deemed magnetically active, including X-ray and FUV emission lines, but in optical wavelengths, H$\alpha$ is the most readily available signature of activity. Although H$\alpha$ in either emission or absorption may indicate the presence of a chromosphere, most large-scale optical studies have used the more restrictive definition of H$\alpha$ in emission. This practice is due to the difficulty in breaking the degeneracy between intermediate activity and truly weak chromospheres, both of which present as weak H$\alpha$ absorption (see @gia82 and @gi02 for a discussion of this phenomenon). In this paper we use “active” to mean the presence of H$\alpha$ in emission.
Increasingly large studies of active M dwarfs have built on one another to create our current picture of activity at the bottom of the main sequence. Originally, @jo74 showed a rise in the fraction of active M dwarfs towards later spectral types, with 100$\%$ of M5 stars showing activity. The PMSU investigation of @ha96 extended the trend with much better statistics, and found that the fraction of active stars peaked at $\sim$60$\%$ at spectral type M5.5. @gi00b observed a sample of later type stars from 2MASS, and found that the incidence of activity rose to 100$\%$ at type M7, but declined at later types. @bu00 added additional late M and L dwarfs to the sample and confirmed that the active fraction decreases past type $\sim$M7 - M8. Most recently, @we04 used a much larger sample of low mass dwarfs from SDSS to further refine the trend: these data reveal a curiously elegant bell curve distribution for the incidence of magnetic activity in low mass stars. The fraction peaks at $\sim$73$\%$ of M8 stars being active.
Several of these studies consider the strength of activity, which is quantified as the ratio of the luminosity in H${\alpha}$ to the bolometric luminosity. The activity strength remains relatively constant (though with large scatter) at log(L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$) $\sim$-3.7 through the early to mid- M spectral types, and appears to decline at types later than M6, while the active fraction is still rising. The increasing fraction of active stars may be an age effect (lower mass stars retain their activity longer) on the rising branch (M0 - M8).The activity strength results indicate that some damping mechanism apparently sets in around type M6. At types later than M8, this damping mechanism \[possibly related to the atmospheric temperature, see @mo02\] overwhelms the age effect and results in fewer active dwarfs at lower atmospheric temperature. The activity fraction and activity strength results, taken together, provide important constraints on models of magnetic dynamos and magnetic field production in M and L dwarfs, particularly as these objects span the mass range where the stars become fully convective and develop degenerate cores.
Quantifying the strength of activity as the ratio between H${\alpha}$ luminosity and bolometric luminosity, while informative, is prone to systematic error. Determining luminosities depends on having well-known distances, and as samples get larger (e.g. from SDSS) the stars are typically well beyond the immediate Solar Neighborhood (i.e. $>$ 25pc from the Sun). Thus, precise trigonometric parallax measurements are generally not available as in previous local surveys. In principle, one should be able to calculate the ratio L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$ and expect the distance dependencies to cancel. However, in order to get L$_{\rm{bol}}$, one must have determined M$_{\rm{bol}}$, which relies on knowing M$_V$, having excellent color measurements, and a reliable bolometric correction. M$_V$ generally comes from distance estimates based on spectroscopic and/or photometric parallax determinations, which are not always reliable or in agreement, due primarily to a paucity of calibration data at the bottom of the main sequence. Calculating L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$, on the other hand, relies on knowing the flux in the continuum near H$\alpha$. This is often obtained from the photometric colors \[@re95b\]. Alternatively, it may be measured directly from spectrophotometrically calibrated data. Neither method is necessarily congruous with that used to obtain L$_{\rm{bol}}$. Thus, in practice, the ratio usually contains two distances, typically determined in different ways, leading to possible systematic error.
An alternative method is to determine the ratio of the flux in the continuum near H${\alpha}$ and the bolometric flux. This ratio, which we call $\chi$, can then be multiplied by the equivalent width in H$\alpha$ for a given star to give the ratio L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$. If one has excellent quality data, the ratio f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$ may be calculated for each of the stars observed. In this paper, we use a well-observed sample of nearby M dwarfs and early L dwarfs to determine $\chi$ as a function of several colors (I$_C$-K$_s$, V-I$_C$, $r - i$, $i - z$) and of spectral type, in effect providing an improved “bolometric correction” for low mass dwarfs.
The Sample and Method
=====================
We drew our sample of calibrating stars for early spectral types (M0.5 to M6.5) from the nearby 8 parsec sample \[@re97; @nlds, Appendix A; @re95a, @ha96\] and used a sample of cool standard stars from 2MASS for later spectral types (M4.5 to L0) \[@gi00a; @ki99; @ki00; @re99\]. The overlap of the two samples at midrange spectral types (M4.5-M6.5) ensured that there were no systematic differences in f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$ for the two samples. The 8 parsec sample has been well-characterized photometrically (in the UBVR$_C$I$_C$ Johnson-Cousins filters as well as near-infrared J, H, and K filters) and spectroscopically. Spectra for the 8 parsec sample were largely obtained using the spectrograph on the Palomar 60 inch telescope with a 600 l/mm grating, blazed at $\lambda$ 6500, giving a dispersion of 1.5 $\mbox{\AA}$ pix$^{-1}$ and coverage from $\sim$6200 to 7400 $\mbox{\AA}$. A 1 arcsec slit was used, giving a resolution element of $\sim$2.5 pixels. Most stars fainter than V=16 were observed using the double spectrograph on the Palomar 200 inch Hale telescope using the 6800 dichroic as a beam splitter, with the blue camera set to cover $\lambda$6200 - 6800 at a resolution of $\sim$0.55 $\mbox{\AA}$ pix$^{-1}$ and the red camera covering $\lambda$ 6900 - 7500 at $\sim$0.6 $\mbox{\AA}$ pix$^{-1}$. A 1 arcsec slit gives resolution of $\sim$3 pixels. Many of the 2MASS standards were observed using the low-resolution imaging spectrograph (LRIS) on the Keck I 10m telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The 1200 l/mm grating, centered at $\lambda$ = 6800 $\mbox{\AA}$, yielded coverage from $\lambda$6120 to 7500 at 0.5 $\mbox{\AA}$/pixel. With a 1 arcsec slit, this gave a resolution of 1.5 $\mbox{\AA}$. Visible photometry for the sample of late spectral types was not readily available, so I$_C$ magnitudes were found by convolving the spectra with a Cousins I$_C$ filter response curve. Infrared magnitudes for the late type objects were obtained from the 2MASS database. All spectra for the objects in our sample were spectrophotometrically calibrated in the region near H$\alpha$.
The method to find $\chi$ is straightforward. Photometric data for the 8 parsec sample were used with the bolometric corrections of @le96 to find apparent bolometric magnitudes for the sample. The bolometric magnitudes, m$_{\rm{bol}}$, were then transformed to apparent bolometric fluxes, f$_{\rm{bol}}$. The values of the apparent continuum flux near H${\alpha}$, f$_{\lambda6560}$, defined as the mean between 6555$\mbox{\AA}$ and 6560$\mbox{\AA}$, were measured directly from the calibrated spectra. For the late-type stars, the spectra were convolved with a Cousins I$_C$ filter response, and K$_{s}$ (the short K filter used by 2MASS) was transformed to K$_{UKIRT}$ (using relations from @ca01) for use in the bolometric correction relations. Bolometric corrections were calculated using the @le00 relation in I$_C$-K$_{UKIRT}$, which is more reliable for late spectral types. Bolometric fluxes were computed as for the earlier spectral types, and continuum fluxes at H$\alpha$ were measured directly from the spectra. Combining the samples, we obtain $\chi$ = f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$ over the entire spectral range. The mean values of $\chi$ by spectral type are shown in Table \[tbl-1\], while specific values for each object in the sample are given in Table \[tbl-2\]. Figure \[fig1\] shows the data and fit to $\chi$ in I$_C$ - K$_s$ and V - I$_C$, and Equations 1 and 2 provide the fits explicitly. Comparison in the overlap region of M4.5 V to M6.5 V shows no difference in the behavior of $\chi$ for the two samples.
We are particularly interested in being able to use $\chi$ with our large sample of SDSS spectra. Unfortunately, transformations between the SDSS filter system and other common astronomical systems do not extend into the very red color range we require here. To address this problem, we computed fits between average colors by spectral type in traditional and SDSS filters. These fits were used to transform the colors for our sample onto the SDSS system. In the following section, Figure \[fig2\] shows the color transformations used, while Equations 3 and 4 provide the relations. Figure \[fig3\] shows the $\chi$ results for the SDSS $r - i$ and $i - z$ colors, and the fits are given in Equations 5 and 6.
Equations 7 through 10 and Figures \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] provide fits to f$_{\rm{bol}}$ in terms of I$_C$, K$_s$, I$_C$ - K$_s$ and $i - z$, for use by anyone wishing to obtain, for example, L$_X$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$ for a large sample of stars.
Results
=======
After having obtained $\chi$ across the spectral range, we computed the best fit to the distribution as a function of color. Fits to $\log(\chi)$ in V$-$I$_C$ and I$_C-$K$_s$ are presented below. Mean values for $\chi$ were computed for each spectral type, as shown in Table \[tbl-1\], enabling an estimate of an object’s $\chi$ value in the event color data are not readily available or cannot be synthesized.
The relationship between $\log(\chi)$ and color can be expressed by the polynomials:
$$\begin{aligned}
\log(\chi) & = & -5.73342 + 3.07439(I_C-K_s) - 1.58615(I_C-K_s)^2 \nonumber\\
& & + 0.274372(I_C-K_s)^3 - 0.0154537(I_C-K_s)^4, \\
\nonumber\\
\log(\chi) & = & 0.607632 - 5.65757(V-I_C) + 2.55443(V-I_C)^2
\nonumber\\
& & - 0.500186(V-I_C)^3 + 0.0328053(V-I_C)^4 \\
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for ranges in color 1.89 $\leq$ I$_C-K_s$ $\leq$ 5.12, and 1.91 $\leq$ V$-I_C$ $\leq$ 4.40, respectively.
Obtaining fits in terms of SDSS filters was somewhat more complicated. We computed transformations between traditional and SDSS colors using average colors by spectral type. The fits between SDSS and Cousins-2MASS colors, $r - i$ to V$-I_C$ and $i - z$ to I$_C-K_s$, are shown in Figure 2. The fits obtained are: $$\begin{aligned}
i - z & = & -1.64309 + 1.59859(I_C-K_s) - 0.300041(I_C-K_s)^2
\nonumber\\
& & + 0.0247425(I_C-K_s)^3,\\
\nonumber
r - i & = & 4.14067 - 4.52318(V-I_C) + 1.91395(V-I_C)^2
\nonumber\\
& & - 0.225000(V-I_C)^3 \\
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Using these relations, we transformed our sample onto the SDSS system, and obtained fits to $\log(\chi)$ in terms of $r-i$ and $i-z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\log(\chi) & = & -3.44258 - 0.509421(r-i) \\
\log(\chi) & = & -3.31740 - 1.153440(i-z)\\
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for ranges in color 0.92 $\leq$ $r-i$ $\leq$ 2.27, and 0.47 $\leq$ $i-z$ $\leq$ 2.00, respectively.
In addition, we also provide fits to f$_{\rm{bol}}$ as a function of I$_C$, K$_s$, I$_C$ - K$_s$ and $i-z$ for our full sample: $$\begin{aligned}
\log(f_{\rm{bol}}) & = & -5.48852 --0.34855 I_C\\
\log(f_{\rm{bol}}) & = & -5.89394 --0.42029 K_s\\
\log(f_{\rm{bol}}) & = & -4.92702 - 1.51571(I_C-K_s) \\
\log(f_{\rm{bol}}) & = & -6.00382 - 3.25601(i - z).\\
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Summary
=======
In order to study the strength of magnetic activity as a function of spectral type, we require a distance-independent way of determining the ratio L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$. We used a sample of nearby stars and cool standards from 2MASS, spanning spectral types M0.5 to L0, with ranges in color 1.89 $\leq$ I$_C-K_s$ $\leq$ 5.12, and 1.91 $\leq$ V$-I_C$ $\leq$ 4.40. For the 8 parsec sample stars, we obtained the bolometric flux from photometry combined with bolometric corrections. For the 2MASS standards, optical photometry was obtained by convolving the spectra with filter response, then bolometric corrections were applied. The flux in the continuum near H$\alpha$ was obtained directly from the spectra. In both cases, we computed SDSS photometry for the sample using color transformations, provided in Section 3. We then found the ratio $\chi$ = f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$. In Section 3, we provided fits to $\chi$ as a function of color (V - I$_C$, I$_C$ - K$_s$, $r - i$, $i - z$). Table 1 gives average $\chi$ values at each spectral type in the event photometry is not available, while Table 2 provides $\chi$ values for all stars in our sample. $\chi$ may be multiplied by the measured equivalent width in H$\alpha$ for a given star to yield the activity strength ratio, L$_{\rm{H}\alpha}$/L$_{\rm{bol}}$. If the reader possesses excellent quality data, the method described here may also be used to calculate f$_{\lambda6560}$/f$_{\rm{bol}}$ for individual program stars.
This method has already yielded cleaner results for activity strength calculations in @we04, better illuminating trends in magnetic behavior at the end of the Main Sequence. Improved color transformations and a larger sample of stars with well-calibrated photometry and spectra are required to reduce the scatter in these relations.
We thank I. Neill Reid for providing data for the 8pc sample and late-type objects from 2MASS. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
Burgasser, A.J., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Reid, I.N., Liebert, J., Gizis, J.E., & Brown, M.E. 2000, , 120, 473 Carpenter, J.M. 2001, , 121, 2851 Cutri, R.M., et al.2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, 0 Giampapa, M. S., Worden, S. P., & Linsky, J. L. 1982, , 258, 740 Gizis, J.E., Monet, D.G., Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Liebert, J., & Williams, R.J. 2000, , 120, 1085 Gizis, J.E., Monet, D.G., Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Burgasser, A.J. 2000, , 311, 385 Gizis, J.E., Reid, I.N., & Hawley, S.L. 2002, , 123, 3356 Hawley, S.L., Gizis, J.E., & Reid, I.N. 1996, , 112, 2799 Henry, T.J., Ianna, P.A., Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Jahreiss, H. 1997, , 114, 388 Joy, A.H. & Abt, H.A. 1974, , 28, 1 Kirkpatrick, J.D., et al.1999, , 519, 802 Kirkpatrick, J.D., Reid, I.N., Liebert, J., Gizis, J.E., Burgasser, A.J., Monet, D.G., Dahn, C.C., Nelson, B., & Williams, R.J. 2000, , 120, 447 Leggett, S.K., Allard, F., Berriman, G., Dahn, C.C., Hauschildt, P.H. 1996, , 104, 117 Leggett, S.K. Allard, F., Geballe, T.R., Hauschildt, P.H., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, , 548, 908 Lépine, S., Rich, R.M., & Shara, M.M. 2003, , 125, 1598 Mohanty, S., Basri, G., Shu, F., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2002, , 571, 469 Reid, I.N., Hawley, S.L., & Gizis, J.E. 1995, , 110, 1838 Reid, N., Hawley, S.L., & Mateo, M. 1995, , 272, 828 Reid, I.N., & Gizis, J.E. 1997, , 113, 2286 Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Gizis, J.E., & Liebert, J. 1999, , 527, L105 Reid, N. and Hawley, S.L., eds. 2000, New light on dark stars : red dwarfs, low mass stars, brown dwarfs (Chichester, UK: Praxis) Reid, I.N., Gizis, J.E., & Hawley, S.L. 2002, , 124, 2721 Reid, I.N., et al.2004, , 128, 463 West, A.A., et al.2004, , 128, 426
[rrrrrrr]{} 4 &M0.5 V& 2.01 & 1.97 & &&$-$3.93619\
4 &M1.0 V& 2.05 & 2.02 & 0.99 &0.50 &$-$3.93438\
5 &M1.5 V& 2.11 & 2.01 & &&$-$3.95412\
2 &M2.0 V& 2.20 & 2.04 & 1.09 &0.62 &$-$4.01516\
2 &M2.5 V& 2.36 & 2.14 &&&$-$4.11041\
7 &M3.0 V& 2.52 & 2.19 & 1.29 &0.73& $-$4.13192\
13&M3.5 V& 2.69 & 2.28 & && $-$4.08665\
8 &M4.0 V& 2.84 & 2.39 & 1.57 &0.87&$-$4.19592\
9 &M4.5 V& 3.06 & 2.51 & &&$-$4.15220\
3 &M5.0 V& 3.46 & 3.15 & 1.98 &1.09 &$-$4.56243\
3 &M5.5 V& 3.61 & 2.87 & & &$-$4.46623\
3 &M6.0 V& 3.92 & 3.34 & 2.27 &1.27 &$-$4.75570\
3 &M6.5 V& 4.33 & 3.33 & & & $-$4.99468\
2 &M7.0 V& & 4.04 & 2.67 &1.52 &$-$5.28066\
2 &M7.5 V& & 3.43 & &&$-$5.01218\
2 &M8.0 V& & 3.99 & 2.82 &1.62 &$-$5.21965\
1 &M9.0 V& & 4.66 & 2.89 &1.79 &$-$5.41719\
2 &M9.5 V& & 4.89 & &&$-$5.36094\
2 &L0.0 V& & 4.82 & 2.64 &1.85 &$-$5.32938\
[lrrrrr]{} GJ 229 & M0.5 V & 2.01 & 1.98 & 2.49 & $-$3.998\
GJ 412 A & M0.5 V& 2.02 & 2.02 & 2.51 & $-$4.027\
GJ 514 & M0.5 V& 2.01 & 2.00 & 2.50 & $-$3.945\
GJ 809 & M0.5 V& 1.99 & 1.89 & 2.43 & $-$3.808\
GJ 15 A & M1.0 V& 2.14 & 1.93 & 2.46 & $-$3.855\
GJ 570 B & M1.0 V& 1.91 & 2.27 & 2.65 & $-$4.251\
GJ 686 & M1.0 V& 2.11 & 1.95 & 2.47 & $-$4.143\
GJ 908 & M1.0 V& 2.03 & 1.92 & 2.45 & $-$3.704\
GJ 205 & M1.5 V& 2.08 & 2.02 & 2.51 & $-$3.936\
GJ 526 & M1.5 V& 2.04 & 1.99 & 2.49 & $-$3.846\
GJ 625 & M1.5 V& 2.21 & 2.07 & 2.54 & $-$3.924\
GJ 880 & M1.5 V& 2.11 & 2.04 & 2.52 & $-$3.855\
GJ 1 & M1.5 V& 2.12 & 1.93 & 2.46 & $-$4.415\
GJ 393 & M2.0 V& 2.24 & 2.09 & 2.55 & $-$4.198\
GJ 411 & M2.0 V& 2.15 & 1.98 & 2.49 & $-$3.887\
GJ 408 & M2.5 V& 2.39 & 2.11 & 2.56 & $-$4.121\
GJ 752 A & M2.5 V& 2.32 & 2.16 & 2.59 & $-$4.100\
GJ 109 & M3.0 V& 2.45 & 2.26 & 2.64 & $-$4.024\
GJ 251 & M3.0 V& 2.53 & 2.22 & 2.62 & $-$4.165\
GJ 388 & M3.0 V& 2.51 & 2.22 & 2.62 & $-$4.077\
GJ 581 & M3.0 V& 2.51 & 2.22 & 2.62 & $-$4.228\
GJ 687 & M3.0 V& 2.50 & 2.22 & 2.62 & $-$4.479\
GJ 725 A & M3.0 V& 2.46 & 2.02 & 2.51 & $-$3.993\
GJ 860 A & M3.0 V& 2.68 & 2.19 & 2.61 & $-$4.120\
GJ 15 B & M3.5 V& 2.82 & 2.30 & 2.66 & $-$4.122\
GJ 190 & M3.5 V& 2.64 & 2.35 & 2.69 & $-$4.183\
GJ 273 & M3.5 V& 2.71 & 2.29 & 2.66 & $-$4.114\
GJ 445 & M3.5 V& 2.64 & 2.27 & 2.65 & $-$3.969\
GJ 628 & M3.5 V& 2.68 & 2.32 & 2.67 & $-$4.427\
GJ 643 & M3.5 V& 2.73 & 2.32 & 2.67 & $-$4.154\
G 203-047 A & M3.5 V& 2.81 & 2.47 & 2.74 & $-$4.584\
GJ 661 A & M3.5 V& 2.51 & 2.09 & 2.55 & $-$3.726\
GJ 725 B & M3.5 V& 2.55 & 2.18 & 2.60 & $-$4.092\
GJ 729 & M3.5 V& 2.78 & 2.32 & 2.67 & $-$4.012\
GJ 829 B & M3.5 V& 2.58 & 2.27 & 2.65 & $-$4.132\
GJ 873 & M3.5 V& 2.69 & 2.28 & 2.65 & $-$4.009\
GJ 896 A & M3.5 V& 2.84 & 2.15 & 2.59 & $-$4.168\
GJ 1005 B & M4.0 V& 2.77 & 2.19 & 2.61 & $-$4.019\
GJ 105 B & M4.0 V& 2.78 & 2.29 & 2.66 & $-$4.039\
GJ 169.1 A & M4.0 V& 2.81 & 2.51 & 2.76 & $-$4.323\
GJ 213 & M4.0 V& 2.82 & 2.36 & 2.69 & $-$4.338\
GJ 300 & M4.0 V& 2.90 & 2.51 & 2.76 & $-$4.311\
GJ 447 & M4.0 V& 2.98 & 2.53 & 2.76 & $-$4.067\
GJ 555 & M4.0 V& 2.86 & 2.46 & 2.74 & $-$4.571\
GJ 699 & M4.0 V& 2.78 & 2.28 & 2.65 & $-$4.171\
GJ 54.1 & M4.5 V& 3.13 & 2.52 & 2.76 & $-$4.149\
GJ 83.1 & M4.5 V& 3.12 & 2.52 & 2.76 & $-$4.130\
GJ 166 C & M4.5 V& 2.87 & 2.38 & 2.70 & $-$4.034\
GJ 285 & M4.5 V& 2.95 & 2.49 & 2.75 & $-$3.981\
GJ 299 & M4.5 V& 2.92 & 2.29 & 2.66 & $-$4.422\
GJ 1224 & M4.5 V& 3.18 & 2.44 & 2.73 & $-$4.066\
LHS 3376 & M4.5 V& 3.12 & 2.65 & 2.81 & $-$4.196\
LHS 3799 & M4.5 V& 3.22 & 2.66 & 2.81 & $-$4.345\
2MJ2300189$+$121024 & M4.5 V& & 2.61 & 2.80 & $-$4.226\
GJ 1156 & M5.0 V& 3.46 & 2.78 & 2.85 & $-$4.632\
GJ 905 & M5.0 V& 3.45 & 2.91 & 2.88 & $-$4.387\
2MJ0244463$+$153531A & M5.0 V& & 3.77 & 3.06 & $-$4.749\
GJ 1002 & M5.5 V& 3.59 & 2.76 & 2.84 & $-$4.419\
GJ 1286 & M5.5 V& 3.63 & 2.75 & 2.84 & $-$4.449\
2MJ0244463$+$153531B & M5.5 V& & 3.10 & 2.93 & $-$4.539\
GJ 406 & M6.0 V& 4.06 & 3.33 & 2.93 & $-$4.925\
GJ 412 B & M6.0 V& 3.77 & 2.8 & 2.85 & $-$4.562\
2MJ0435490$+$153720 & M6.0 V& & 3.89 & 3.07 & $-$4.874\
GJ 1111 & M6.5 V& 4.26 & 3.29 & 2.93 & $-$5.022\
LHS 292 & M6.5 V& 4.40 & 3.26 & 2.93 & $-$5.089\
2MJ0242252$+$134313 & M6.5 V& & 3.43 & 2.99 & $-$4.896\
2MJ0055584$+$275652 & M7.0 V& & 3.70 & 3.04 & $-$5.238\
2MJ0855559$+$380343 & M7.0 V& & 4.39 & 3.14 & $-$5.328\
2MJ0348036$+$234411 & M7.5 V& & 3.52 & 3.01 & $-$4.973\
2MJ2258590$+$152047 & M7.5 V& & 3.34 & 2.98 & $-$5.055\
2MJ1047138$+$402649 & M8.0 V& & 3.62 & 3.03 & $-$5.037\
2MJ1434264$+$194050 & M8.0 V& & 4.36 & 3.14 & $-$5.542\
2MJ0251222$+$252124 & M9.0 V& & 4.66 & 3.18 & $-$5.417\
2MJ0024246$-$015820 & M9.5 V& & 4.84 & 3.20 & $-$5.292\
2MJ1733189$+$463400 & M9.5 V& & 4.94 & 3.21 & $-$5.442\
2MJ0345432$+$254023 & L0.0 V& & 4.51 & 3.16 & $-$5.312\
2MJ0058425$-$065124 & L0.0 V& & 5.12 & 3.23 & $-$5.347\
![$\log(\chi)$ versus I$_C-K_s$ (upper) and V$-I_C$ (lower). Data are shown as individual crosses; the fit given in the text is the solid line in each panel.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fg1){width="70.00000%"}
![Data and fits between SDSS and Cousins-2MASS colors: $r - i$ versus V$-I_C$ (upper) and $i - z$ versus I$_C-K_s$ (lower).[]{data-label="fig2"}](fg2){width="70.00000%"}
![$\log(\chi)$ versus $r - i$ (upper) and $i - z$ (lower). Original colors transformed to SDSS using fits to average color by spectral type.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fg3){width="70.00000%"}
![f$_{\rm{bol}}$ for our sample as a function of I$_c$ and K$_s$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fg4){width="70.00000%"}
![f$_{\rm{bol}}$ for our sample as a function of I$_c$ - K$_s$ and $i - z$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fg5){width="70.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Equations of divergence type in static spacetimes play a significant role in the proof of uniqueness theorems of black holes. We generalize the divergence equation originally discovered by Robinson in four dimensional vacuum spacetimes into several directions. We find that the deviation from spherical symmetry is encoded in a symmetric trace-free tensor $H_{ij}$ on a static timeslice. This tensor is the crux for the construction of the desired divergence equation, which allows us to conclude the uniqueness of the Schwarzschild black hole without using Smarr’s integration mass formula. In Einstein-Maxwell(-dilaton) theory, we apply the maximal principle for a number of divergence equations to prove the uniqueness theorem of static black holes. In higher $(n\ge 5)$ dimensional vacuum spacetimes, a central obstruction for applicability of the current proof is the integration of the $(n-2)$-dimensional scalar curvature over the horizon cross-section, which has been evaluated to be a topological constant by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem for $n=4$. Nevertheless, it turns out that the $(n-1)$-dimensional symmetric and traceless tensor $H_{ij}$ is still instrumental for the modification of the uniqueness proof based upon the positive mass theorem, as well as for the derivation of the Penrose-type inequality.'
author:
- '${}^{1}$Masato Nozawa, ${}^{2,3}$Tetsuya Shiromizu, ${}^{3,2}$Keisuke Izumi and ${}^{4}$Sumio Yamada'
title: Divergence equations and uniqueness theorem of static black holes
---
Introduction
============
In four spacetime dimensions, asymptotically flat and static black holes to vacuum Einstein’s equations are uniquely determined to be the Schwarzschild solution. A first proof was undertaken by Israel [@israel], assuming that the horizon is spherical, non-degenerate and connected. The authors in [@MRS] were able to remove some technical conditions assumed in [@israel] such as spherical topology, although this turned out to be a consequence of the topology theorem of event horizon. Subsequently, Robinson [@robinson] gave a considerably simplified proof that encompasses the previous works. All of these methods are based upon nonlinear “divergence equations” built out of the quantities on the static timeslice. Integrating this divergence equation over the static timeslice, one gets inequalities involving mass, area and surface gravity of the horizon and it turns out that only the equalities are consistent. This leads to the spherical symmetry and therefore the metric is exhausted by the Schwarzschild solution. An alternative strategy proposed in [@bunting] makes an elegant use of the positive mass theorem [@Schon:1979rg; @SchonYau; @Witten:1981mf] and has been extended with suitable modifications into higher dimensions [@hwang; @Gibbons:2002bh; @Gibbons:2002av; @Gibbons:2002ju; @Rogatko:2003kj; @Kunduri:2017htl].
A notion closely linked to the black hole uniqueness is the Penrose inequality $M \ge \sqrt{A/(16\pi)}$ [@penrose1973], where $A$ is the minimal area of the surface enclosing the apparent horizons and $M$ is the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of the asymptotically flat initial data set. Although the Penrose inequality is an important concept from the perspective of the cosmic censorship conjecture, its unequivocal proof is still lacking. Nevertheless, the Riemannian Penrose inequality has been established for an asymptotically flat three-manifold of nonnegative scalar curvature foliated by evolving surfaces of inverse mean curvature flow [@wald1977; @imcf; @jang1979].[^1] The monotonicity of the Geroch/Hawking quasi-local mass [@hawking1968; @geroch1973] along the inverse mean curvature flow is the key property for the proof of the Riemannian Penrose inequality. In this setting, the statement is also rigid, in the sense that equality is achieved if and only if the outside region of the apparent horizon is the Schwarzschild solution. This illustrates a fertile relationship between the uniqueness theorem of black holes and the Penrose inequality. Indeed, it has been argued that two inequalities in Israel’s proof correspond to the Penrose-type inequality and its “reversed” version [@Mizuno:2009fj], and the concurrent rigidities of the two inequalities correspond to the spherically symmetric spacetime.
At the moment, the proof of the Riemannian Penrose inequality based on the inverse mean curvature flow fails in higher dimensions. In order to understand in detail the relation to the Riemannian Penrose inequality, it is instructive to validate the uniqueness theorem in higher dimensions following the arguments in [@israel; @MRS; @robinson]. The proof would offer a new insight into the corresponding flow in higher dimensions and would be much more intuitive than the one exploiting the positive mass theorem. However, it has been widely believed that the proofs in [@israel; @MRS; @robinson] do not have a simple generalization into higher dimensions, since the dimensionality of the spacetime enters the proof in the following manner. The proofs in [@israel; @MRS; @robinson] are based upon a divergence equation defined on a spacelike hypersurface which is asymptotically flat and terminates at the bifurcation surface of event horizon. This divergence equation gives rise to several inequalities involving integration of the scalar curvature for the induced metric on the horizon cross-section. In four dimensions, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem enables us to evaluate this quantity as a topological invariant. Obviously this is not possible in $n\ge 5$ dimensions. Moreover, the source term in the divergence equation involves the Cotton tensor for the spatial metric, which turns out to vanish in a static and spherically symmetric spacetime. Since the Cotton tensor is an obstruction for the conformal flatness only for the three dimensional space, the existence of the desired divergence equation might be special to spatial dimension three.
These unsettled issues motivate us to study more deeply the uniqueness proofs based on the divergence equations. In hindsight, it is surprising that there exists a useful formula of divergence type adapted to the proof of the uniqueness theorem. We therefore attempt to provide a systematic derivation of the divergence equation toward the spherical symmetry. The present reformulation has several advantages over the original treatment in [@robinson]. Our formula in the vacuum case includes an additional free parameter, which allows us to conclude the uniqueness of the Schwarzschild solution without invoking the integrated mass formula that relates the mass, horizon area and surface gravity. The redundancy of the mass formula is a desirable presage when one tries to apply the proof for the non-asymptotically flat situation. For the Einstein-Maxwell theory, previous attempts for the uniqueness proof based upon divergence equation made a heavy use of the property of the symmetric coset space of the nonlinear sigma model. In contrast, our formulation does not rely on this property. In Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory, the most difficult problem was how to determine the value of the dilaton field at the horizon, which is not constant in general. We overcome this hindrance by discovering an entirely new divergence equation which is used to fix the dilaton field at the horizon in conjugation with the maximal principle. In addition, our formula in four dimensions does not make a direct appeal to the Cotton tensor to conclude the spherical symmetry. In place of the Cotton tensor, a central role is played by the symmetric and trace-free tensor $H_{ij}$ constructed out of geometric quantities on a spatial hypersurface. Although our proof does not admit a straightforward higher-dimensional generalization, this tensorial field is of considerable help in modifying the proof based upon the positive mass theorem. This presents a more geometrically intuitive explanation for the spherical symmetry, rather than the Dirichlet boundary value problem defined on the underlying Euclidean space. The Penrose-type inequality in the static case is also derived from the diverse divergence equations in higher dimensions.
The present article is organized as follows. In the next section, we study the uniqueness proof of static vacuum black holes by extending the result of Robinson [@robinson]. In section \[sec:electrovac\], we shall discuss the proof in the electrovacuum case. The Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory will be addressed in section \[sec:EMD\]. In section \[sec:higherD\], we will discuss the uniqueness theorem in higher dimensions. Concluding comments are described in the final section \[sec:summary\].
Uniqueness theorem for vacuum black holes {#sec:vacuum}
=========================================
Let us consider the solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations $R_{\mu\nu}=0$. The most fundamental black hole solution is the Schwarzschild metric $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sch}
{{\rm d}}s^2=-\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right){{\rm d}}t^2+\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}{{\rm d}}r^2+r^2 {{\rm d}}\Omega_2^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ where ${{\rm d}}\Omega_2^2 ={{\rm d}}\theta^2+\sin^2\theta {{\rm d}}\varphi^2$ is the standard metric of a unit two-sphere. Here $M>0$ is the ADM mass [@Arnowitt:1962hi]. This metric is static, spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat. A regular event horizon locates at $r=2M$.
Among the static black hole solutions in the asymptotically flat spacetimes, the Schwarzschild solution is the only vacuum solution which admits a regular horizon [@israel; @MRS; @robinson; @bunting]. We discuss how the proof proceeds. When the spacetime admits a static Killing vector, the metric can be cast into the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metric}
{{\rm d}}s^2=-V^2(x){{\rm d}}t^2 +g_{ij}(x) {{\rm d}}x^i {{\rm d}}x^j \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $g_{ij}$ is the metric of the constant timeslice $\Sigma$. $V$ and $g_{ij}$ are independent of the time coordinate $t$. The event horizon locates at $V=0$, where the Killing vector $\partial/\partial t$ becomes null. The vacuum Einstein equations $R_{\mu\nu}=0$ decouple into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vacuumtt}
D^2V=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vacuumij}
{}^{(3)}\!R_{ij}=\frac 1V D_iD_j V\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $D_i $ and ${}^{(3)}\!R_{ij}$ are the linear connection and the Ricci tensor associated with $g_{ij}$. Here and throughout this paper, we use the abbreviated notation $D^2 V=D_iD^iV$ and $(D V)^2=|D_iV|^2=D_iVD^iV$. From these equations, one sees that the scalar curvature for the space ($\Sigma, g_{ij}$) vanishes.
For later purpose, it turns out useful to locally foliate $\Sigma$ by the level set ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V=\{V={\rm constant}\}$. Let us denote the unit normal to $\mathcal S_V $ in $\Sigma$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
n_i = \rho D_i V \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho \equiv (D^iVD_iV)^{-1/2}$ stands for the lapse function. The induced metric and the extrinsic curvature of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ in $\Sigma$ are given respectively by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
h_{ij}=g_{ij}-n_i n_j \,, \qquad k_{ij}=h_i{}^k D_k n_j \,. \end{aligned}$$ We shall denote (twice) the mean curvature and the shear tensor of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
k\equiv h^{ij}k_{ij} \,, \qquad \sigma_{ij}\equiv k_{ij}-\frac 12 k h_{ij} \,. \end{aligned}$$ The vacuum Einstein’s equations can be expressed in terms of these geometric objects. The equations which we need in our analysis are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vacEineq_rhoR}
n^i D_i \rho= \rho k \,, \qquad
{}^{(2)}\! R=\frac{2k}{V\rho}+k^2 -k_{ij}k^{ij} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Here $ {}^{(2)}\! R$ is the scalar curvature for the first fundamental form $h_{ij}$. The former equation stems from (\[vacuumtt\]), while the latter is derived from (\[vacuumij\]) and the Gauss equation.
Let us now specify our boundary conditions in terms of these geometric quantities. The curvature invariant ${\mbox{$\mathcal{K}$}}=R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ is easily computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
{\mbox{$\mathcal{K}$}}= \frac{8}{V^2 \rho^2}\left[
k_{ij}k^{ij}+k^2+\frac{2}{\rho^2}(\mathcal D\rho)^2
\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal D_i$ is the linear connection for $h_{ij}$. The finiteness of $\mathcal K$ at the horizon $V=0$ imposes the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_BChorizon}
\left.k_{ij}\right|_{V=0}=0 \,, \qquad \left. \mathcal D_i \rho \right|_{V=0}=0\,. \end{aligned}$$ The second condition represents the zero-th law, i.e, equilibrium condition, of black hole thermodynamics, since $\rho_{0}\equiv \rho|_{V=0}$ corresponds to the inverse of surface gravity of the event horizon. In what follows, we assume that the event horizon is nonextremal $(0<\rho_0<\infty)$ and connected.
The boundary conditions at infinity are fixed by the asymptotic flatness $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BCinf}
V \sim 1-\frac{M}{r} \,, \qquad g_{ij} \sim \left(1+\frac{2M}{r}\right)\delta_{ij} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $M(>0)$ is the ADM mass. In terms of geometric quantities of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$, the asymptotic boundary conditions (\[BCinf\]) translate into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BCinfkrho}
k\sim \frac{2}{r} \,, \qquad \rho \sim \frac{r^2}{M} \,, \qquad \sigma_{ij}=O(1/r^6) \,. \end{aligned}$$ By the maximum/minimum principle, (\[vacuumtt\]) fixes the range of $V$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vrange}
0\le V <1.\end{aligned}$$ In the original work of Israel [@israel], the global foliation of $\Sigma=\mathbb R\times \mathcal S_V$ has been postulated. Henceforth, the topology of the cross section at infinity $\mathcal S_{V=1}$ and at the horizon $\mathcal S_{V=0}$ must be topologically homeomorphic, i.e, they are both $S^2$. In the present formulation, by contrast, we shall use equations (\[vacEineq\_rhoR\]), (\[vac\_BChorizon\]), (\[BCinfkrho\]) only at the evaluation of surface integrals either at infinity or at the horizon. Thus, the local existence of the foliation at each neighborhood is sufficient for our purpose. This is a main advantage of the current prescription.
Robinson’s proof
----------------
Let us first recapitulate the argument in Robinson’s short letter [@robinson], where it was pointed out without derivation that there exists a powerful identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robinsonid}
D_i \left[
-2 f_1^R(V)\frac{D^i \rho}{\rho^3 }+\frac{f_2^R(V)}{\rho^2} D^i V
\right]=\frac 14 \rho ^2 f_1^R(V)V^4 C_{ijk}C^{ijk}
+\frac{3f_1^R(V)}{\rho^2}\left| \frac{D_i\rho}{\rho}-\frac{4V}{1-V^2}D_i V\right|^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{1,2}^R(V)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
f_1^{R}(V)=\frac{c_1V^2+c_2}{V(1-V^2)^3}\,, \qquad f_2^{R}(V)=-\frac{2c_1}{(1-V^2)^3} +\frac{6(c_1V^2+c_2)}{(1-V^2)^4}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Here $C_{ijk}=2 D_{[i}({}^{(3)}R_{j]k}-({}^{(3)}R/4)g_{j]k})$ is the Cotton tensor, whose vanishing is equivalent to the conformal flatness of the three surface $\Sigma$. $c_1$ and $c_2$ are arbitrary constants. To ensure $f_1^{R}(V)\ge 0$, the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ are chosen to take values in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robinson_c1c2}
c_1 +c_2 \ge 0 \,, \qquad c_2 \ge 0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ For this range of parameters, the right hand side of (\[Robinsonid\]) is nonnegative. Using the Stokes theorem, one can transform the volume integral of (\[Robinsonid\]) over the spatial slice $\Sigma$ into surface integral. The surface integral can be estimated by using (\[vacEineq\_rhoR\]), (\[vac\_BChorizon\]), (\[BCinf\]), giving rise to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
0\le -\frac{\pi}{2M}(c_1+c_2)- \left[-4\pi \chi c_2 \rho_0^{-1}+(6c_2-2c_1)\rho_0^{-3}A_H\right] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_H$, $\chi $ are respectively the area and the Euler number for the cross-section $B$ of the horizon $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Euler}
A_H= \int _B {{\rm d}}S \,, \qquad
\chi = \frac 1{4\pi} \int_B {}^{(2)} R {{\rm d}}S \,. \end{aligned}$$
One sees that the choice $c_1=1$ and $c_2=0$ satisfies (\[Robinson\_c1c2\]), for which one obtains the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robinsonint2}
A_H \ge \frac{\pi}{4M} \rho^3_0\,. \end{aligned}$$ For the choice $c_1=-1$, $c_2=1$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robinsonint1p}
A_H \le \frac 12 \pi \rho_0^2 \chi \,. \end{aligned}$$ This is obviously compatible only for $\chi >0$. Since the compact, orientable and connected two-surface of positive Euler number is inevitably a sphere, one obtains $\chi=2$. This is consistent with the general results on the topology of stationary black holes [@Hawking:1971vc; @Chrusciel:1994tr]. Thus (\[Robinsonint1p\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robinsonint1}
A_H \le \rho_0^2 \pi \,. \end{aligned}$$ We have obtained two inequalities (\[Robinsonint2\]), (\[Robinsonint1\]), but we need one more relation between physical/geometrical parameters $(M, \rho_0, A_H)$. This can be obtained by integrating $D^2 V=0$ over $\Sigma$, yielding Smarr’s integrated mass formula [@Smarr:1972kt] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Smarr4Dvac}
\rho_0 M=\frac {1}{4\pi}A_H \,.\end{aligned}$$ This relation arises from the integrability of the Killing equation ($\nabla^\nu\nabla_\nu\xi^\mu=-R^\mu{}_\nu\xi^\nu$) for the static Killing vector $\xi=\partial/\partial t$.
Eliminating $\rho_0$ by use of (\[Smarr4Dvac\]), (\[Robinsonint2\]) yields the ordinary Penrose inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
A_H \le 16 \pi M^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ while (\[Robinsonint1\]) gives the reversed inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
A_H \ge 16 \pi M^2 \,. \end{aligned}$$ Compatibility demands that the equality must hold. One thus deduces from (\[Robinsonid\]) to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vacCDrho}
C_{ijk}=0 \,, \qquad \frac{D_i\rho}{\rho}-\frac{4V}{1-V^2}D_i V=0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ By the Lindblom identity [@Lindblom] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Csq}
C_{ijk}C^{ijk}=\frac{8}{V^4 \rho^4}\left(
\sigma_{ij}\sigma^{ij}+\frac{({\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}} \rho)^2}{2\rho^2}
\right) \,, \end{aligned}$$ it turns out that the foliation ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V=\{V={\rm constant}\}$ is shear-free in $\Sigma$ and the second equation in (\[vacCDrho\]) is solved to give $\rho(V) =4M/(1-V^2)^2$, where the integration constant has been settled by the asymptotic flatness. Equation (\[vacEineq\_rhoR\]) then implies that the scalar curvature for the two-dimensional metric $\hat h_{ij}=(M \rho)^{-1} h_{ij}$ is a positive constant, implying that $\hat h_{ij}$ is the standard metric of a unit sphere. It turns out that the spacetime is spherically symmetric. A change of variable $r=2M/(1-V^2)$ casts the metric into the Schwarzschild solution (\[Sch\]). This completes the proof.
In contrast to Israel’s original method [@israel], Robinson’s proof does not assume the foliation $\Sigma=\mathbb R\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ throughout the domain of outer communications. Accordingly, one does not a priori put any restrictions to the topology of black holes. If the horizon is not spherical, the foliation $ {\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V=\{V={\rm constant}\}$ obviously fails to cover the whole of domain of outer communications. This would be a nice property when one tries to generalize the proof in higher dimensions, since the possibility for the topology of higher dimensional black holes are much richer.
Generalization of divergence equation
-------------------------------------
In Robinson’s proof, the divergence equation (\[Robinsonid\]) plays a central role. Its effectiveness to deduce the black hole uniqueness without expending considerable effort is an appealing feature. At the same time, it remains enigmatic why this kind of desirable equations exists at all. Also, it seems unlikely that one can generalize the proof in the presence of electromagnetic field in this original formulation, without specifying the functional relationship between the norm of the Killing vector and the electrostatic potential. The presence of the Cotton tensor within the formula is not convenient as well, if one tries to generalize the present scheme to higher dimensions. Finally, we would like to relinquish the Smarr relation since analogous integrated mass formulas do not exist in the asymptotically (A)dS case.
Motivated by these issues, let us try to generalize the equation (\[Robinsonid\]). Inspecting (\[Robinsonid\]), we wish to find a current $J^i$ satisfying the divergence type equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{currentcons}
D_i J^i =(\textrm{terms of a definite sign}) \,. \end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of this equation consists of a sum of the tensorial norms which vanish for the Schwarzschild solution. We find that the candidates of this kind are the symmetric tensor of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_Hij}
H_{ij} \equiv D_iD_j V-\frac{2V}{\rho^2 (1-V^2)}g_{ij}+\frac{6V}{1-V^2}D_i VD_j V\,, \end{aligned}$$ and the vector field $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vacHi}
H_i \equiv \frac{D_i \rho}{\rho}-\frac{4V}{1-V^2}D_i V \,. \end{aligned}$$ These spatial tensors satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_{ij}D^j V=-\rho^{-2}H_i \,, \qquad H^i{}_i=0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ The vanishing of the tensor $H_{ij}$ for the Schwarzschild solution can be easily deduced by decomposing (\[vac\_Hij\]) into geometric quantities of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_Hij_dec}
H_{ij}=\rho^{-1}\sigma_{ij}-2\rho^{-2}n_{(i}{\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_{j)}\rho +\frac{1}{2\rho}\left(k-\frac{4V}{\rho(1-V^2)}\right)(h_{ij}-2n_in_j)\,. \end{aligned}$$ It follows that the tensor $H_{ij}$ encodes the deviation from spherical symmetry. (See the discussion after (\[Csq\]), and also (\[Sch\_Uni\_Hmndechigh\]) for $n\ge 5$ dimensional case. We also refer to (\[Dizeta\]) and (\[RijHij\]) for further geometric meaning of $H_{ij}$.) This can be also seen by computing the Cotton tensor, which is now expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Cottonvac}
C_{ijk}=\frac{2}{V^2}(2H_{k[i}D_{j]}V+\rho^{-2} H_{[i}g_{j]k}) \,. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore our current aim is to show $H_{ij}=0$ under the present boundary conditions.
As the first step, let us make an ansatz for the current $J^i$ to be the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
J^i =f_1(V)g_1(\rho) D^i\rho +f_2(V)g_2(\rho) D^iV \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{1,2}(V)$ and $g_{1,2}(\rho)$ are functions of each argument which will be fixed below. This separable form of the current is the same as (\[Robinsonid\]). The divergence of this current is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DJvac1}
D_iJ^i= (f_1'g_1+f_2 g_2')D^i \rho D_i V +f_1 g_1' (D \rho)^2+f_1g_1D^2\rho +f_2'g_2 (DV)^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to the single variable of the corresponding function. Using $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laprho}
D^2 \rho &=-\rho^3 |D_iD_j V|^2 +\frac 1V D^iVD_i \rho +\frac 3\rho (D \rho)^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ equation (\[DJvac1\]) is rewritten into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D_iJ^i=& f_1(V)\rho^3 g_1(\rho )\left[
-|H_{ij}|^2+\frac{|H_i|^2}{\rho^2}\left(3+\frac{\rho g_1'(\rho)}{g_1(\rho)}\right)\right]
+H_iD^i V S_1+S_2 \,,
\label{vac_divJ_3dim}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S1}
S_1=&\frac{\rho g_1(\rho) V f_1(V)}{1-V^2}\left[
\frac{1-V^2}{V}\left(\frac 1V+\frac{f_1'(V)}{f_1(V)}\right) +12 +\frac{8\rho g_1'(\rho)}{g_1(\rho)}
+\frac{1-V^2}{V}\frac{f_2(V)}{f_1(V)}\frac{g_2'(\rho)}{g_1(\rho)}
\right] \,, \\
\label{S2}
S_2=& \frac{4V}{(1-V^2)\rho^2}S_1+\frac{V^2 f_1(V)g_2(\rho)}{(1-V^2)^2 \rho^2 }
\left[\frac{(1-V^2)^2 f_2'(V)}{V^2 f_1(V)}-\frac{8\rho g_1(\rho)}{g_2(\rho)}
\left(3+\frac{2\rho g_1'(\rho)}{g_1(\rho)}\right)
\right] \,.
$$ Now we would like to render the right-hand side of (\[vac\_divJ\_3dim\]) to have a definite sign and to vanish for the Schwarzschild solution. Since we cannot control the signs of the last two terms in (\[vac\_divJ\_3dim\]), we require $S_1=S_2=0$. Inferring from the last term of (\[S1\]), one needs either (i) $g_2'(\rho)\propto g_1(\rho)$ or (ii) $f_2(V)\propto \frac{V}{1-V^2}f_1(V)$ to render the equations decoupled. In this paper we will focus on the former case,[^2] for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
g_1(\rho)=-c\rho ^{-(c+1)} \,, \qquad g_2(\rho)= \rho ^{-c}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is an integration constant. Substituting these back into (\[S1\]) and (\[S2\]) yields two first-order linear differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
f_1'(V)+f_2(V)+\frac{1+(3-8c)V^2}{V(1-V^2)}f_1(V)=0 \,, \qquad
f_2'(V)+\frac{8c(1-2c)V^2 }{(1-V^2)^2}f_1(V)=0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ These equations are easily solved to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}\
f_1(V)=\frac{(1-V^2)^{1-2c}}{V}\left[a+b(1-V^2)\right]\,, \qquad
f_2(V)=\frac 2{(1-V^2)^{2c}}[a(2c-1)+2bc(1-V^2)] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are integration constants. Using $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_Cottonsq}
\left|D_{[i}VH_{j]k}-\frac 1{2\rho^2} H_{[i}g_{j]k}\right|^2
=\frac{1}{2\rho^2} \left[
|H_{ij}|^2-\frac{3}{2\rho^2}|H_i|^2
\right]\,, \end{aligned}$$ we finally arrive at an improved divergence equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_divid}
D_i J^i =\frac{cf_1(V)}{2\rho^c}\left[
\left|2\rho^2 D_{[i}VH_{j]k}-H_{[i}g_{j]k}\right|^2
+\left(2c-1 \right)|H_i|^2
\right] \,.\end{aligned}$$ That this formula contains three tunable parameters is the key to the present proof for the uniqueness. By writing the first term in terms of the Cotton tensor (\[Cottonvac\]), this recovers Robinson’s equation (\[Robinsonid\]) for $c=2$, and equations (2.12) and (2.13) in [@MRS] for $c=1/2$. The right-hand side of the above equation becomes positive semi-definite, provided[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_cdond}
f_1(V) \ge 0\,, \qquad c\ge \frac 12 \,. \end{aligned}$$ The condition $f_1(V)\ge 0$ for $0\le V < 1$ is assured by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_abcond}
a\ge 0 \,, \qquad a+b \ge 0 \,. \end{aligned}$$
By Stokes’ theorem, integration of (\[vac\_divid\]) over $\Sigma$ is transformed into the inequality for surface integrals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_surfaceint}
\int _{\Sigma}D_iJ^i {{\rm d}}\Sigma =
\int_{S^\infty} J_i n^i {{\rm d}}S-\int_{B} J_i n^i {{\rm d}}S \ge 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $S^\infty$ is the two-surface at infinity and $B$ denotes the bifurcation two-surface of the horizon. Upon using (\[vacEineq\_rhoR\]), (\[vac\_BChorizon\]), (\[BCinf\]), we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_ineq}
0\le a [A_H \rho_0^{-(1+c)}- \pi (4M)^{1-c}] + (a+b)c \rho_0^{-(1+c)} [\pi \chi \rho_0^2-2A_H] \,. \end{aligned}$$ This inequality holds for any values of $a$, $b$ and $c$ satisfying (\[vac\_cdond\]) and (\[vac\_abcond\]), if and only if the pair of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vac_ineq2}
\pi \left(\frac{4M}{\rho_0}\right)^{1-c} \le \frac{A_H} {\rho_0^2} \le\frac{ \pi}{2} \chi \, \end{aligned}$$ is satisfied.
The case for $c=1$ gives $\chi \ge 2$, implying that only the spherical topology ($\chi=2$) is allowed. By setting $\chi=2$, one sees that the only case for $A_H=\pi \rho_0^2$ is consistent with (\[vac\_ineq2\]) for $c=1$. Hence, the inequality (\[vac\_surfaceint\]) is converted to an equality, and then (\[vac\_divid\]) implies $H_{ij}=0$. Therefore, the spacetime admits spherical symmetry, as desired.
We have shown the uniqueness of the Schwarzschild solution without using Smarr’s formula (\[Smarr4Dvac\]). The underlying reason behind this is that one can choose $c=1$ for which the ADM mass disappears from (\[vac\_ineq2\]). This would not have been possible in the original form of Robinson’s equation (\[Robinsonid\]), since it corresponds to $c=2$. Even though this freedom does not offer any advantages in the proof of Schwarzschild solution, the unnecessity of the Smarr formula is a desirable precursor to the proof of uniqueness theorem via divergence equation in the asymptotically (A)dS case.
It is worth commenting that the inequality $\chi \ge 2$ obtained here is the stronger than the one derived by the variational formula [@Hawking:1971vc]. In particular this rules out explicitly the topology of $\mathbb{RP}^2$ surface which has $\chi=1$ but is unorientable.
We also dispensed with the Cotton tensor in the source term of our divergence equation (\[vac\_divid\]), since the obstruction for spherical symmetry is completely encoded in $H_{ij}$. This property continues to be valid in higher dimensions, as we will see in section \[sec:higherD\].
From the separable form (\[ansatz\]) of the current $J^i$, the geometric meaning is less obvious and it is hard to read off the spherical symmetry. This is rectified by recasting the current $J^i$ into a more suggestive form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
J^i=- [(1-V^2)^2\rho]^{-c} \left[\frac{c}{V}(1-V^2)[a+b(1-V^2)] H^i +2aD^i V \right]\,. \end{aligned}$$ It is important to observe that $H_i$ defined in (\[vacHi\]) is given by the derivative of $(1-V^2)^2\rho$. For the Schwarzschild solution, this is indeed constant $(1-V^2)^2\rho=4M$. Because of this fact along with the equations of motion $D^2V=0$, the conservation of the current for the spherical symmetry becomes compelling.
We also remark that $H_{ij}=0$ is equivalent to the condition that $\zeta_i\equiv (1-V^2)^{-3}D_iV$ is a conformal Killing vector on $\Sigma$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Dizeta}
D_i\zeta_j +D_j \zeta_i-\frac{2}{3}D_k\zeta^k g_{ij} =\frac{2}{(1-V^2)^3}H_{ij}\,. \end{aligned}$$ For $H_{ij}=0$, this conformal Killing vector field corresponds to the dilatation vector field, which is always present in the spherically symmetric space. Namely, the conformally flat space ${{\rm d}}s_3^2={{\rm d}}r^2/f(r)+r^2 ({{\rm d}}\theta^2+\sin^2\theta {{\rm d}}\phi^2)$ admits a dilatational conformal Killing vector of the form $\zeta_i =(r/\sqrt{f(r)})D_i r$. This provides another geometric meaning to $H_{ij}$ as an obstacle for the existence of the conformal Killing vector corresponding to the dilatation, in a space of nonnegative scalar curvature.
Einstein-Maxwell theory {#sec:electrovac}
=======================
This section discusses the Einstein-Maxwell system described by the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
L= R -F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Here $F_{\mu\nu}=F_{[\mu\nu]}$ is the Faraday tensor. Consider the static spacetime (\[metric\]) and assume that the Maxwell field is invariant under the action generated by the static Killing vector $\mathcal L_{\partial/\partial t} F_{\mu\nu}=0$.[^4] Performing the electromagnetic duality rotation if necessary, the Bianchi identity ${{\rm d}}F=0$ brings the Maxwell field to be electric $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
F= {{\rm d}}t {\wedge}{{\rm d}}\psi \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\psi $ is an electrostatic potential and we can work in a gauge in which $\psi$ is $t$-independent. Since we are focusing on the asymptotically flat spacetime satisfying the null convergence condition, the topological censorship holds and therefore the domain of outer communication is simply connected [@Chrusciel:1994tr; @Galloway1995], for which the global existence of $\psi$ is assured. The electrovacuum Einstein’s equations then read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 V=\frac 1V(D \psi)^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
{}^{(3)}R_{ij}-\frac 1V D_iD_j V=\frac 2{V^2}\left(-D_i \psi D_j\psi+\frac 12 (D \psi)^2 g_{ij} \right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The Maxwell equation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Maxwelleq}
D_i (V^{-1}D^i \psi )= 0\,. \end{aligned}$$ Expressed in terms of geometric quantities for the foliation $\Sigma\simeq \mathbb R\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$, the relevant Einstein’s equations are $$\begin{aligned}
n^iD_i \rho=&\rho k -\frac{\rho^2}{V}[(n^iD_i \psi)^2+({\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}} \psi)^2] \,, \qquad
\label{EV_trGausseq}
{}^{(2)} R =- k_{ij}k^{ij}+k^2+\frac{2k}{V\rho }-\frac{2}{V^2 }(\mathcal D\psi)^2
+\frac{2}{V^2} (n^i D_i \psi)^2 \,. \end{aligned}$$
At infinity, the metric and the gauge field behave as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EV_BCinf}
V \sim 1-\frac{M}{r} \,, \qquad g_{ij} \sim \left(1+\frac{2M}{r}\right)\delta_{ij} \,, \qquad
\psi \sim \frac{Q}{r} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the ADM mass and $Q$ is the electric charge which is taken to be positive without loss of generality. In terms of $k$ and $\rho$, the asymptotic conditions can be translated as (\[BCinfkrho\]). We assume that these conserved charges strictly obey the Bogomol’ny inequality [@Gibbons:1982fy; @Nozawa:2014zia] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
M>Q\,. \end{aligned}$$ The boundary conditions at the event horizon $V=0$ can be determined by requiring the curvature invariants $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ to remain finite, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EV_BCH}
\left. k_{ij}\right|_{V=0}=0\,,
\qquad \left.\mathcal D_i \rho\right|_{V=0} =0 \,, \qquad
\left.n^i D_i\psi\right|_{V=0}=0\qquad
\left.\mathcal D_i \psi\right|_{V=0}=0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ The constancy of $\rho$ and $\psi$ over the horizon means the zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics. The nonextremality condition of the horizon amounts to $0<\rho_0=\rho|_{V=0}<\infty$. An example of the black hole solutions is the Reissner-Nordström solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RN}
{{\rm d}}s^2=-f(r){{\rm d}}t^2+f^{-1}(r){{\rm d}}r^2+r^2 {{\rm d}}\Omega_2^2\,, \qquad
\psi = \frac{Q}{r}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $f(r)=1-2M/r+Q^2/r^2$. The uniqueness of (\[RN\]) was first addressed by Israel [@Israel:1967za] under the assumption that the horizon is connected, nondegenerate and spherical. Later works [@MR; @Simon1984; @Ruback; @MuA1992] removed some of these assumptions. We are now going to show the uniqueness of the (\[RN\]), based on the divergence equation. A primary utility of this scheme is that divergence equations are suitable for adaptation of the maximum/minimum principle.
From the field equations, one can derive following two divergence equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diveq1}
D_i(D^i V -V^{-1}\psi D^i \psi)=&0 \,, \\
\label{diveq2}
D_i \left(\frac{V^2+\psi^2}{V}D^i \psi -2\psi D^i V\right)=&0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ Upon integrating (\[Maxwelleq\]), (\[diveq1\]) and (\[diveq2\]) over the static timeslice $\Sigma$, one easily obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
4\pi Q+\int _B \frac{n^i D_i \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S =& 0 \,, \\
4\pi M-\rho_0^{-1} A_H + \psi_0 \int_B \frac{n^i D_i \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S=& 0 \,, \\
4\pi Q-2 \rho_0^{-1} \psi_0 A_H+\psi_0^2 \int_B \frac{n^i D_i \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S=& 0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ The above equations are combined to give Smarr’s mass formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Smarr:EV}
A_H =4\pi \rho_0 (M-Q\psi_0)\,, \end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\psi_0=\frac{M-\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}}{Q} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the sign in front of the square root in $\psi_0$ has been chosen to ensure $A_H=4\pi \rho _0 \sqrt{M^2-Q^2}>0$.
Of crucial importance to the present proof is the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G1eq}
D^2G_1-D_i [\log (V\psi^{-2})]D^i G_1=0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_1(V,\psi) \equiv \psi^{-1}(1-V^2)+\psi $. Here note that (\[Maxwelleq\]) and the maximum/minimum principle [@elliptic] tell us $0<\psi<\psi_0$ and then $|D_i \log (V\psi^{-2})|<\infty $. Hence, the maximum/minimum principle can be applied to (\[G1eq\]), implying that $G_1(V,\psi)$ never acquires the global maximum/minimum in the interior of $\Sigma$. From the present boundary conditions, the values of $G_1(V,\psi) $ at the horizon and at infinity both coincide to give $2M/Q$, and hence $G_1(V,\psi)$ is constant ($=2M/Q$) throughout $\Sigma$. Then $\psi $ depends only on $V$ and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RN_psiV}
\psi =\frac{1-\beta(V)}{q} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where for notational simplicity we have introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\beta(V) \equiv \sqrt{1-q^2(1-V^2)} \,, \qquad q\equiv Q/M<1 \,. \end{aligned}$$
One can also derive the relation (\[RN\_psiV\]) by several fashions. Israel exploited a divergence equation which depends explicitly on physical parameters $M$, $Q $ to conclude (\[RN\_psiV\]) [@Israel:1967za]. We also find another useful equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 G_2 -\frac 1V D^i VD_i G_2=0 \,, \qquad
G_2(V, \psi) \equiv V^2 -(\psi-\psi_1)^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_1 $ is an arbitrary constant. If one chooses $\psi_1=(1+\psi_0^2)/(2\psi_0)$, the values of $G_2$ at infinity and at horizon are equal. By the maximum/minimum principle, $G_2(V, \psi)$ is constant, yielding (\[RN\_psiV\]).
Since the functional dependence of $\psi $ on $V $ has been specified, the field equations are now simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 V=\frac{q^2V}{\beta(V)^2}(DV)^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
{}^{(3)}R_{ij}=\frac 1VD_iD_jV+\frac{q^2}{\beta(V)^2}[(DV)^2 g_{ij}-2D_iVD_jV] \,. \end{aligned}$$
As in the vacuum case, let us define a three dimensional symmetric tensor $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_{ij} \equiv D_iD_jV+\frac{V}{1-V^2}\frac{(\beta(V)+1)(4\beta(V)-1)}{\beta(V)^2}D_iVD_jV
-\frac{V(1+\beta(V))}{(1-V^2)\beta(V)} (DV)^2 g_{ij}\,, \end{aligned}$$ and a vector field $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_i \equiv \frac{D_i \rho }{\rho }-\frac{V(\beta(V)+1)(3\beta(V)-1)}{(1-V^2)\beta(V)^2}D_iV\,. \end{aligned}$$ These tensors satisfy the relations identical to the vacuum case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evHij}
H_{ij}D^j V=- \rho^{-2} H_i \,, \qquad H^i{}_i=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ When $Q=0$, these tensors reduce to (\[vac\_Hij\]) and (\[vacHi\]). In terms of local quantities of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_{ij}=\rho^{-1}\sigma_{ij} -2 \rho^{-2}n_{(i}{\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_{j)} \rho +\frac{1}{2\rho}
\left[k -\frac{2V(1+\beta(V))}{\rho \beta(V)(1-V^2)}\right](h_{ij}-2n_in_j)\,. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, $H_{ij}=0$ is a condition for the spherical symmetry. This will be also apparent by looking at the Cotton tensor $C_{ijk}=2D_{[i}[{}^{(3)}R_{j]k}-({}^{(3)}R/4)g_{j]k}]$, which is given in terms of $H_{ij}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
C_{ijk}=\frac 2{V^2}\left(1-\frac{q^2V^2}{\beta(V)^2}\right)
(2H_{k[i}D_{j]}V-\rho^{-2}g_{k[i}H_{j]}) \,. \end{aligned}$$ It then suffices to show $H_{ij}=0$ for the uniqueness of the Reissner-Nordström solution (\[RN\]).
We wish to find the current conservation equation of the separable type (\[currentcons\]). Using $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 \rho=-\rho^3|D_iD_jV|^2+\frac 3{\rho}(D \rho)^2+D^i\rho D_i V \left(\frac 1V
+\frac{2q^2V}{\beta(V)^2}\right)+\frac{2q^4V^2}{\rho \beta(V)^4} \,, \end{aligned}$$ the divergence of $J^i$ culminates in a separable form (\[ansatz\]) with respect to $\rho $ and $V$, if we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
g_1(\rho) =-c \rho^{-(c+1)} \,, \qquad g_2 (\rho )= \rho^{-c} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $c $ is a constant. With this choice, we are left with two linear first-order equations which are easily solved to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
f_1(V)=&\frac{1}{V(1-V^2)^{2c-1} } \frac{[1+\beta(V)]^{2c-2}}{\beta(V)^{c}}\bigl[a(1+\beta(V))+2b (1-V^2)\bigr]\,, \\
f_2(V)=&\frac{[1+\beta(V)]^{2c-1}}{(1-V^2)^{2c} \beta(V)^{2+c}}\Bigl[
-a \beta(V)(1+\beta(V))+c(3\beta(V)-1)\{a(1+\beta(V))+2b(1-V^2)\}
\Bigr]\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are integration constants. We thus conclude that the following divergence equation holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RN_divJ}
D_i J^i =\frac{cf_1(V)}{2\rho^c}\left[
\left|2\rho^2 D_{[i}VH_{j]k}-H_{[i}g_{j]k}\right|^2
+\left(2c-1 \right)|H_i|^2
\right]\,. \end{aligned}$$ This is of the same form as in the vacuum case (\[vac\_divid\]). The right hand side of this equation becomes nonnegative, provided $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMineqcab}
c\ge \frac 12 \,, \qquad a \ge 0 \,, \qquad a+\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1-q^2}} b\ge 0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ The last two conditions ensure $f_1(V)\ge 0$.
By making use of Stokes’ theorem and inserting the boundary conditions (\[EV\_BCinf\]), (\[EV\_BCH\]) with (\[EV\_trGausseq\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Uni_RN_Fint}
0\le & a \left[-4 \pi M^{1-c} +A_H(1-q^2)^{-(c+1)/2}(1+\sqrt{1-q^2})^{2c}\rho_0^{-(1+c)} \right] \notag \\
&+\left[ a (1+ \sqrt{1-q^2})+2 b \right] c (1-q^2)^{-c/2} (1+\sqrt{1-q^2})^{2(c-1)}\rho_0^{1-c} \notag \\
& \hspace{2cm}
\times \left[ 2\pi \chi - A_H(1-q^2)^{-1}(1+\sqrt{1-q^2})^{2}\rho_0^{-2} \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic (\[Euler\]) of the horizon cross-section. The necessary and sufficient condition for which this inequality holds for any values of $a$, $b$ and $c$ satisfying (\[EMineqcab\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
4 \pi \left( \frac{M(1+\sqrt{1-q^2})^2}{\rho_0 \sqrt{1-q^2}} \right)^{1-c} \le A_H \left( \frac{(1+\sqrt{1-q^2})}{\rho_0\sqrt{1-q^2}}\right)^2 \le 2 \pi \chi \,.\end{aligned}$$
The case for $c=1$ immediately gives $\chi \ge 2$, and hence we set $\chi=2$ in the hereafter. Then this inequality for $c=1$ is consistent only if the equality holds, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Uni_RN_ineq1}
A_H = \frac{4\pi \rho_0^2(1-q^2)}{(1+\sqrt{1-q^2})^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ On account of $H_{ij}=0$, the spacetime is spherically symmetric and therefore the Reissner-Nordström solution (\[RN\]) is singled out.
Note that we did use Smarr’s formula (\[Smarr:EV\]) to derive (\[RN\_psiV\]), in contrast to the vacuum case. Nonetheless, we have nowhere used the property of the symmetric coset space, in contrast to the argument in [@Simon1984]. In this sense, the present proof seems to have a potentially broader applicability.
Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory {#sec:EMD}
===============================
We next consider the four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity described by Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMD_action}
L= R-2g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu \phi -e^{-2\alpha \phi}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(>0)$ is a coupling constant. Let us focus on the static spacetimes, where the metric (\[metric\]), the Maxwell field and the dilaton field are all invariant under the orbit of static Killing field. Here we assume that the Maxwell field is electric $F=-{{\rm d}}\psi {\wedge}{{\rm d}}t$, where $\psi$ is the $t$-independent electrostatic potential. Note that the absence of the magnetic potential is a genuine restriction, since the equations of motion arising from the action (\[EMD\_action\]) do not admit a duality rotation. Under these conditions, Einstein’s equations are simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 V&=\frac 1V e^{-2\alpha \phi}(D \psi)^2 \,, \\
{}^{(3)}R_{ij}&=\frac 1VD_i D_j V-\frac 2{V^2}e^{-2\alpha \phi}
\left(D_i \psi D _j\psi -\frac 12 g_{ij}(D \psi)^2\right)
+2D_i\phi D_j \phi \,. \end{aligned}$$ The scalar curvature of the three-dimensional space reads ${}^{(3)}R=2V^{-2}e^{-2\alpha\phi}(D \psi)^2+2(D \phi)^2$. The Maxwell and dilaton equations of motion are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMD_Maxwell}
D_i(e^{-2\alpha \phi}V^{-1}D^i \psi)&=0 \,, \\
D_i(VD^i\phi)-\frac{\alpha}{V}e^{-2\alpha \phi} (D \psi)^2 &=0 \,.
\label{EMD_dilaton}\end{aligned}$$ The finiteness of curvature invariants at the horizon requires $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
k_{ij}|_{V=0}=0 \,, \qquad \rho|_{V=0}=\rho_0 \,, \qquad
\psi|_{V=0}= \psi_0\,, \qquad \textrm{$\phi$, $\partial_V\phi$, ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_i\phi$ are finite}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0$ ($0<\rho_0<\infty$) and $\psi_0$ are constants, representing the inverse of the surface gravity and the electrostatic potential at the horizon. Let us emphasize that the value of the dilaton field is not necessarily constant over the horizon, i.e., ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_i\phi|_{V=0}\ne 0$ in general.
The boundary conditions at infinity are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
g_{ij}\sim \left(1+\frac{2M}{r}\right)\delta_{ij} \,, \qquad
V\sim 1-\frac{M}{r} \,, \qquad \psi\sim \frac{Q}{r}\,, \qquad
\phi \sim \frac{\phi_\infty}{r} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $M$ is the ADM mass, $Q$ is the electric charge and $\phi_\infty$ is a constant. From the positive mass theorem [@Gibbons:1993xt; @Nozawa:2010rf], the mass is bounded from below by the charge as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BPSdilaton}
M\ge \frac{Q}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ From now on, we assume that this inequality is strictly satisfied.
A static and spherically symmetric black-hole solution to this theory was discovered by Gibbons and Maeda [@Gibbons:1987ps], whose metric boils down to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GMsol}
{{\rm d}}s^2=- \left(1-\frac{r_+}{r}\right)\left(1-\frac{r_-}{r}\right)^{\frac{1-\alpha^2}{1+\alpha^2}}{{\rm d}}t^2+
\left(1-\frac{r_+}{r}\right)^{-1}\left(1-\frac{r_-}{r}\right)^{-\frac{1-\alpha^2}{1+\alpha^2}}{{\rm d}}r^2+r^2\left(1-\frac{r_-}{r}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha^2}{1+\alpha^2}} {{\rm d}}\Omega_2^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\phi=\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha^2}\log \left(1-\frac{r_-}{r}\right)\,, \qquad
\psi= \frac{\sqrt{r_+r_-}}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2 }r } \,. \end{aligned}$$ Here $r_+(>r_->0)$ is a locus of the event horizon and $r_-$ corresponds to the curvature singularity. These two parameters are related to the ADM mass $M$ and the electric charge $Q$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rpm}
r_\pm =\frac{1+\alpha^2 }{1\pm \alpha^2 }
\left(M\pm \sqrt{M^2-(1-\alpha^2)Q^2 }\right)\,. \end{aligned}$$ The uniqueness property of this solution was first addressed in [@MuA:dilaton] for a coupling constant $\alpha=1$, by finding a suitable Witten spinor on a spatial timeslice. Subsequently, [@Mars:2001pz] extended the proof to encompass the case of arbitrary $\alpha$ using the conformal positive mass theorem. These techniques were also worked out in higher dimensions [@Gibbons:2002av; @Gibbons:2002ju]. In the context of divergence equations, the most difficult issue is how to assess the value of the dilaton field at the event horizon. In this section, we overcome this obstacle by finding yet another divergence equation. We develop a new proof based only upon divergence equations.
One can rewrite some of the equations of motion into the divergence type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMD_uni_divid1}
D_i \left(D^iV-\frac 1V e^{-2\alpha\phi}\psi D^i\psi\right)&=0 \,, \\
\label{EMD_uni_divid2}
D_i \left[\frac 1V \{(1+\alpha^2)e^{-2\alpha \phi}\psi ^2 +V^2 \}D^i \psi -2\psi D^i V
-2 \alpha V\psi D^i \phi \right]&=0 \,, \\
\label{EMD_uni_divid3}
D_i \left(VD^i\phi-\alpha D^i V\right)&=0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Integration of (\[EMD\_Maxwell\]), (\[EMD\_uni\_divid1\]), (\[EMD\_uni\_divid2\]) and (\[EMD\_uni\_divid3\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
4\pi M-A_H \rho_0^{-1}+\frac{\psi_0}{\rho_0} \int _B e^{-2\alpha \phi }\frac{\partial_V \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S&=0 \,, \\
4\pi Q+\frac{1}{\rho_0} \int _B e^{-2\alpha \phi }\frac{\partial_V \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S&=0\,, \\
-4\pi Q+2 \psi_0 \rho_0^{-1} A_H-\frac{1+\alpha^2}{\rho_0} \psi_0^2 \int _B e^{-2\alpha \phi }\frac{\partial_V \psi}{V} {{\rm d}}S&=0\,,\\
-4 \pi \phi_\infty -4\pi \alpha M +\alpha A_H \rho_0^{-1} &=0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ These equations are combined to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
A_H=4\pi \rho_0(M-Q \psi_0)\,, \qquad \psi_0=\frac{Q}{M+\sqrt{M^2-Q^2(1-\alpha^2)}} \,, \qquad
\phi_\infty = -\alpha Q \psi_0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\phi_\infty$ is a secondary charge, since it is specified by $M$ and $Q$.
To proceed, let us define [@Mars:2001pz] $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\pm 1}= &\frac 12 \left[
e^{\alpha \phi}V\pm \frac{e^{-\alpha \phi}}{V}-(1+\alpha^2)\frac{e^{-\alpha \phi}\psi^2}{V}
\right] \,, \\
\Phi_0=& \sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \frac{e^{-\alpha \phi}\psi }{V} \,, \\
\Psi_{\pm 1}=& \frac 12 \left(e^{-\phi /\alpha }V\pm e^{\phi /\alpha }V^{-1} \right)\,, \end{aligned}$$ satisfying the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMD_PhiPsiconst}
\Phi_{+1}^2-\Phi_{-1}^2+\Phi_{0}^2=1\,, \qquad \Psi_{+1}^2- \Psi_{-1}^2 = 1 \,. \end{aligned}$$ These scalars span the homogeneous coordinates of ${\rm SO}(1,1) \times {\rm SL}(2,\mathbb R)/{\rm SO}(1,1)$, which corresponds to the nonlinear sigma model of static Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory. The equations of motions for these scalars read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D_i(VD^i \Phi_{-1/0/+1})= V G^{(\Phi)} \Phi_{-1/0/+1} \,, \qquad
D_i(VD^i \Psi_{\pm 1})= V G^{(\Psi)} \Psi_{\pm 1}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
G^{(\Phi)}=|D_i \Phi_{-1}|^2 -|D_i \Phi_{0}|^2 -|D_i \Phi_{+1}|^2 \,, \qquad
G^{(\Psi)}= |D_i\Psi_{-1}|^2-|D_i\Psi_{+1}|^2\,. \end{aligned}$$
From the field equations, the scalars $G_\pm =1-Ve^{\alpha \phi}\pm \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}\psi $ obey
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2G_\pm+ \left(
\pm \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}\frac{e^{-\alpha\phi}}{V}D_i \psi -\alpha D_i \phi
\right) D^i G_\pm &=0\,. \end{aligned}$$
These are elliptic differential equations for which the maximum/minimum principle can be applied [@elliptic]. Since $G_\pm \to 0$ at infinity and $G_\pm \to (1\pm \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}\psi_0)>0$ at the horizon, we see that $G_\pm$ never attains zero inside $\Sigma$. We therefore have $\Phi_{+1}-1=\frac 1{2}V^{-1}e^{-\alpha \phi}G_+G_- >0$ inside $\Sigma$.
Similarly, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 \left(\frac{e^{\phi/\alpha}}{V}-1\right)+D^i \left(2\log V-\frac{\phi}{\alpha}\right)
D_i \left(\frac{e^{\phi/\alpha}}{V}-1\right)=0\,. \end{aligned}$$ By virtue of $e^{\phi/\alpha}-V\to 0$ at infinity and $e^{\phi/\alpha}-V\to e^{\phi/\alpha}$ at the event horizon, the minimum of $V^{-1}e^{\phi/\alpha}-1$ must be attained at infinity, and then in the interior of $\Sigma$ we have $e^{\phi/\alpha}-V> 0$. This means that $\Psi_{+1}-1=\frac 12V^{-1}e^{-\phi/\alpha}(e^{\phi/\alpha}-V)^2$ is strictly positive in the interior of $\Sigma$.
Since the conditions $\Phi_{+1},\Psi_{+1}>1$ have been demonstrated, we now move on to show that two of the inhomogeneous coordinates ($V, \phi, \psi$) of ${\rm SO}(1,1)\times {\rm SL}(2,\mathbb R)/{\rm SO}(1,1)$ are linearly dependent. In particular, our current aim is to demonstrate that $\Phi_{+1}/\Psi_{+1}$ and $\Phi_0^2/(\Phi_{+1}^2-1)$ are constants. Guided by the argument to derive (\[vac\_divid\]), we consider the divergence equation with the following current $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
J^i= V[f_1(\Phi_{+1})g_1(\Psi_{+1}) D^i \Phi_{+1}+f_2(\Phi_{+1})g_2(\Psi_{+1}) D^i \Psi_{+1} ]\,. \end{aligned}$$ By choosing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
f_1(\Phi_{+1})&=\frac{(\Phi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Phi_{+1}^2-1})^{-c}}{\sqrt{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}}\,, \qquad
f_2(\Phi_{+1})=-(\Phi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Phi_{+1}^2-1})^{-c} \,, \notag \\
g_1(\Psi_{+1})&=(\Psi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Psi_{+1}^2-1})^c\,, \qquad
g_2(\Psi_{+1})=\frac{(\Psi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Psi_{+1}^2-1})^c}{\sqrt{\Psi_{+1}^2-1}} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a constant, some amount of algebra shows that the following equation holds $$\begin{aligned}
D_i J^i=& -V\left(\frac{\Psi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Psi_{+1}^2-1}}{\Phi_{+1}+\sqrt{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}}\right)^c
\Biggl[\frac{\Phi_{+1}\sqrt{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}}
{\Phi_{+1}^2+\Phi_{0}^2-1}
\left|D_i \Phi_{0}-\frac{\Phi_{0}\Phi_{+1}}{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}D_i \Phi_{+1}\right|^2\notag \\
& +\frac{c}{\Psi_{+1}^2-1}\left|D_i \Psi_{+1}-\sqrt{\frac{\Psi_{+1}^2-1}{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}}D_i \Phi_{+1}\right|^2 \Biggr] \,.
\label{EMD_dividPhiPsi}\end{aligned}$$ For $c>0$, the right-hand side of this equation becomes negative semi-definite. We can thus derive the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\int_\Sigma D_i J^i {{\rm d}}\Sigma =\int _{S^\infty} J^i n_i {{\rm d}}S-\int _{B} J^i n_i {{\rm d}}S \le 0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ Our present boundary conditions tell us that both of the surface integrals at infinity and at horizon vanish, regardless of the value of $c(>0)$. This means that the equality is saturated and the each piece on the right-hand side of (\[EMD\_dividPhiPsi\]) vanishes independently, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\frac{\Phi_{+1}}{\Psi_{+1}}=1 \,, \qquad
\frac{\Phi_0^2}{\Phi_{+1}^2-1}=\frac{4(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0^2}{[(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0^2-1]^2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the integration constants have been fixed by asymptotic value. These equations give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMD_Vpsi}
V^2=\frac{e^{2\phi/\alpha}-[1-(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0^2]e^{\frac{1-\alpha^2}{\alpha}\phi}}{(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0^2}\,, \qquad
\psi=\frac{1-e^{\frac{1+\alpha^2}{\alpha}\phi}}{(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0} \,. \end{aligned}$$ It is worth commenting that the value of the dilaton field at the horizon is constant $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\phi|_{V=0}= \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^2}\log[1-(1+\alpha^2)\psi_0^2] \,. \end{aligned}$$
Since the functional dependence of $(V, \phi, \psi)$ has been established, our remaining task is to show the spherical symmetry following the prescription given in the foregoing sections. At this final step of the proof, it is of advantage to consider the conformal transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
g_{ij}=e^{2\alpha \phi} \hat g_{ij} \,, \qquad
\hat V=V e^{\alpha \phi} \,, \qquad \hat \psi=\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \psi \,. \end{aligned}$$ With the relation (\[EMD\_Vpsi\]), one can check that the following relations are satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
&\hat R_{ij}= \frac{1}{\hat V}\hat D_i\hat D_j \hat V-\frac 2{\hat V^2}
\left(\hat D_i \hat\psi \hat D_j\hat\psi -\frac 12 \hat g_{ij}(\hat D\hat\psi)^2 \right) \,, \nonumber \\
& \hat D_i (\hat V^{-1} \hat D^i \hat \psi ) =0 \,, \qquad
\frac{1-\hat V^2}{\hat \psi}+\hat \psi =\hat \psi_0^{-1}+\hat \psi_0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ In terms of these new variables, the boundary conditions at infinity reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\hat V \sim 1-\frac{r_++r_-}{2r} \,, \qquad \hat g_{ij} \sim \left(1+\frac{r_++r_-}{r}\right)\delta_{ij}\,,\qquad
\hat \psi \sim \frac{\sqrt{r_+r_-}}r \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $r_\pm$ is given by (\[rpm\]). The event horizon is located at $\hat V=0$ where $\hat \psi$ and $(\hat D\hat V)^2$ are constants. Since these conditions are exactly the same as in the electrovacuum case in section \[sec:electrovac\], the solution must be spherical, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\hat V^2=\left(1-\frac{r_+}{r}\right)\left(1-\frac{r_-}{r}\right)\,, \qquad
\hat g_{ij}{{\rm d}}x^i{{\rm d}}x^j = \frac{{{\rm d}}r^2}{\hat V^2} +r^2 {{\rm d}}\Omega_2^2 \,, \qquad
\hat \psi=\frac{\sqrt{r_+r_-}}r\,, \end{aligned}$$ and hence $e^{(1+\alpha^2)\phi/\alpha}=1-\hat \psi\hat \psi_0=1-r_-/r$. Going back to the original frame by $g_{ij}=e^{2\alpha \phi} \hat g_{ij}$, we recover the Gibbons-Maeda solution (\[GMsol\]).
Higher dimensions {#sec:higherD}
=================
It is natural to inquire whether our algorithm is applicable in higher dimensions. For simplicity, we focus on solutions to the $n$-dimensional vacuum Einstein equations $R_{\mu\nu}=0$, which reduce in the static spacetime ${{\rm d}}s^2=-V^2(x){{\rm d}}t^2 +g_{ij}(x) {{\rm d}}x^i {{\rm d}}x^j $ to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 V=0 \,, \qquad {}^{(n-1)} R_{ij}=\frac 1VD_iD_j V\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $ {}^{(n-1)} R_{ij}$ is the Ricci tensor for the ($n-1$)-dimensional spatial metric $g_{ij}$. Assuming the local foliation ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V=\{V={\rm constant}\}$ of constant timeslice $\Sigma$, the following relations are satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HigherEineq_geometric}
n^i D_i \rho =\rho k \,, \qquad {}^{(n-2)}R =\frac{2k}{V\rho}+k^2-k_{ij}k^{ij} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Here $n_i =\rho D_i V$ is the outward pointing unit normal to ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ in $\Sigma$ with $\rho $ being the lapse function and we shall denote the induced metric of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ as $h_{ij}=g_{ij}-n_in_j$ as before. $k_{ij}$ is the extrinsic curvature of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}_V$ in $\Sigma$ and it splits up into the trace-free part and the trace part $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
k_{ij} =\sigma_{ij} + \frac {k}{n-2} h_{ij} \,\,, \qquad k= h^{ij} k_{ij}. \end{aligned}$$
The boundary conditions at the horizon are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\left.k_{ij}\right|_{V=0}=0\,, \qquad
\rho|_{V=0}=\rho_0\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0$ is a positive constant. The asymptotic flatness is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higherd_asyBC}
V\sim 1-\frac{m}{r^{n-3}} \,, \qquad
g_{ij}\sim \left(1+\frac{2m}{(n-3)r^{n-3}}\right) \delta_{ij}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $m$ corresponds to the ADM mass up to a constant. In terms of lapse and mean curvature, (\[higherd\_asyBC\]) is translated into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\rho \sim\frac{r^{n-2}}{(n-3)m}\,, \qquad k\sim \frac{n-2}{r} \,. \end{aligned}$$
The $(n-1)$-dimensional tensor quantities which we wish to show them to vanish are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hij_higher}
H_{ij}= D_i D_j V-\frac 2{n-3}\frac{V(DV)^2}{1-V^2}g_{ij}+\frac{2(n-1)}{n-3}\frac{V}{1-V^2}D_i V D_j V \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_i =\frac{D_i\rho}{\rho }-\frac{2(n-2)}{n-3}\frac{V}{1-V^2}D_i V\,. \end{aligned}$$ These quantities satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
H_{ij}D^j V=-\rho^{-2}H_i \,, \qquad H^i{}_i=0 \,. \end{aligned}$$ In the geometric notation using the data on $\mathcal{S}_V$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sch_Uni_Hmndechigh}
H_{ij}=&\rho^{-1}\sigma_{ij}-\frac 2{\rho^2}n_{(i}{\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_{j)}\rho +\frac 1{(n-2)\rho}[h_{ij}-(n-2)n_in_j]
\left(k-\frac{2(n-2)}{n-3}\frac{V}{\rho(1-V^2)}\right) \,. \end{aligned}$$ Let us now demonstrate that $H_{ij}=0$ indeed implies that the space is spherically symmetric, i.e., it admits an isometry of ${\rm SO}(n-1)$. Suppose that $H_{ij}=0$ holds. Then $H_i=0$ is readily solved to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoVhigher}
[(n-3)\rho]^{n-3} \left(\frac{1-V^2}{2}\right)^{n-2}=m \,, \end{aligned}$$ where the integration constant has been determined by the asymptotic condition. Next, $\sigma_{ij}=0$ implies that $k_{ij}=\frac 1{2\rho}\partial_V h_{ij}=\frac{1}{n-2}k h_{ij}$. Integrating this equation by use of (\[rhoVhigher\]), we are led to $h_{ij}=[(n-3)m \rho]^{2/(n-2)} \hat h_{ij}$, where $\hat h_{ij}$ is a metric which is independent of $V$. From the vacuum Einstein equations, $\hat h_{ij}$ is the Einstein metric of positive curvature. The asymptotic flatness requires that this must be a standard metric of a unit sphere. It follows that $H_{ij}$ represents a deviation from the spherical symmetry also in higher dimensions.
We shall not attempt to derive in detail the divergence equation, but only show the final results, since the procedure is completely parallel with the four dimensional case. Starting with the separable ansatz (\[ansatz\]), we have a higher dimensional version of the divergence equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higherD_divJ}
D_i J^i= \frac{(n-3)c}{2\rho^c}f_1(V) \left[
\left|2\rho^2D_{[i}VH_{j]k}-\frac{2}{n-2}H_{[i}g_{j]k} \right|^2
+2\left(c-\frac{n-3}{n-2}\right) |H_i|^2
\right]\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $g_1(\rho)=-(n-3)c\rho^{-(1+c)}$, $g_2(\rho)=\rho^{-c}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
f_1(V)=&\frac{1}{V(1-V^2)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}c-1}} [a+b(1-V^2)] \,, \notag \\
f_2(V)=&\frac{2}{(1-V^2)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}c}} \left[
a\{c(n-2)-(n-3)\}+bc(n-2)(1-V^2)
\right] \,.\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, the current $J^i$ can be again put into a more useful form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
J^i=-(n-3) [(1-V^2)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}}\rho ]^{-c} \left[\frac{c}{V} (1-V^2)[a+b(1-V^2)]H^i +2aD^i V\right] \,. \end{aligned}$$ The right-hand side of (\[higherD\_divJ\]) becomes positive semi-definite if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higherD_para}
a\ge 0 \,, \qquad
a+b\ge 0 \,, \qquad
c\ge \frac{n-3}{n-2} \,. \end{aligned}$$
It is worth commenting that the right-hand side of (\[higherD\_divJ\]) is expressed by means of the tensor $H_{ij}$ only. This term is not expressible by the higher dimensional Cotton tensor $C_{ijk}=2 D_{[i}({}^{(n-1)}R_{j]k}-\frac 1{2(n-2)}{}^{(n-1)}Rg_{j]k})$ (note that this is not conformally invariant unless $n=4$), since the Weyl tensor $ {}^{(n-1)}\!C_{ijkl}$ of $(\Sigma, g_{ij})$ becomes relevant as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
C_{ijk}=
{}^{(n-1)}\!C_{ijkl}\frac{D^lV}V
-\frac{2}{(n-3)V^2}[(n-2)D_{[i}{V}H_{j]k}-\rho^{-2}H_{[i}g_{j]k} ]\,.
\label{higherD_Cotton}\end{aligned}$$
Surface integral
----------------
As discussed above, the uniqueness of the Schwarzschild black hole follows, provided that one can show $H_{ij}=0$ under our boundary conditions. The integration of (\[higherD\_divJ\]) over the spatial slice $\Sigma$ boils down to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higher_surfaceint}
0\le &2a(n-3)\left[-\left(\frac {(n-3)} 2\right)^{c+1}(2m)^{1-\frac{c}{n-3}} \Omega_{n-2}
+A_H \rho_0^{-(1+c)}\right] \notag \\
& +c(a+b)\rho_0^{1-c} \left[
\frac {(n-3)}2 \int _B {}^{(n-2)}\!R {{\rm d}}S- 2 (n-2) A_H \rho_0^{-2}
\right] \,. \end{aligned}$$ This inequality holds for any values of $a$, $b$ and $c$ satisfying (\[higherD\_para\]), if and only if the pair of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higherDineq}
\left(\frac {(n-3) } 2 \rho_0 \right)^{c+1}(2m)^{1-\frac{c}{n-3}} \Omega_{n-2} \le
A_H \le \frac{(n-3)\rho_0^2}{4(n-2)}\int_B {}^{(n-2)}R {{\rm d}}S \,\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied.
Combining the former inequality with the Smarr relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Smarr_higher}
(n-3)m \Omega_{n-2}\rho_0=A_H \,, \end{aligned}$$ for any $c$, one obtains the Penrose-type inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Penroseineq_higher}
A_H \le \Omega_{n-2}(2m)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ We wish to show that, in (\[higherDineq\]), the at-most-right-hand side coincides with the at-most-left-hand side, which then results in the equalities. Unfortunately, the value of $\int_B {}^{(n-2)}R {{\rm d}}S$ cannot be evaluated in higher dimensions in general, since it is not a topological invariant. Only the lower bound of $\int_B {}^{(n-2)}R {{\rm d}}S$ is obtainable. For instance, the case of $c=n-3$ gives rise to a lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
(n-2)(n-3)^{n-3}\Omega_{n-2} \le \left(\frac{2}{\rho_0}\right)^{n-4} \int_B {}^{(n-2)}R {{\rm d}}S\,. \end{aligned}$$ To obtain further insight, let us rewrite the second inequality in (\[higherDineq\]) into a more recognizable form. For this purpose, let us define the analogue of the Yamabe constant by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yamabe}
y_H\equiv \frac{Y_H}{Y_H^0}\,, \qquad
Y_H \equiv \frac{\int _B {}^{(n-2)}R{{\rm d}}S }{A_H^{\frac{n-4}{n-2}}} \,, \qquad
Y_H^0\equiv (n-2)(n-3)\Omega_{n-2}^{2/(n-2)} \,. \end{aligned}$$ In terms of $y_H$, the Smarr relation (\[Smarr\_higher\]) recasts the latter inequality of (\[higherDineq\]) into (note that the exponent of $y_H$ is different from [@Mizuno:2009fj]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{revPenroseineq_higher}
\Omega_{n-2}(2m)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}}\le A_H y_H^{\frac{n-2}{2(n-3)}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ If one can show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yHbound}
y_H \le 1\,,\end{aligned}$$ inequalities (\[Penroseineq\_higher\]) and (\[revPenroseineq\_higher\]) are consistent only if $y_H=1$, yielding spherical symmetry. Recall that the currently only proof of the uniqueness of the higher dimensional Schwarzschild solution [@Gibbons:2002bh] is based on the positive mass theorem. We speculate that the new argument using the divergence equations might be useful in order to obtain (\[yHbound\]).
Penrose inequality
------------------
In the previous subsection, we have derived the Penrose-type inequality (\[Penroseineq\_higher\]) by evaluating the surface integral arising from the divergence equation (\[higherD\_divJ\]). The appearance of the Penrose-type inequality rather than the reversed inequality is interesting and this might be helpful for the construction of the suitable flow in higher dimensions. As far as the Penrose inequality is concerned, we can derive it in several different fashions.
Setting $g_2(\rho)=0$ in the separable ansatz (\[ansatz\]) and repeating the identical procedure, one can derive the following inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
D^2 G-\frac 1V D^i VD_i G = & \frac{n-3}{2(n-2)}\left(\frac{\rho_0}{\rho}\right)^{\frac{n-3}{n-2}}
\left|2\rho^2D_{[i}VH_{j]k}-\frac 2{n-2}H_{[i}g_{j]k} \right|^2\ge 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $G(V,\rho)\equiv V^2+(\rho_0/\rho)^{\frac{n-3}{n-2}}-1$. This is the equation for which the maximum principle can be applied [@elliptic], so that $G$ does not admit a maximum in the interior of $\Sigma$. Since $G=0$ both at infinity and at horizon, we have $G\le 0$ throughout $\Sigma$. Since $G $ is expanded at infinity as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
G=\frac{1}{r^{n-3}}(-2m+[(n-3)m\rho_0]^{\frac{n-3}{n-2}}) +O(1/r^{n-2}) \,, \end{aligned}$$ we conclude $(n-3)m \rho_0 \le (2m)^{\frac{n-2}{n-3}} $. Multiplying $\Omega_{n-2}$ and using Smarr’s formula (\[Smarr\_higher\]), we readily obtain the Penrose inequality (\[Penroseineq\_higher\]).
Modification of the proof based on the positive mass theorem
------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in previous subsections, the quantity $\int_B {}^{(n-2)}R {{\rm d}}S$ is a primary obstruction of the present scheme in higher dimensions. Nevertheless, our formulation developed here is of use also for the uniqueness proof based upon the positive mass theorem [@bunting; @Gibbons:2002bh].
To this aim, let us first recall the uniqueness argument by [@bunting; @Gibbons:2002bh], where the positive mass theorem has been ingeniously exploited to prove the conformal flatness of the constant timeslice. We first illustrate that the conformal transformation is imperative here. In terms of the isotropic coordinates, the higher-dimensional Schwarzschild metric can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm d}}s^2=& - \left[\frac{1-(\bar r_0/\bar r )^{n-3}}{1+(\bar r_0/\bar r)^{n-3}}\right]^2 {{\rm d}}t^2 +
\left[1+\left(\frac{\bar r_0}{\bar r }\right)^{n-3}\right]^{4/(n-3)}({{\rm d}}\bar r^2+\bar r^2 {{\rm d}}\Omega_{n-2}^2) \,,
\label{Sch_isotropic}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar r_0 =(m/2)^{1/(n-3)}$. By setting $V=\pm [1-(\bar r_0/\bar r )^{n-3}]/[1+(\bar r_0/\bar r)^{n-3}]$, the metric (\[Sch\_isotropic\]) is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
{{\rm d}}s^2=-V^2 {{\rm d}}t^2+ \left(\frac{2}{1\pm V}\right)^{4/(n-3)}({{\rm d}}\bar r^2+\bar r^2 {{\rm d}}\Omega_{n-2}^2) \,. \end{aligned}$$ This form of the metric manifests the conformal flatness of the constant timeslice. Bearing this form of the metric in mind, the authors in [@bunting; @Gibbons:2002bh] considered two sort of the conformal transformations to $(\Sigma, g_{ij})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat g_{ij}^{\pm}=\Omega_\pm ^2g_{ij}\,, \qquad
\Omega_\pm =\left(\frac{1\pm V}{2}\right)^{2/(n-3)} \,.
\label{BH_static_unique_CT}\end{aligned}$$ One can easily check that each manifold ($\Sigma_\pm, \hat g_{ij}^\pm$) is asymptotically Euclidean with the vanishing ADM mass and the vanishing scalar curvature. Glue these manifolds at $V=0$ and consider the complete Riemannian manifold $\bar \Sigma=\Sigma_+\cup\Sigma_-\cup\{\infty\} $. By positive mass theorem [@Schon:1979rg; @SchonYau; @Witten:1981mf], $\bar \Sigma$ is flat.
The next step in [@Gibbons:2002bh] is to embed the event horizon into the Euclid space $\mathbb E^{n-1}$. Considering the local foliation of $\Sigma_+$ by ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}'_{v}=\{v\equiv 2/(1+V)={\rm constant}\}$ slice, the event horizon is located at $v=2$. It is easy to see that this surface ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}'_{v=2}$ is totally umbilic, viz, its second fundamental form is proportional to the first fundamental form with a constant coefficient. By the Gauss curvature decomposition, this kind of surface is maximally symmetric and of positive curvature, i.e, the induced metric on ${\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}'_{v=2}$ is a round sphere. Thus, the event horizon appears spherical when embedded in $\mathbb E^{n-1}$. Finally, one can conclude the spherical symmetry outside of the horizon by noting that $v=2/(1+V)$ obeys a Laplace equation on $\mathbb E^{n-1}$, whose Dirichlet boundary value problem is unique.
Let us point out that the whole procedure in the previous paragraph can be by-passed. Once again, our tensorial quantity $H_{ij}$ provides more direct information on the underlying geometry. An important fact here is that the Ricci tensor $\hat R_{ij}^\pm$ for the conformally transformed metric (\[BH\_static\_unique\_CT\]) must also vanish, when ($\Sigma_\pm, \hat g_{ij}^\pm$) is shown to be flat by the positive mass theorem. A simple calculation reveals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RijHij}
\hat R_{ij}^\pm =\frac{1\mp V}{V(1\pm V)}H_{ij} \,.\end{aligned}$$ It therefore follows that $H_{ij}$ defined in (\[Hij\_higher\]) is nothing but the Ricci tensor for the conformally transformed metric, up to a scalar function. From (\[Sch\_Uni\_Hmndechigh\]), the condition $H_{ij}=0$ implies $\sigma_{ij}={\mbox{$\mathcal{D}$}}_i \rho=0$. The spherical symmetry on and outside the horizon immediately follows from the Gauss curvature decomposition formula in the space of the vanishing Weyl tensor. This standpoint is more geometric than previous analysis based on the Dirichlet boundary value problem.
Summary and final remarks {#sec:summary}
=========================
We made an extensive study on the uniqueness theorems of static black holes in the context of divergence equations. Following the strategy laid out in [@israel; @MRS; @robinson], we have generalized these arguments into various directions. In the four dimensional vacuum case, our formula (\[vac\_divid\]) contains three tunable parameters, which allow us to conclude the spherical symmetry without resorting to the integrated mass formula. Using our divergence formula, one can also show $\chi\ge 2$. This is the inequality that is stronger than ever explored and excludes explicitly the real projective space. Furthermore, our tensorial field $H_{ij}$ defined in (\[vac\_Hij\]) enjoys a geometrically clear meaning, i.e., it describes the obstruction for the spherical symmetry (\[vac\_Hij\_dec\]), the obstruction for the existence of the dilatation conformal Killing vector (\[Dizeta\]), as well as the obstruction for the conformal Ricci flatness (\[RijHij\]). We expect that the discussion laid out in this paper will be applied for the stationary case, e.g., for the divergence equation in [@Simon:1983nm].
Our formulation is also robust in the four dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory. For instance, one can apply the maximum/minimum principle to divergence-type equations to conclude that the electrostatic potential is a function of the norm of the static Killing vector. We believe that our formulation is insensitive to matter fields, as long as the material equations of motion are of divergence type. This is indeed the case for a theory with a conformally coupled scalar field [@tomikawa2017].
As we have verified, this advantage is optimized in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory. We found another divergence equation (\[EMD\_dividPhiPsi\]), according to which we obtain the functional relationships for the norm of the Killing vector, electrostatic potential and dilaton field. This represents the effectiveness of the present scheme, since it has been a long standing problem how to fix the value of the scalar field at the horizon. However, we do not know to what extent the coset representation comes into play for the existence of this type of divergence equation (\[EMD\_dividPhiPsi\]). It remains an intriguing issue to explore the case in which the scalar space is not symmetric nor homogeneous.
In higher dimensions, our divergence formula always encounters an intractable term $y_H$ given in (\[yamabe\]). Although this limits the validity of the present strategy, it is still useful to obtain the Penrose-type inequality and for the modification of the uniqueness proof based upon the positive mass theorem. Interestingly, the bound (\[yHbound\]) is the condition for the Penrose inequality for the time-symmetric Einstein-Maxwell initial data sets in higher dimensions, modulo some additional assumptions [@deLima:2014ysa]. This line of study is also worth exploring.
The authors are supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (17H01091). T.S. is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (16K05344). M.N. is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) from JSPS (16H03979). K.I. is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (17K14281). S.Y is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (17H01091)
[99]{}
W. Israel, Phys. Rev. [**164**]{}, 1776 (1967).
H. Müller Zum Hagen, D. C. Robinson and H. J. Seifert, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**4**]{}, 53 (1973).
D. C. Robinson, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**8**]{}, 696 (1977).
G. L. Bunting and A. K. M. Masood-ul-Alam, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**19**]{}, 147 (1987).
R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, Commun. Math. Phys. [**65**]{}, 45 (1979). R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, arXiv:1704.05490 \[math.DG\]. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. [**80**]{}, 381 (1981). S. Hwang, Geometriae Dedicata [**71**]{}, 5 (1998).
G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida and T. Shiromizu, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**148**]{}, 284 (2003) G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 041101 (2002)
G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 044010 (2002) M. Rogatko, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 084025 H. K. Kunduri and J. Lucietti, Class. Quant. Grav. [**35**]{} (2018) no.5, 054003 R. Penrose, Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. [**224**]{}, 125 (1973).
P. S. Jang and R. M. Wald, J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{}, 41 (1977).
G. Huisken and T. Ilmanen, J. Diff. Geom. [**59**]{}, 353 (2001).
P. S. Jang, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{}, 834 (1979). H. Bray, J. Diff. Geom. [**59**]{}, 177 (2001).
M. Khuri, G. Weinstein and S. Yamada, J. Diff. Geom. [**106**]{}, 451 (2017). S. Hawking, J. Math. Phys. [**9**]{}, 598 (1968). R. Geroch, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. [**224**]{}, 108 (1973).
R. Mizuno, S. Ohashi and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 044030 (2010)
R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**40**]{}, 1997 (2008)
S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**25**]{}, 152 (1972). P. T. Chrusciel and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav. [**11**]{}, L147 (1994)
L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 71 (1973) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 521 (1973)\]. L. Lindblom, J. Math. Phys. [**29**]{}, 436 (1988)
H. Michalski and J. Wainwright, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**6**]{}, 289 (1975).
J. R. Ray and E. L. Thompson, J. Math. Phys. [**16**]{}, 345 (1975). P. Tod, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**39**]{}, 111 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10714-006-0363-5 \[gr-qc/0611035\].
G. J. Galloway, Class. Quant. Grav. [**12**]{}, L99 (1995).
G. W. Gibbons and C. M. Hull, Phys. Lett. [**109B**]{}, 190 (1982). M. Nozawa and T. Shiromizu, Nucl. Phys. B [**887**]{}, 380 (2014)
W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. [**8**]{}, 245 (1968). H. Müller Zum Hagen and D. C. Robinson, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**5**]{}, 61 (1974).
W. Simon, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**17**]{}, 761 (1984). P. Ruback, Class. Quant. Grav. [**5**]{}, L155 (1988).
K. M. Masood-ul-Alam, Class. Quant. Grav. [**9**]{}, L53 (1992).
D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger, [*“Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order,”*]{} Springer (1977).
G. W. Gibbons, D. Kastor, L. A. J. London, P. K. Townsend and J. H. Traschen, Nucl. Phys. B [**416**]{}, 850 (1994)
M. Nozawa, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 175013 (2011)
G. W. Gibbons and K. i. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B [**298**]{}, 741 (1988).
A. K. M. Masood-ul-Alam, Class. Quant. Grav. [**10**]{}, 2649 (1993).
M. Mars and W. Simon, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**6**]{}, 279 (2003)
Y. Tomikawa, T. Shiromizu and K. Izumi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. [**2017**]{}, 033E03 (2017).
W. Simon, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**16**]{}, 465 (1983). L. Lopes de Lima, F. Girao, W. Lozorio and J. Silva, Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, no. 3, 035008 (2016)
[^1]: The conformal flow is another effective tool to prove the Riemannian Penrose inequality [@bray]. The proof has also been extended to the case with a charge in Ref. [@khuri2014].
[^2]: Even if we adopt the option (ii), the final conclusion is identical. We shall not attempt to follow this route.
[^3]: We also need $0<\rho<\infty$ in the interior of $\Sigma$ for the right-hand side of (\[vac\_divid\]) to be well-defined. This can be shown by applying the maximal principle to (\[laprho\]), as demonstrated in [@hwang].
[^4]: In general, if the four-dimensional spacetime admits a non-null Killing vector $\xi$, the Maxwell field satisfies ${\mbox{$\mathcal{L}$}}_\xi F=\Psi \star F$, where $(\star F)_{\mu\nu}=\frac 12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}$ and $\Psi $ being constant [@Michalski; @Ray]. We refer the readers to [@Tod:2006mp] for an attempt to get rid of the assumption of symmetry inheritance ${\mbox{$\mathcal{L}$}}_\xi F=0$ in the uniqueness proof.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The probability that the commutator of two group elements is equal to a given element has been introduced in literature few years ago. Several authors have investigated this notion with methods of the representation theory and with combinatorial techniques. Here we illustrate that a wider context may be considered and show some structural restrictions on the group.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Applied Sciences\
Umm Alqura University, P.O. Box 14035, Makkah, 21955, Saudi Arabia
- |
IISSS “Axel Munthe”\
viale Axel Munthe, 80074, Anacapri (Naples), Italy
author:
- 'Ahmad M.A. Alghamdi'
- 'Francesco G. Russo'
title: A generalization of the probability that the commutator of two group elements is equal to a given element
---
[^1]
Different formulations of the commutativity degree
==================================================
Given two elements $x$ and $y$ of a group $G$, several authors studied the probability that a randomly chosen commutator $[x,y]$ of $G$ satisfies a prescribed property. P. Erdős and P. Turán [@et] began to investigate the case $[x,y]=1$, noting some structural restrictions on $G$ from bounds of statistical nature. Their approach involved combinatorial techniques, which were developed successively in [@cms; @das-nath2; @das-nath1; @doostie-maghasedi; @elr; @err; @erovenko-sury; @gr; @gustafson; @l; @rezaei1] and extended to the infinite case in [@er; @gustafson; @rezaei2]. On another hand, P. X. Gallagher [@gallagher] investigated the case $[x,y]=1$, using character theory, and opened another line of research, illustrated in [@das-nath2; @das-nath1; @gr; @ps; @rusin]. The literature shows that it is possible to variate the condition on $[x,y]$ involving arbitrary words, which could not be the commutator word $[x,y]$. From now, all the groups which we consider will be finite.
Given two subgroups $H$ and $K$ of $G$ and two integers $n,m\geq1$, we define $$\label{e:1} \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)=\small{\frac{|\{(x_1,\ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_m)\in H^n \times K^m \ | \ [x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]=g\}|}{|H|^n \ |K|^m}}$$ as the [*probability that a randomly chosen commutator of weight $n+m$ of $H \times K$ is equal to a given element of $G$*]{}. Denoting $$\mathcal{A}=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m)\in H^n \times K^m
\ | \ [x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]=g\},$$ $|\mathcal{A}|=|H|^n \cdot |K|^m \cdot \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)$. The case $n=m=1$ can be found in [@das-nath1] and is called *generalized commutativity degree of $G$*. For $n=m=1$ and $H=K=G$, $$\label{e:2} \mathrm{p}^{(1,1)}_g(G,G)=\mathrm{p}_g(G)=\frac{|\{(x,y)\in G^2 \ | \ [x,y]=g\}|}{|G|^2}$$ is the [*probability that the commutator of two group elements of $G$ is equal to a given element of $G$*]{} in [@ps].
It is well known (see for instance [@alp Excercise 3, p. 183]) that the function $\psi(g)=|\{(x, y)\in
G\times G \ | \ [x,y]=g\}|$ is a character of $G$ and we have $\psi={\underset{\chi\in
\mathrm{Irr}(G)}\sum}\frac{|G|}{\chi(1)}\chi$, where $\mathrm{Irr}(G)$ denotes the set of all irreducible complex characters of $G$. However, the authors exploited this fact in [@ps Theorem 2.1], writing (\[e:2\]) as $$\label{e:3} \mathrm{p}_g(G)= \frac{1}{|G|}{\underset{\chi\in \mathrm{Irr}(G)}\sum}\frac{\chi(g)}{\chi(1)},$$ For terminology and notations in character theory we refer to [@isaacs].
Now for $g=1$, $$\label{e:4} \mathrm{p}^{(1,1)}_1(G,G)=\mathrm{p}_1(G)=\mathrm{d}(G)=\frac{|\{(x,y)\in G^2 \ | \ [x,y]=1\}|}{|G|^2}= \frac{|{\rm
Irr}(G)|}{|G|}$$ is the $probability$ $of$ $commuting$ $pairs$ $of$ $G$ (or briefly the $commutativity$ $degree$ of $G$), largely studied in [@cms; @das-nath2; @das-nath1; @doostie-maghasedi; @elr; @err; @erovenko-sury; @gallagher; @gr; @gustafson; @l; @rezaei1; @rusin]. In particular, $$\label{e:5} \mathrm{p}^{(n,1)}_1(G,G)=\frac{|\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,x_{n+1})\in G^{n+1} \ | \ [x_1,\ldots,x_n,x_{n+1}]=1\}|}{|G|^{n+1}}= \mathrm{d}^{(n)}(G),$$ is the $n$-th [*nilpotency degree*]{} of $G$ in [@cms; @elr; @err; @rezaei1; @rezaei2] and that $$\label{e:6}
\mathrm{p}^{(n,1)}_1(H,G)=\frac{|\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y)\in H^n \times
G \ | \ [x_1,\ldots,x_n,y]=1\}|}{|H|^n \
|G|}=\mathrm{d}^{(n)}(H,G)$$ is the [*relative*]{} $n$-th [*nilpotency degree*]{} of $H$ in $G$, studied in [@elr; @err; @rezaei1; @rezaei2]. We may express (\[e:6\]) not necessarily with $g=1$; assuming that $H$ is normal in $G$, [@das-nath1 Equation (4) and Theorem 4.2] imply $$\label{e:7}\mathrm{p}^{(1,1)}_g(H,G)=\frac{|\{(x,y)\in H \times G \ | \
[x,y]=g\}|}{|H| \ |G|}
=\frac{1}{|H||G|}{\underset{\chi \in \mathrm{Irr}(G)}\sum} \frac{|H| \langle \chi_H, \chi_H \rangle}{\chi(1)}
\chi(g),$$ where $\chi_H$ denotes the restriction of $\chi$ to $H$ and $\langle , \rangle$ the usual inner product. Our purpose is to study (\[e:1\]), extending the previous contributions in [@cms; @das-nath1; @elr; @ps; @rezaei1]. The main results of the present paper are in Section 3, in which the general considerations of Section 2 are applied.
Technical properties and some computations
==========================================
We begin with two elementary observations on (\[e:1\]).
\[r:1\]If $\mathcal{S}=\{[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m] \ | \ x_1,\ldots,x_n \in H; y_1,\ldots,y_m \in K\}$, then $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g (H,K)=0$ if and only if $g\not\in \mathcal{S}$. On another hand, $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1 (H,K)=1$ if and only if $[\underbrace{H,\ldots,H}_{n-\mathrm{times}},\underbrace{K,\ldots,K}_{m-\mathrm{times}}]=[_nH,_mK]=1$.
\[r:2\]The equation (\[e:1\]) assigns by default the map $$\label{e:8}\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g : (x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m) \in H^n
\times K^m \mapsto \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\in [0,1],$$ which is a probability measure on $H^n \times K^m$, satisfying a series of standard properties such as being multiplicative, symmetric and monotone.
The fact that (\[e:8\]) is multiplicative is described by the next result.
\[p:1\] Let $E$ and $F$ be two groups such that $e\in E$, $f\in F$, $A,C\leq E$ and $B,D\leq F$. Then $$\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_{(e,f)} (A\times C,B\times D)=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_e (A,B) \cdot \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_f(C,D).$$
It is enough to note that $$[([a_1,\ldots,a_n],[c_1,\ldots,c_n]),([b_1,\ldots,b_m],[d_1,\ldots,d_m])]
=([[a_1,\ldots,a_n],[b_1,\ldots,b_m]],[c_1,\ldots,c _n],[d_1,\ldots,d_m]]).$$
Proposition \[p:1\] is true for finitely many factors instead of only two factors and this can be checked with easy computations. Therefore the proof is omitted. The fact that (\[e:8\]) is symmetric is described by the next result.
\[p:2\]With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g (H,K)=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_{g^{-1}} (K,H)$. Moreover, if $H$, or $K$, is normal in $G$, then $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g (H,K)=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g
(K,H)=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_{g^{-1}} (H,K)$.
The commutator rule $[x,y]^{-1} = [y,x]$ implies the first part of the result. Now let $H$ be normal in $G$, $n\leq m$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{(y_1,\ldots,y_m,x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in K^m \times H^n \ |
\ [y_1,\ldots,y_m,x_1,\ldots,x_n]=g\}$. The map $\varphi :
(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m) \in \mathcal{A} \mapsto
(y^{-1}_1,y^{-1}_2,\ldots,y^{-1}_n,y^{-1}_{n+1},\ldots,y^{-1}_m,y_1x_1y^{-1}_1,y_2x_2y^{-1}_2,\ldots,y_nx_ny^{-1}_n)
\in \mathcal{B}$ is bijective and so the remaining equalities follow. A similar argument can be applied, when the assumption $H$ is normal in $G$ is replaced by $K$ is normal in $G$.
The fact that (\[e:8\]) is monotone is more delicate to prove, since this is a situation in which we may find upper bounds for (\[e:1\]). Details are given later on. Now we will get another expression for (\[e:1\]). With the notations of (\[e:1\]), $\mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])$ denotes the [*$K$-conjugacy class of*]{} $[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \in H$.
\[p:3\]With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, $$\mathrm{p}_g^{(n,m)}(H,K)=\frac{1}{|H|^n \ |K|^m} \underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m.$$
It is straightforward to check that $$C_{K^m}([x_1,\ldots,x_n])=\underbrace{C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n]) \times \ldots \times
C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])}_{m-\mathrm{times}}.$$ In particular, $|C_{K^m}([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|=|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m$.
$\mathcal{A}=\underset{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in H}\bigcup \{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\} \times T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]},$ where $T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}=\{(y_1,\ldots,y_m)\in K^m \ | \ [x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]=g\}$. Obviously, $T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}\not=\emptyset$ if and only if $g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])$. Let $T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}\not=\emptyset$. Then $|T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}|=|C_{K^m}([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|$, because the map $\psi : [y_1,\ldots,y_m] \mapsto g
\overline{[y_1,\ldots,y_m]}^{^{-1}}[y_1,\ldots,y_m]$ is bijective, where $\overline{[y_1,\ldots,y_m]}$ is a fixed element of $T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}$. We deduce that $$\begin{array}{lcl}|\mathcal{A}|=\sum_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in H}|T_{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}|=\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_{K^m}([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in
\mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m\end{array}$$ and the result follows.
Special cases of Proposition \[p:3\] are listed below.
\[c:1\]In [Proposition \[p:3\]]{} , if $m=1$ and $G=K$, then $$\mathrm{p}_g^{(n,1)}(H,G)=\frac{1}{|H|^n \ |G|}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in
\mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|.$$
\[c:2\] In [Proposition \[p:3\]]{} , if $m=n=1$, then $$\mathrm{p}_g^{(1,1)}(H,K)=\frac{1}{|H| \ |K|}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}x\in \mathrm{Cl}_K(x)} {x\in H}}\sum
|C_K(x)|.$$ In particular, if $G=K$, then $\mathrm{p}_g^{(1,1)}(H,G)=\frac{1}{|H| \ |G|}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}x\in \mathrm{Cl}_G(x)} {x\in H}}\sum
|C_G(x)|$.
\[c:3\]In [Proposition \[p:3\]]{} , if $m=1$ and $G=K$, then $$\mathrm{p}_1^{(n,1)}(H,G)=\mathrm{d}^{(n)}(H,G)=\frac{1}{|H|^n \ |G|} \underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|.$$
\[c:4\]In [Proposition \[p:3\]]{} , if $C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n]) = 1$, then $$\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,K)=\frac{1}{|H|^n}+\frac{1}{|K|^m}-\frac{1}{|H|^n \ |K|^m}.$$
[@das-nath1 Proposition 3.4] follows from Corollary \[c:4\], when $m=n=1$.
\[r:3\] Equation (\[e:6\]) makes equivalent the study of $\mathrm{p}^{(n,1)}_1(H,G)$ and that of $\mathrm{d}^{(n)}(H,G)$. This is illustrated in Corollary \[c:3\] and noted here for the first time. Therefore there are many information from [@cms; @elr; @err; @rezaei1] and [@das-nath1; @das-nath2; @ps] which can be connected. It is relevant to point out that these concepts were treated independently and with different methods in the last years.
Let $\chi$ be a character of $G$ and $\theta$ be a character of $H\leq G$. The *Frobenius Reciprocity Law* [@isaacs Lemma 5.2] gives a link between the restriction $\chi_H$ of $\chi$ to $H$ and the induced character $\theta^G$ of $\theta$. Therefore $\langle
\chi,\theta^G\rangle_G=\langle \chi_{H},\theta\rangle_{H}.$Write this number as $e_{(\chi,\theta)}=\langle \chi,\theta^G\rangle_G=\langle \chi_H,\theta\rangle_H.$ If $e_{(\chi, \theta)}=0$, then $\theta$ does not appear in $\chi_H$ and so $\chi$ does not appear in $\theta^G$. Recall from [@isaacs] that, if $e_{(\chi,\theta)}\neq 0$, then $\chi$ *covers* $\theta$ (or also $\theta$ *belongs to the constituents of* $\chi_H$). In particular, if $\theta= \chi_{H}$, then $e_{(\chi,\chi_H)}=\langle \chi,(\chi_H)^G\rangle_{G}=\langle \chi_H,\chi_H\rangle_H.$ From a classic relation (see [@isaacs Lemma 2.29]), $e_{(\chi,\chi_H)}=\langle \chi,(\chi_H)^G\rangle_G=\langle \chi_H,\chi_H\rangle_H\leq |G:H| \ \langle \chi,\chi
\rangle_G = |G:H| e_{(\chi,\chi)}$ and the equality holds if and only if $\chi(x)=0$ for all $x\in G-H$. In particular, if $\chi \in \mathrm{Irr}(G)$, then $\langle \chi_H,\chi_H\rangle_H= |G:H| \ \mathrm{if \ and \ only \ if} \ \chi(x)=0,$ for all $x\in G-H.$ Therefore the following result is straightforward.
With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, $\mathrm{p}_{g}^{(1,1)}(H,G)\leq |G:H| \ \mathrm{p}_1(G)$ and the equality holds if and only if all the characters vanish on $G-H$.
At this point, [@das-nath1 Theorem 4.2] becomes $$\label{e:21}
\zeta(g)=|H| \ \underset{\chi \in \mathrm{Irr}(G)}\sum \frac{e_{(\chi_H,\chi_H)}}{\chi(1)} \cdotp
\chi(g)=|\{(x,y)\in H \times G \ | \
[x,y]=g\}|= \underset{\underset{g^{-1}x \in \mathrm{Cl}_G(x)} {x\in
H}}\sum |C_G(x)|,$$ where $\zeta(g)$ is the number of solutions $(x,y)\in H\times G$ of the equation $[x,y]=g$. Note that (\[e:21\]) and [@alp Excercise 3, p. 183] give a short argument to prove that $\zeta(g)$ is a character of $G$ with respect to the argument in [@das-nath1 Corollary 4.3]. The equation (\[e:7\]) becomes $$\label{e:22}
\mathrm{p}_{g}^{(1,1)}(H,G)=\frac{\zeta(g)}{|H| \ |G|}.$$
For the general case that $n>1$, $m>1$ and $G=K$, $$\label{e:23}
\mathrm{p}_{g}^{(n,m)}(H, G)=\frac{\zeta^{(n,m)}(g)}{|G|^m}= \frac{1}{|G|^m} \Big(
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m\Big),$$ where $$\label{e:extra}
\zeta^{(n,m)}(g)= \underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])}
{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum |C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m$$ is the number of solutions $(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m)\in H^n\times G^m$ of $[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]=g$.
\[t:1\]There are many evidences from the computations that $\zeta^{(n,m)}(g)$ is a character of $G$.
Now we may prove upper bounds for (\[e:1\]) and find that (\[e:8\]) is monotone.
\[p:4\] With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, if $H \leq K$, then $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,G)\geq \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(K,G).$ The equality holds if and only if $\mathrm{Cl}_H(x)=\mathrm{Cl}_K(x)$ for all $x\in G$.
We note that $\frac{1}{|K|}\leq \frac{1}{|H|}$ and then $\frac{1}{|K|^n}\leq \frac{1}{|H|^n}$. By Proposition \[p:3\], $$\label{e:24}\begin{array}{lcl}
|G|^m \cdot \mathrm{p}_{g}^{(n,m)}(K,G)=\frac{1}{|K|^n}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in
\mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in K}}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\leq \frac{1}{|H|^n} \underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in
\mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in K}}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|\end{array}$$ in particular the last relation is true for $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H\leq K$ and continuing $$\label{e:25}=\frac{1}{|H|^n}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in \mathrm{Cl}_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|=|G|^m \cdot p_{g}^{(n, m)}(H, G).$$ The rest of the proof is clear.
The next result shows an upper bound, which generalizes [@elr Theorem 4.6].
\[p:5\] With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, if $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ such that $H\leq N$, then $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,G)\leq \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g
\Big(\frac{H}{N},\frac{G}{N}\Big).$ Moreover, if $N \cap [_nH,_mG] =
1$, then the equality holds.
We have $$\begin{array}{lcl}
|H|^n \ |G|^m \ \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,G)=|\mathcal{A}|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=|\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m) \in H^n \times G^m \ | \
[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m] \cdot
g^{-1}=1 \}|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=|\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m) \in H^n \times G^m \ | \
[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m,g^{-1}]=1 \}|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=\sum_{x_1 \in H} \ldots \sum_{x_n\in
H}\sum_{y_1 \in G} \ldots \sum_{y_m\in
G}|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=\sum_{x_1 \in H} \ldots \sum_{x_n\in
H}\sum_{y_1 \in G} \ldots \sum_{y_m\in
G}\frac{|C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m])N| \cdot |C_N([x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m])|}{|N|}\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\leq \sum_{x_1 \in H} \ldots \sum_{x_n\in
H}\sum_{y_1 \in G} \ldots \sum_{y_m\in
G}|C_{G/N}([x_1N,\ldots,x_nN,y_1N,\ldots,y_mN])| \vspace{0.3cm}\\
\cdot |C_N([x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
= \sum_{S_1 \in H/N} \sum_{x_1 \in S_1}\ldots \sum_{S_n\in
H/N}\sum_{x_n \in S_n}\sum_{T_1 \in G/N} \sum_{y_1 \in T_1} \ldots \sum_{T_m\in
G/N}\sum_{y_m \in T_m}\vspace{0.3cm}\\
|C_{G/N}([S_1,\ldots,S_n,T_1,\ldots,T_m])| \cdot |C_N([x_1,\ldots,y_m])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
= \Big(\sum_{S_1 \in H/N} \ldots \sum_{S_n\in
H/N}\sum_{T_1 \in G/N} \ldots \sum_{T_m\in
G/N}|C_{G/N}([S_1,\ldots,S_n,T_1,\ldots,T_m])|\Big)\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\cdot \Big(\sum_{x_1 \in S_1}\ldots \sum_{x_n \in S_n}\sum_{y_1 \in T_1} \ldots \sum_{y_m \in T_m}
|C_N([x_1,\ldots,y_m])|\Big)\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\leq |N|^{n+m} \sum_{S_1 \in H/N} \ldots \sum_{S_n \in H/N}\sum_{T_1
\in G/N} \ldots\sum_{T_m\in
G/N}\vspace{0.3cm}\\
|C_{G/N}([S_1,\ldots,S_n,T_1,\ldots,T_m])|\vspace{0.3cm}\\
= \Big|\frac{H}{N}\Big|^n \ \Big|\frac{G}{N}\Big|^m \
p^{(n,m)}_g\Big(\frac{H}{N},\frac{G}{N}\Big) \ |N|^{n+m}=|H|^n \
|G|^m \ \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g\Big(\frac{H}{N},\frac{G}{N}\Big).
\end{array}$$ The condition of equality in the above relations is satisfied exactly when $N \cap [_nH,_mG] = 1$. The result follows.
A special case of [Proposition \[p:5\]]{} is $\mathrm{p}_g(G)\leq \mathrm{p}_g(G/N)$.
In [Proposition \[p:5\]]{} , if $m=1$ and $g=1$, then $\mathrm{d}^{(n)}(H,G)\leq \mathrm{d}^{(n)}(H/N,G/N)$.
Some upper and lower bounds
===========================
A relation among (\[e:1\])–(\[e:7\]) is described below.
\[t:2\] With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(G,G)\leq \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\leq
\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,K)\leq \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,G) \leq
\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,H).$
From Proposition \[p:4\], $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(G,G)\leq
\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(G,H)$. From Proposition \[p:3\], $$\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)=\frac{1}{|H|^n \ |K|^m}
\underset{\underset{g^{-1}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in
\mathrm{Cl}_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])} {x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m$$ and for $g=1$ we get $$\leq \frac{1}{|H|^n \ |K|^m}
\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,K),$$where in the last passage still Proposition \[p:3\] is used. From $C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])\subseteq C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])$, we deduce $$\leq
\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}\sum |C_G([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m=
\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,G).$$ Applying Proposition \[p:2\], $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,G)=\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(G,H)$ and so $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(G,H)\leq \mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_1(H,H)$ by Proposition \[p:4\].
\[c:5\] With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, if $Z(G)=1$, then $\mathrm{p}^{(n,1)}_g(H,K)\leq \frac{2^n-1}{2^n}.$
It follows from Theorem \[t:2\] and [@elr Theorem 5.3].
Another significant restriction is the following.
\[t:3\]With the notations of [(\[e:1\])]{}, let $p$ be the smallest prime divisor of $|G|$. Then
- $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\leq \frac{2p^n+p-2}{p^{m+n}}$;
- $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\geq \frac{(1-p)|Y_{H^n}|+p|H^n|}{|H^n| \ |K^m|} - \frac{(|K|+p) |C_H(K)|^n}{|H^n| \ |K^m|}$;
where $Y_{H^n}=\{[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in H^n \ | \ C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])=1\}$.
If $[_nH,_mK]=1$, then $C_{H^n}(K^m)=H^n$ and $Y_{H^n}$ equals $H^n$ or an empty set according as $K^m$ is trivial or nontrivial. Assume that $[_nH,_mK]\not=1$. Then $Y_{H^n}\cap C_{H^n}(K^m)=Y_{H^n}\cap (C_H(K^m)\times \ldots \times
C_H(K^m))=Y_{H^n}\cap (C_H(K)\times C_H(K)\times \ldots \times C_H(K))=Y_{H^n}\cap (C_H(K))^{nm}\not=\emptyset$ and $$\begin{array}{lcl} \underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}\sum |C_{K^m}([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|=
\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H}\sum |C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in Y_{H^n}}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m + \underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in
C_{H^n}(K)}\sum |C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m \vspace{0.3cm}\\
+\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H^n-(Y_{H^n}\cup C_{H^n}(K))}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m \vspace{0.3cm}\\
=|Y_{H^n}|+ |K| \ |C_H(K)|^n+\underset{x_1,\ldots,x_n\in H^n-(Y_{H^n}\cup C_{H^n}(K))}\sum
|C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m.\end{array}$$ Since $p^m\leq |C_K([x_1,\ldots,x_n])|^m\leq
\frac{|K^m|}{p^m}$, $|Y_{H^n}|\leq |H^n|$ and $p^n\leq|C_H(K)|^n\leq \frac{|H^n|}{p^n}$, $$\leq
|Y_{H^n}|+|K| \ |C_H(K)|^n+(|H^n|-(|Y_{H^n}|+ |C_H(K)|^n) \cdot \frac{|K^m|}{p^m}$$ and then $$\label{e:bound}\begin{array}{lcl}\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\leq \frac{|Y_{H^n}|}{|H^n| \ |K^m|} + \frac{|K| \
|C_H(K)|^n}{|H^n| \ |K^m|}+ \frac{1}{p^m} - \frac{|Y_{H^n}|}{p^m \ |H^n|} -
\frac{|C_H(K)|^n}{p^m \ |H^n|}\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\leq \frac{1}{p^m} + \frac{1}{p^{m+n-1}} + \frac{1}{p^m}-\frac{1}{p^{m+n}}-\frac{1}{p^{m+n}} =
\frac{2p^n+p-2}{p^{m+n}}.\end{array}$$ Hence (i) follows. On another hand, we may continue in the other direction $$\geq |Y_{H^n}|+|K| \ |C_H(K)|^n+ p \ (|H^n|-(|Y_{H^n}|+
|C_H(K)|^n)$$ and then $$\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)\geq
\frac{(1-p)|Y_{H^n}|}{|H^n| \ |K^m|} + \frac{p}{|K^m|} - \frac{(|K|+p) |C_H(K)|^n}{|H^n| \ |K^m|}.$$ Then (ii) follows.
The bound in Theorem \[t:3\] (i) is a little bit different from the bound in [@das-nath1 Corollary 3.9], where it is proved that $\mathrm{p}^{(1,1)}_g(H,K)\leq \frac{2p-1}{p^2}$ and in particular $\mathrm{p}^{(1,1)}_g(H,K)\leq \frac{3}{4}$. We conclude the following structural restriction.
\[c:6\] In [Theorem]{} \[t:3\], if $\mathrm{p}^{(n,m)}_g(H,K)= \frac{2p^n+p-2}{p^{m+n}}$, then $$|H:C_H(K)|\leq \Big(\frac{p^{n+1}-p^3-\frac{p^2}{2}+p}{2p^2+p-2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$
Looking at (\[e:bound\]) and the proof of Theorem \[t:3\] (i), we deduce $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\frac{2p^n+p-2}{p^{m+n}}\leq \frac{|Y_{H^n}|}{|H^n| \ |K^m|} + \frac{|K| |C_H(K)|^n}{|H^n| \ |K^m|} +
\frac{1}{p^m}\leq \frac{1}{p^m} + \frac{1}{p^{m-1}} \ \Big|\frac{C_H(K)}{H}\Big|^n + \frac{1}{p^m}\vspace{0.3cm}\\
=\frac{1}{p^{m-1}} \Big( \frac{2}{p}+|\frac{C_H(K)}{H}|^n\Big)
\end{array}$$ and then $\frac{2p^n+p-2}{p^{n+1}}\leq \frac{2}{p}+\Big|\frac{C_H(K)}{H}\Big|^n$. We conclude that $\frac{p^{n+1}}{2p^n+p-2}\geq \frac{p}{2}+\Big|\frac{H}{C_H(K)}\Big|^n$ and so $$\frac{p^{n+1}}{2p^n+p-2}- \frac{p}{2} =\frac{p^{n+1}-p^3-\frac{p^2}{2}+p}{2p^2+p-2}\geq
\Big|\frac{H}{C_H(K)}\Big|^n.$$ The result follows, once we extract the $n$-th root.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The second author is grateful to the colleagues of the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad for some helpful comments in the period in which the present work has been written.
[20]{}
J. Alperin and B. Bell, *Groups and Representations*, Springer, 1995, New York.
K. Chiti, M. R. R. Moghaddam and A. R. Salemkar, $n$–isoclinism classes and $n$–nilpotency degree of finite groups, [*Algebra Colloq.*]{} [**12**]{} (2005), 225–261.
A. K. Das and R. K. Nath, On solutions of a class of equations in a finite group, *Commun. Algebra* **37** (2009), 3904–3911.
A. K. Das and R. K. Nath, On the generalized relative commutative degree of a finite group, *Int. Electr. J. Algebra* **7** (2010), 140–151.
H. Doostie and M. Maghasedi, Certain classes of groups with commutativity degree $d(G)<
1/2$, *Ars Combinatoria* **89** (2008), 263–270.
P. Erdős and P. Turán, On some problems of statistical group theory, [*Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hung.*]{} [**19**]{} (1968), 413–435.
A. Erfanian, P. Lescot and R. Rezaei, On the relative commutativity degree of a subgroup of a finite group, *Comm. Algebra* [**[35]{}**]{} (2007), 4183–4197.
A. Erfanian and R. Rezaei, On the commutativity degree of compact groups, *Arch. Math. (Basel)* **93** (2009), 345–356.
A. Erfanian, R. Rezaei and F. G. Russo, Relative $n$-isoclinism classes and relative $n$-th nilpotency degree of finite groups, e-print, Cornell University, 2010, arXiv:0003310 \[math.GR\].
I.V. Erovenko and B. Sury, Commutativity degree of wreath products of finite abelian groups, *Bull. Austral. Math. Soc.* **77** (2008), 31–36.
P. X. Gallagher, The number of conjugacy classes in a finite group, *Math. Z.* [**118**]{} (1970), 175–179.
R. M. Guralnick and G. R. Robinson, On the commuting probability in finite groups, *J. Algebra* **300** (2006), 509–528.
W. H. Gustafson, What is the probability that two groups elements commute? *Amer. Math. Monthly* [**80**]{} (1973), 1031–1304.
I. M. Isaacs, [*Character Theory of Finite Groups*]{}, Dover Publ., New York, 1994.
P. Lescot, Isoclinism classes and commutativity degrees of finite groups, *J. Algebra* [**[177]{}**]{} (1987), 847–869.
M. R. Pournaki and R. Sobhani, Probability that the commutator of two group elements is equal to a given element, *J. Pure Appl. Algebra* **212** (2008), 727–734.
R. Rezaei and F. G. Russo, $n$-th relative nilpotency degree and relative $n$-isoclinism classes, e-print, Cornell University, 2010, arXiv:1003.2297v1 \[math.GR\].
R. Rezaei and F. G. Russo, Bounds for the relative $n$-th nilpotency degree in compact groups, e-print, Cornell University, 2009, arXiv:0910.4716v1 \[math.GR\].
D. J. Rusin, What is the probability that two elements of a finite group commute?, *Pacific J. Math.* **82** (1979), 237–247.
[^1]: *Mathematics Subject Classification 2010*: 20P05; 20D60
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Threshold effects in the estimation of parameters of non–linearly modulated, continuous–time, wide-band waveforms, are examined from a statistical physics perspective. These threshold effects are shown to be analogous to phase transitions of certain disordered physical systems in thermal equilibrium. The main message, in this work, is in demonstrating that this physical point of view may be insightful for understanding the interactions between two or more parameters to be estimated, from the aspects of the threshold effect.\
[**Index Terms:**]{} Non–linear modulation, parameter estimation, threshold effect, additive white Gaussian noise channel, bandwidth, statistical physics, disordered systems, random energy model, phase transitions.
author:
- Neri Merhav
title: Threshold Effects in Parameter Estimation as Phase Transitions in Statistical Mechanics
---
Department of Electrical Engineering\
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology\
Haifa 32000, ISRAEL\
[merhav@ee.technion.ac.il]{}
Introduction
============
In waveform communication systems, the information is normally conveyed in a real–valued parameter (or parameters) of a continuous–time signal to be transmitted, whereas the receiver is based on estimating this parameter from a noisy received version of this signal [@WJ65 Chap. 8]. This concept of mapping a real–valued parameter, or a parameter vector, into a continuous–time signal, using a certain modulation scheme, stands at the basis of the theory and practice of Shannon–Kotel’nikov mappings, which can in turn be viewed as certain families of joint source–channel codes (see, e.g., [@Floor08],[@FR09],[@Hekland07],[@Ramstad02] as well as many references therein).
When the underlying modulation scheme is highly non–linear, like in frequency modulation (FM), phase modulation (PM), pulse position modulation (PPM), or frequency position modulation (FPM), it is well known that the estimation of the desired parameter is subjected to a [*threshold effect*]{}. This threshold effect means that the wider is the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, the better is the accuracy of the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator at the high signal–to–noise ratio (SNR) regime, but on the other hand, it comes at the price of increasing also a certain critical level of the SNR, referred to as the [*threshold SNR*]{}, below which this estimator breaks down. This breakdown means that the estimator makes gross errors (a.k.a. anomalous errors) with an overwhelmingly large probability, and in the high bandwidth regime, this breakdown becomes abrupt, as the SNR crosses the threshold value. This threshold effect is not merely an artifact to be attributed to a specific modulator and/or estimation method. It is a fundamental limitation which is inherent to any (non–linear) communication system operating under a limited power constraint over a wide-band channel.
In this paper, we propose a statistical–mechanical perspective on the threshold effect. According to this perspective, the abrupt threshold effect of the wide-band regime is viewed as a [*phase transition*]{} of a certain disordered physical system of interacting particles. Specifically, this physical system turns out to be closely related (though not quite identical) to a well–known model in the statistical physics literature, which is called the [*random energy model*]{} (REM). The REM is one model (among many other models) for highly disordered magnetic materials, called [*spin glasses*]{}. The REM was invented by Derrida in the early eighties of the previous century [@Derrida80],[@Derrida80b],[@Derrida81], and it was shown more recently in [@MM09 Chap. 6] (see also [@Merhav08]) to be intimately related to phase transitions in the behavior of ensembles of random channel codes, not merely in the context of ordinary digital decoding, but also in minimum mean square error (MMSE) signal estimation [@MGS10].
This paper, in contrast to [@MGS10], examines the physics of the threshold effect in the estimation of a continuous–valued parameter, rather than the estimation of the signal itself. For the sake of simplicity and concreteness, the analogy between the threshold effect and phase transitions is demonstrated in the context of estimating the delay (or the position) of a narrow rectangular pulse, but the methodology is generalizable to other situations, as discussed in the sequel. A phase diagram with three phases (similarly as in [@MM09]) is obtained in the plane of two design parameters of the communication system, one pertaining to the signal bandwidth, and the other to a certain notion of temperature (which will be made clear in the sequel).
Beyond the fact that this relationship, between the threshold effect in parameter estimation and phase transitions in physics, may be interesting on its own right, we also believe that the physical point of view may provide insights and tools for understanding the interactions and the collective behavior of the joint ML estimators of two or more parameters, in the context of the threshold effect. For example, suppose that both the amplitude and the delay of a narrow pulse are to be estimated. While the amplitude estimation alone does not exhibit any threshold effect (as the modulation is linear) and the delay estimation alone displays a phase diagram with three phases, it turns out that when joint ML estimation of both amplitude and delay is considered, the interaction between them exhibits a surprisingly more erratic behavior, than that of the delay parameter alone: It possesses as many as five different phases in the plane of bandwidth vs. temperature. Moreover, the behavior of the anomalous errors (below the threshold) pertaining to the amplitude and the delay are very different in character, and it is the physical point of view that gives rise to understanding them.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section \[bcgd\], we provide some basic background on the threshold effect in non–linear modulation and estimation. In Section \[phys\], we present the threshold effect from the physics viewpoint and, in particular, we show how it is related to phase transitions pertaining to the REM. In Section \[joint\], we consider joint ML estimation of amplitude and delay, as described in the previous paragraph, and provide the phase diagram. Finally, in Section \[conc\], we summarize and conclude this work.
Background {#bcgd}
==========
We begin with some basic background on ML parameter estimation for non–linearly modulated signals in additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), the threshold effect pertaining to this estimation, and then the signal design problem, first, for band–limited signals, and then in large bandwidth limit. The material in this section, which is mostly classical and can be found in [@WJ65 Chap. 8], is briefly reviewed here merely for the sake of completeness and convenience of the reader.
Consider the following estimation problem. We are given a parametric family of waveforms $\{s_m(t),~-T/2 \le t\le +T/2\}$, where $m$ is the parameter, which for convenience, will be assumed a (deterministic) scalar that takes on values in some interval $[-M,+M]$, ($M>0$). Now suppose that we observe a noisy version of $s_m(t)$ along the time interval $[-T/2,+T/2]$, i.e., $$r(t)=s_m(t)+n(t),~~~-\frac{T}{2}\le t\le +\frac{T}{2}$$ where $\{n(t)\}$ is a zero–mean Gaussian white noise with spectral density $N_0/2$, and we wish to estimate $m$ from ${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}=\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le +T/2\}$. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, in the Gaussian case considered here, is obviously equivalent to the minimization of $$\int_0^T[r(t)-s_m(t)]^2{\mbox{d}}t$$ w.r.t. $m$. The simplest example is the one where the parametrization of the signal is linear in $m$, i.e., $s_m(t)=m\cdot s(t)$, where $\{s(t),~-T/2\le t\le +T/2\}$ is a given waveform (independent of $m$). In this case, ML estimation yields $$\hat{m}=\frac{\int_0^Tr(t)s(t){\mbox{d}}t}{\int_0^Ts^2(t){\mbox{d}}t}=
\frac{\int_0^Tr(t)s(t){\mbox{d}}t}{E},$$ where $E$ designates the energy of $\{s(t)\}$, i.e., $E=\int_0^Ts^2(t){\mbox{d}}t$, and mean square error (MSE) is readily obtained as $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\}
=\frac{N_0}{2E}.$$ The estimation performance depends on the signal $\{s(t)\}$ only via its energy, $E$. Since this MSE achieves the Cramér–Rao lower bound, this is essentially the best one can do (at least as far as unbiased estimators go) with linear parametrization, for a given SNR $E/N_0$.
The only way then to improve on this result, at least for very large SNR, is to extend the scope to non–linear parametrizations of $\{s_m(t)\}$. For example, $m$ can stand for the [*delay*]{} (or the [*position*]{}) of a given pulse $s(t)$, i.e., $s_m(t)=s(t-m)$. Also, in the case of a sinusoidal waveform, $s(t)=A\sin(\omega t+\phi)$ (with $A$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ being fixed parameters), $m$ can designate a frequency offset, as in $s_m(t)=A\sin[(\omega+m)t+\phi]$, or a phase offset as in $s_m(t)=A\sin(\omega t+\phi+m)$. In these examples, the MSE in the high SNR regime, depends not only on the SNR, $E/N_0$, but also on the shape of the waveform, i.e., on some notion of bandwidth: Rapidly varying signals can be estimated more accurately than slowly varying ones. To demonstrate this, let us assume that the noise is very weak, and the true parameter is $m=m_0$. For small deviations from $m_0$, we consider the linearization $$s_m(t)\approx s_{m_0}(t) +(m-m_0)\dot{s}_{m_0}(t),$$ where $\dot{s}_{m_0}(t)=\mbox{d}s_m(t)/\mbox{d}m|_{m=m_0}$. This is then essentially the same linear model as before where the previous role of $\{s(t)\}$ is played now by $\{\dot{s}_{m_0}(t)\}$, and so, the MSE is about $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\}\approx\frac{N_0}{2\dot{E}},$$ where $\dot{E}$ is the energy of $\{\dot{s}_{m_0}(t)\}$, which depends, of course, not only on $E$, but also on the shape of $\{s_m(t)\}$. For example, if $m$ is a delay parameter, $s_m(t)=s(t-m)$, and $\{s(t)\}$ contains a narrow pulse (or pulses) compared to $T$, then $\dot{E}=\int_0^T\dot{s}^2(t)\mbox{d}t$, essentially independently of $m$, where $\dot{s}(t)$ is the time derivative of $s(t)$. By the Parseval theorem, $$\int_0^T\dot{s}^2(t)\mbox{d}t=
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mbox{d}f (2\pi f)^2S(f),
$$ where $S(f)$ is the Fourier transform of $\{s(t)\}$, and so, we have $\dot{E}=W^2E$ where $W$ is the effective bandwidth of $s(t)$ in the second moment sense, a.k.a. the [*Gabor bandwidth*]{}. We then have $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\}\approx\frac{N_0}{2W^2E},$$ which means that MSE depends, not only on $E/N_0$, but also on the signal shape – in this case, its Gabor bandwidth, $W$. One might be tempted to think that the larger is $W$, the better is the MSE. However, there is a price for increasing $W$: the probability of [*anomalous errors*]{} increases.
To understand the effect of anomaly, it is instructive to look at the broader picture: Let us assume that the parametric family of signals $\{s_m(t):~-M\le
m\le +M\}$ lies in the linear space spanned by a set of $K$ orthonormal basis functions $\{\phi_i(t)\}_{i=1}^K$, defined over $-T/2\le t\le +T/2$, and so, we can pass from continuous time signals to vectors of coefficients: $$s(t)=\sum_{i=1}^Ks_i(m)\phi_i(t)$$ with $$s_i(m)=\int_0^Ts(t)\phi_i(t)\mbox{d}t,$$ and let us apply similar decompositions to $r(t)$ and $n(t)$, so as to obtain vectors of coefficients ${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}=(r_1,\ldots,r_K)$, and ${\mbox{\boldmath $n$}}=(n_1,\ldots,n_K)$, related by $$r_i=s_i(m)+n_i,~~~~i=1,2,\ldots,K$$ where $n_i\sim{{\cal N}}(0,N_0/2)$, or $${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}={\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m)+{\mbox{\boldmath $n$}}.$$ As in the example of a delay parameter, let us assume that both the energy $E$ of the signal $\{s_m(t)\}$ itself, and the energy $\dot{E}$ of its derivative w.r.t. $m$, $\{\dot{s}_m(t)\}$, are fixed, independently of $m$. In other words, $\sum_i s_i^2(m)=E$ and $\sum_i \dot{s}_i^2(m)=\dot{E}$ for all $m$. Consider the locus of the signal vectors $[s_1(m),\ldots,s_K(m)]$ in ${{\rm I\!R}}^K$ as $m$ varies from $-M$ to $+M$. On the one hand, this locus is constrained to lie on the hyper-surface of an $K$–dimensional sphere of radius $\sqrt{E}$, on the other hand, since the high–SNR MSE behaves according to $N_0/(2\dot{E})$, we would like $\dot{E}=\sum_i\dot{s}_i^2(m)$ to be as large as possible. But $\dot{E}$ is related to the length $L$ of the signal locus in ${{\rm I\!R}}^K$ according to $$L=\int_{-M}^{+M}\mbox{d}m\sqrt{\sum_i\dot{s}_i^2(m)}=2M\sqrt{\dot{E}},$$ where we have used the assumption that the norm of $\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}}(m)=(\dot{s}_1(m),\ldots,\dot{s}_K(m))$ is independent of $m$. Thus, the high–SNR MSE is about $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\}\approx\frac{2N_0M^2}{L^2},$$ which means that we would like to make the signal locus as long as possible, in order to minimize the high–SNR MSE.
Our problem is then to design a signal locus, as long as possible, which lies in the hyper-surface of a $K$–dimensional sphere of radius $\sqrt{E}$. Since our room is limited by this energy constraint, a long locus would mean that it is very curvy, with many sharp foldings, and there must then be pairs of points $m_1$ and $m_2$, which are far apart, yet ${\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m_1)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m_2)$ are close in the Euclidean distance sense. In this case, if the noise vector ${\mbox{\boldmath $n$}}$ has a sufficiently large projection in the direction of ${\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m_2)-{\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m_1)$, it can cause a gross error, confusing $m_1$ with $m_2$. Moreover, in high dimension $K$, there can be much more than one such problematic (orthogonal) direction in the above described sense and then the event of anomalous error, which is the event that the noise projection is large in at least one of these directions, gains an appreciably large probability. Thus, as the locus of ${\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}(m)$ bends, various folds of the curve must be kept sufficiently far apart in all dimensions, so that the noise cannot cause anomalous errors with high probability. The probability of anomaly then sets the limit on the length of the curve, and hence also on the high SNR MSE. The maximum locus length $L$ is shown in [@WJ65] to grow exponentially at the rate of $e^{CT}$ in the large $T$ limit, where $C$ is the capacity of the infinite–bandwidth AWGN channel, given by $C=P/N_0$, with $P=E/T$ being the signal power. This maximum is essentially attained by the family [*frequency–position modulation*]{} (FPM) signals (see [@WJ65]), as well as by [*pulse–position modulation*]{} (PPM) signals, considered hereafter.
As is shown in [@WJ65 Chap. 8], if the signal space is spanned by $K\sim 2WT$ dimensions of signals of duration $T$ and fixed bandwidth $W$, namely, $K$ grows linearly with $T$ for fixed $W$, the probability of anomaly is about $K\cdot e^{-E/(2N_0)}$, and so, the total MSE behaves (see [@WJ65 eq. (8.100), p. 633]) roughly according to $$\label{totalmse}
{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\}\approx\frac{N_0}{2W^2E}+B\cdot K
e^{-E/(2N_0)},$$ where $B> 0$ is some constant, the first term accounts for the high–SNR MSE, and the second term is the MSE dictated by the probability of an anomalous error. Note that here the degradation contributed by the anomalous error, as a function of $N_0$, is graceful, in other words, there is still no sharp breakdown of the kind that was described in the previous paragraph. This is because of the fact that as long as $W$ is fixed, the $K=2WT$ orthonormal basis functions may capture only a very small fraction of the ‘problematic directions’ (as described in the previous paragraph) of the entire plethora of ‘directions’ of the noise, which is of infinite bandwidth. In other words, since the probability of a large noise projection in a certain direction is exponentially small, it takes exponentially many directions to make the probability of a large projection in [*at least*]{} one of them, considerably large. As the energies $E$ and $\dot{E}$, grow linearly with $T$ (for fixed power and bandwidth), the first term in (\[totalmse\]) is proportional to $1/T$ while the second term decays exponentially in $T$. A natural question that arises then is whether there may be better trade-offs. The answer is affirmative if $W$ would be allowed to grow (exponentially fast) with $T$. Assuming then that $W\propto e^{RT}$ for some fixed parameter $R > 0$, the first term would then decay at the rate of $e^{-2RT}$ whereas the second term may still continue to decay exponentially as long as $R$ is not too large. The exact behavior depends, of course, on the form of the parametric family of signals $\{s_m(t)\}$, but for some classes of signals like those pertaining to FPM, it is shown in [@WJ65] that the probability of anomaly decays according to $e^{-TE(R)}$, where $E(R)$ is the error exponent function pertaining to infinite–bandwidth orthogonal signals over the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel, i.e., $$E(R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{C}{2}-R & R < \frac{C}{4}\\
(\sqrt{C}-\sqrt{R})^2 & \frac{C}{4}\le R < C
\end{array}\right.$$ Note that the best compromise between high-SNR MSE and anomalous MSE pertains to the solution to the equation $E(R)=2R$, namely, $R=C/6$. For $R > C$, the probability of anomaly tends to $1$ as $T\to \infty$. Thus, we observe that in the regime of unlimited bandwidth, the threshold effect pertaining to anomalous errors is indeed sharp, while in the band–limited case, it is not.
Our purpose, in this work, is to study the threshold effect of anomalous errors, in the unlimited bandwidth regime, from a physical point of view, by relating the threshold effect to [*phase transitions*]{} of large physical systems subjected to disorder, in particular, a REM–like model, as described in the Introduction. The limit of large $T$ would then correspond to the thermodynamic limit of a large system, customarily considered in statistical physics. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the physical point of view will help us to understand situations where there is more than one phase transition.
A Physical Perspective on the Threshold Effect {#phys}
==============================================
For the sake of concreteness, we consider the case where the parameter $m$ is time delay, defined in units of $T$.[^1] Let then $$r(t)=s(t-mT)+n(t),~~~-\frac{T}{2}\le t\le +\frac{T}{2},~~~-M\le
m\le+M,~~~M<\frac{1}{2}.$$ We will also assume that the signal autocorrelation function, i.e., $$R_s(\tau){\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}ts(t)s(t+\tau),$$ vanishes outside the interval $[-\Delta,+\Delta]$. In this case, it is natural to define the anomalous error event as the event where the absolute value of the estimation error, $|\hat{m}-m|$, exceeds $\Delta$. Since the signal energy is $E$, then so is $R_s(0)$. Assuming that the signal support lies entirely within the interval $[-T/2,+T/2]$ for all allowable values of $m$ (i.e., $M\le
\frac{1}{2}-\Delta/T$), the energy of $\{s(t-mT)\}$ is independent of $m$, and then maximum likelihood estimation is equivalent to maximum correlation: $$\hat{m}=\mbox{arg}\max_{m:~|m|\le M}
\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT).$$ If one treats $m$ as a uniformly distributed random variable, the corresponding posterior density of $m$ given $\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P(m|\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})&=&
\frac{\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{N_0}
\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}[r(t)-s(t-mT)]^2\mbox{d}t\right\}}
{\int_{-M}^{+M}\mbox{d}m'\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{N_0}
\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}[r(t)-s(t-m'T)]^2\mbox{d}t\right\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\exp\left\{\frac{2}{N_0}
\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r(t)s(t-mT)\mbox{d}t\right\}}
{\int_{-M}^{+M}\mbox{d}m'\exp
\left\{\frac{2}{N_0}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r(t)s(t-m'T)\mbox{d}t\right\}}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality, we have cancelled out the factor $\exp\{-\frac{1}{N_0}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r^2(t)\mbox{d}t\}$, which appears both in the numerator and the denominator, and we have used again the fact that the energy, $E$, of $\{s(t-mT)\}$ is independent of $m$. Owing to the exponential form of this posterior distribution, it can be thought of, in the language of statistical mechanics, as the Boltzmann distribution with inverse temperature $\beta=2/N_0$ and Hamiltonian (i.e., energy as a function of $m$): $${{\cal H}}(m)=-\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT).$$ This statistical–mechanical point of view suggests to expand the scope and define a family of probability distributions parametrized by $\beta$, as follows: $$P_\beta(m|\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})
=\frac{\exp\left\{\beta\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r(t)s(t-mT)\mbox{d}t\right\}}
{\int_{-M}^{+M}\mbox{d}m'
\exp\left\{\beta\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r(t)s(t-m'T)\mbox{d}t\right\}}$$ There are at least three meaningful choices of the value of the parameter $\beta$: The first is $\beta=0$, corresponding to the uniform distribution on $[-M,+M]$, which is the prior. The second choice is $\beta=2/N_0$, which corresponds to the true posterior distribution, as said. Finally, as $\beta\to\infty$, the density $P_\beta(\cdot| \{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})$ puts more and more weight on the value of $m$ that maximizes the correlation $\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT)$, namely, on the ML estimator $\hat{m}$. It should be emphasized that if we vary the parameter $\beta$, this is not necessarily equivalent to a corresponding variation in the choice of $N_0$, according to $\beta=2/N_0$. For example, one may examine the behavior of the ML estimator by letting $\beta\to\infty$, but still analyze its performance for a given finite value of $N_0$. This is to say that $P_\beta(\cdot| \{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})$ should only be thought of as an [*auxiliary*]{} posterior density function, not as the real one. The denominator of $P_\beta(m|\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})$, namely, $$\zeta(\beta)=\int_{-M}^{+M}\mbox{d}m
\exp\left\{\beta\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}r(t)s(t-mT)\mbox{d}t\right\}$$ can then be thought of as the partition function pertaining to the Boltzmann distribution $P_\beta(\cdot| \{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\})$.
Now, without essential loss of generality, let us assume that the true parameter value is $m=0$, that $\Delta$ divides $2MT$, and that the integer $K=2MT/\Delta$ is an even number. Consider the partition of the interval $[-M,+M]$ of possible values of $m$ into sub-intervals of size $\Delta/T$. Let ${{\cal M}}_i=[i\Delta/T,(i+1)\Delta/T)$ denote the $i$–th sub-interval, $i=-K/2,-K/2+1,\ldots-1,0,+1,\ldots,~K/2$. We will find it convenient to view the ML estimation of $m$ as a two–step procedure, where one first maximizes the correlation $\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT)$ within each sub-interval ${{\cal M}}_i$, i.e., calculate $$\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_i}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT),$$ and then take the largest maximum over all $i$. Let us define $$\epsilon_0=\max_{|m|\le \Delta/T}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t r(t)s(t-mT)=
\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_0\cup{{\cal M}}_{-1}}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t
r(t)s(t-mT)$$ and for $i\ne 0$, $$\epsilon_i=\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_i}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t
r(t)s(t-mT),~~~~1\le i\le K/2-1$$ $$\epsilon_i=\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_{i-1}}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t
r(t)s(t-mT),~~~~-(K/2-1)\le i \le -1$$ Thus, for the purpose of analyzing the behavior of the ML estimator, we can use a modified version of the partition function, defined as $$Z(\beta)=\sum_{i=-K/2+1}^{K/2-1} e^{\beta\epsilon_i},$$ and analyze it in the limit of $\beta\to\infty$ (the low temperature limit). Note that here, $\epsilon_i$ has the meaning of the (negative) Hamiltonian pertaining to a ‘system configuration’ indexed by $i$.
In order to characterize the behavior of $Z(\beta)$, it is instructive to recognize that it is quite similar to the random energy model (REM) of disordered spin glasses: According to the REM, the energies $\{\epsilon_i\}$, pertaining to various system configurations indexed by $i$, are i.i.d. random variables, normally assumed zero–mean and Gaussian, but other distributions are possible too. This is not quite exactly our case, but as we shall see shortly, this is close enough to allow the techniques associated with the analysis of the REM to be applicable here.
First, observe that under these assumptions, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_0&=&\max_{|m|\le \Delta/T}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}t
[s(t)+n(t)]s(t-mT)\nonumber\\
&=&\max_{|m|\le
\Delta/T}\left[R_s(mT)+\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-mT)\right]\end{aligned}$$ whereas for $i\ne 0$, $$\epsilon_i=\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_i}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}
\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-mT),~~~~~i>0,$$ and $$\epsilon_i=\max_{m\in{{\cal M}}_{i-1}}
\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-mT),~~~~~i<0.$$ As for $\epsilon_0$, we have, on the one hand $$\epsilon_0 \ge
R_s(0)+\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t)=
PT+\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t)$$ and on the other hand, $$\epsilon_0\le \max_{|m|\le\Delta/T} R_s(mT)+
\max_{|m|\le\Delta/T} \int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-mT)=
PT+\max_{|m|\le\Delta/T} \int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-mT).$$ Considering the limit $T\to\infty$ for fixed $P$, both the upper bound and the lower bound are dominated by the first term, which grows linearly with $T$, while the second term is a random variable whose standard deviation, for large $T$, scales in proportion to $\sqrt{T}$. Thus, for a typical realization of $\{n(t), -T/2\le t\le T/2\}$, $\epsilon_0\approx PT$, and so, its typical contribution to the partition function is given by $$Z_0(\beta){\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}e^{\beta\epsilon_0}\approx e^{\beta PT}.$$ Consider now the contribution of all the other $\{\epsilon_i\}$ to the partition function, and define $$Z_a(\beta)=\sum_{i\ne 0}e^{\beta\epsilon_i},$$ where the subscript $a$ stands for ‘anomaly’, as this term pertains to anomalous errors. The total partition function is, of course, $$Z(\beta)=Z_0(\beta)+Z_a(\beta).$$ Now, for $i\ne 0$, $\{\epsilon_i\}$ are identically distributed RV’s, which are alternately independent, i.e., $\ldots,\epsilon_{-3},\epsilon_{-1},\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3,\ldots$ are independent (since the noise is white and $R_s(\tau)$ vanishes for $|\tau|\ge \Delta$), and so are $\ldots,\epsilon_{-4},\epsilon_{-2},\epsilon_2,\epsilon_4,\ldots$. In order to evaluate the typical behavior of $Z_a(\beta)$, we shall represent it as $$Z_a(\beta)=\int\mbox{d}\epsilon N(\epsilon)e^{\beta\epsilon},$$ where $N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon$ is the number of $\{\epsilon_i\}$ that fall between $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon+\mbox{d}\epsilon$, i.e., $$N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon=\sum_{i\ne
0}{{\cal I}}(\epsilon\le\epsilon_i\le\epsilon+\mbox{d}\epsilon),$$ where ${{\cal I}}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function of an event. Obviously, $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon\}=
K\cdot\mbox{Pr}\{\epsilon\le\epsilon_i\le\epsilon+\mbox{d}\epsilon\}$$ and so, $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{N(\epsilon)\}=K\cdot f(\epsilon),$$ where $f(\epsilon)$ is the probability density function (pdf) of $\epsilon_i$, for $i\ne 0$. Now, to accommodate the asymptotic regime of $W\propto e^{RT}$, we take the signal duration to be $\Delta=\Delta_0e^{-RT}$, where $\Delta_0>0$ is a fixed parameter, and so, $$K=\frac{2MT}{\Delta_0}\cdot e^{RT}.$$ Thus, $N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon$ is the sum of exponentially many binary random variables. As said earlier, although these random variables are not independent, they are alternately independent, and so, if $N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon$ is represented as $$\sum_{i\ne 0~\mbox{even}}{{\cal I}}(\epsilon\le
\epsilon_i\le\epsilon+\mbox{d}\epsilon)+
\sum_{i~\mbox{odd}}{{\cal I}}(\epsilon\le\epsilon_i\le\epsilon+\mbox{d}\epsilon)$$ then each of the two terms is the sum of i.i.d. binary random variables, whose typical value is zero when $\frac{K}{2}\cdot f(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon << 1$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{N(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon\}$ when $\frac{K}{2}\cdot
f(\epsilon)\mbox{d}\epsilon >> 1$. This means that, asymptotically, for large $T$, only energy levels for which $\ln f(\epsilon) > -RT$ will typically be populated by some $\{i\}$. Let $\varepsilon_T$ be the largest solution to the equation $\ln f(\epsilon) >
-RT$. Then, the typical value of $Z_a$ is exponentially $$\begin{aligned}
Z_a(\beta,R)&{\stackrel{\cdot} {=}}&\int_{-\infty}^{\varepsilon_T}\frac{T}{\Delta_0}\cdot
e^{RT}f(\epsilon)e^{\beta\epsilon}\mbox{d}\epsilon\nonumber\\
&{\stackrel{\cdot} {=}}&\exp\left\{\max_{\epsilon\le\varepsilon_T}\left[RT+\ln
f(\epsilon)+\beta\epsilon\right]\right\}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\stackrel{\cdot} {=}}$ denotes asymptotic equality in the exponential scale[^2] as $T\to\infty$, and where we have modified the notation from $Z_a(\beta)$ to $Z_a(\beta,R)$ to emphasize the dependence on the exponential growth rate $R$ of the parameter $K$. Any further derivation, from this point onward, requires the knowledge of the pdf $f(\epsilon)$, which is known accurately only for certain specific choices of the pulse shape. One of them, that we will assume here for concreteness, is the rectangular pulse $$s(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{\frac{E}{\Delta}} & |t|\le \frac{\Delta}{2}\\
0 & \mbox{elsewhere}\end{array}\right.$$ where $E=PT$, $P$ being the average power of the signal. Therefore, $$R_s(\tau)=E\left[1-\frac{|\tau|}{\Delta}\right]_+=
PT\left[1-\frac{|\tau|}{\Delta}\right]_+$$ where $[x]_+{\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\max\{0,x\}$. From a result by Slepian [@Slepian62] in a form that was later derived by Shepp [@Shepp66] (see also [@ZZ69]), it is known that if $X_\theta$ is a zero–mean Gaussian random process with autocorrelation function $R(\tau)=[1-|\tau|]_+$, then the cumulative probability distribution function of $Y=\sup_{0\le \theta\le 1}X_\theta$ is given by $$F_0(a)=\mbox{Pr}\{Y\le
a\}=[1-\Phi(a)]^2-\frac{ae^{-a^2/2}}
{\sqrt{2\pi}}[1-\Phi(a)]-\frac{e^{-a^2}}{2\pi}$$ where $$\Phi(a){\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_a^\infty e^{-u^2/2}\mbox{d}u.$$ This means that the density of $Y$ is given by $$f_0(a)=\frac{\mbox{d}F_0(a)}{\mbox{d}a}=
\frac{ae^{-a^2}}{2\pi}+[1-\Phi(a)](1+a^2)\frac{e^{-a^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}.$$ This result applies, in our case, to the random process $$X_\theta=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_0PT}}\cdot\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}
\mbox{d}tn(t)s(t-\theta\Delta),~~~~0\le\theta\le 1,$$ which means that for $i\ne 0$, the probability density function of $\epsilon_i$ is given by $$f(\epsilon)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_0PT}}\cdot
f_0\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{N_0PT/2}}\right).$$ Thus, $$Z_a(\beta,R){\stackrel{\cdot} {=}}\exp\left\{RT+\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{2}{N_0PT}\right)+
\max_{\epsilon\le\varepsilon_T}\left[\ln
f_0\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{N_0PT/2}}\right)+\beta\epsilon\right]\right\}.$$ Now, the exact form of $f_0$ may not lend itself to convenient analysis, but considering the asymptotic limit of $T\to\infty$, it is not difficult to see (due to the scaling by $\sqrt{N_0PT/2}$ in the argument of $f_0(\cdot)$) that the maximum at the exponent of the last expression is attained for values of $\epsilon$ that grow without bound as $T\to\infty$. It would therefore be convenient to approximate $f_0(a)$ given above by its dominant term for very large $a$, which is given by $$f_0(a)\approx \frac{a^2e^{-a^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}.$$ On substituting this approximation, we first find an approximation to $\varepsilon_T$ according to $$2\ln\left(\frac{\varepsilon_T}{\sqrt{N_0PT}}\right)-
\frac{\varepsilon_T^2}{N_0PT}=-RT.$$ For large $T$, the first term is negligible compared to the second term and the right–hand side, and so, $\varepsilon_T$ is well approximated as $$\varepsilon_T=\sqrt{N_0PR}\cdot T.$$ Next, we use the approximate form of $f_0$ in the maximization of $\ln
f_0(\epsilon/\sqrt{N_0PT/2})+\beta\epsilon$, i.e., solve the problem $$\max_{\epsilon\le\sqrt{N_0PR}T}
\left[\ln\left(\frac{2\epsilon^2}{N_0PT}\right)-\frac{\epsilon^2}
{N_0PT}+\beta\epsilon\right]$$ whose maximizer, for large $T$, is easily found to be approximated by $$\epsilon_*=\min\left\{\sqrt{N_0PR}\cdot T,\frac{\beta N_0PT}{2}\right\}.$$ On substituting this back into the expression of $Z_a(\beta,R)$, and defining $$\psi_a(\beta,R)=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{\ln Z_a(\beta,R)}{T},$$ we get $$\psi_a(\beta,R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
R+\frac{\beta^2N_0P}{4} & \beta <
\beta_c(R)\\
\beta\sqrt{N_0PR} & \beta >
\beta_c(R)\end{array}\right.$$ where $$\beta_c(R)=\frac{2}{N_0}\sqrt{\frac{R}{C}},$$ $C=P/N_0$ being the capacity of infinite–bandwidth AWGN channel. Thus, we see that $Z_a(\beta,R)$ undergoes a phase transition at $\beta=\beta_c(R)$: For $\beta < \beta_c(R)$, $Z_a(\beta,R)$ is dominated by an exponential number of $\{i\}$ for which $\epsilon_i$ is about $\beta N_0 PT/2$. As $\beta$ exceeds $\beta_c(R)$, the system pertaining to $Z_a$ undergoes a phase transition, where $Z_a(\beta,R)$ becomes dominated by a sub-exponential number of $\{i\}$ at the ‘ground state’ level of $\sqrt{N_0PR}\cdot T$. This sub-exponential number of dominant ground–state ‘configurations’ corresponds to a zero entropy, yet disordered phase, which is called in the terminology of physicists, the [*glassy phase*]{} (see [@MM09 Chap. 5]).
Taking now into account the contribution of $Z_0(\beta)$, and defining $$\psi(\beta,R)=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{\ln Z(\beta,R)}{T},$$ we end up with three phases, as can be seen in the following expression $$\psi(\beta,R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\beta P & \{R <P(\beta-\beta^2N_0/4),~\beta<2/N_0\}\bigcup
\{R< C,~\beta\ge 2/N_0\}\\
R+\frac{\beta^2N_0P}{4} & \{R> C,~\beta
<\beta_c(R)\}\bigcup\{P(\beta-\beta^2N_0/4)<R<C,~\beta<2/N_0\}\\
\beta\sqrt{N_0PR} & \mbox{elsewhere}
\end{array}\right.$$ The phase diagram is depicted in Fig. \[fig1\]. As said earlier, for ML estimation, the relevant regime is $\beta\to\infty$, where as can be seen, the system undergoes a phase transition as $R$ exceeds $C$. This phase transition captures the threshold effect in the estimation of the delay parameter $m$, in this example.
As long as $R < C$, the probability of anomaly is still vanishingly small, and the dominant event is that of a small error (less than $\Delta/T$ in absolute value). The critical point, where all three phases meet, is the point $(C,2/N_0)$. Note that $\beta=2/N_0$ is the ‘natural’ value of $\beta$ that arises in the true posterior of $m$ given $\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\}$.
As we can see, the physical perspective provides some insight, not only concerning the estimation of the parameter $m$, but moreover, about the posterior of $m$ given the noisy signal $\{r(t),~-T/2\le t\le T/2\}$. If we use the ‘correct’ value of $\beta$ or larger i.e., $\beta\ge 2/N_0$, then as long as $R < C$, the posterior possesses a very sharp peak around the true value of $m$ and the width of this peak does not exceed $\Delta/T$ from either side. This is the [*ordered phase*]{}, or the [ *ferromagnetic phase*]{}, in the jargon of physicists. As $R$ crosses $C$, then the behavior is as follows: If $\beta=2/N_0$, the posterior changes abruptly and instead of one peak around the true $m$, it becomes dominated by exponentially many ‘spikes’ scattered across the whole interval $[-M,+M]$. This is the [*paramagnetic phase*]{}. If, on the other hand, $\beta > 2/N_0$, then there is an intermediate range of rates $R\in[C,\beta^2N_0P/4]$, where the number of such spikes is still sub–exponential, which means the glassy phase. Finally, as one continues to increase $R$ above $\beta^2N_0P/4$, the number of spikes becomes exponential (the paramagnetic phase).
On the other hand, for $\beta
< 2/N_0$, the abrupt transition to exponentially many spikes happens for $R
=P(\beta-\beta^2N_0/4)$, which is less than $C$. The fixed bandwidth regime corresponds to the vertical axis ($R=0$) in the phase diagram, and as can be seen, no phase transition occurs along this axis at any finite temperature. This is in agreement with our earlier discussion on the graceful behavior of the probability of anomaly at fixed bandwidth.
It is instructive to compare the behavior of the ML estimator to the Weiss–Weinstein lower bound [@WW85], [@Weiss85] because this bound is claimed to capture the threshold effect. As we have seen, the ML estimator has the following ranges of exponential behavior as a function of $R$: $${\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\{(\hat{m}-m)^2\} \sim \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-2RT} & R < C/6\\
e^{-E(R)T} & C/6 < R < C\\
e^{-0\cdot T} & R > C \end{array}\right.$$ On the other hand, the Weiss–Weinstein bound (WWB) for estimating a rectangular pulse in Gaussian white noise is given (in our notation) by $$\mbox{WWB}=\max_{h\ge 0}\frac{h^2[1-h/T]_+^2
\exp\{-[h/\Delta]^+CT/2\}}
{2\left[1-(1-2h/T)_+\exp\{-[h/\Delta]^+CT/2\}\right]},$$ where $[x]_+=\max\{x,0\}$ and $[x]^+=\min\{x,1\}$. Examining this bound under the asymptotic regime of $T\to\infty$ with $\Delta=\Delta_0e^{-RT}$, yields the following behavior: $$\mbox{WWB}\sim\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-2RT} & R < C/4\\
e^{-CT/2} & R > C/4 \end{array}\right.$$ In agreement with the analysis in [@Weiss85], we readily observe that for a given $R$ and for high SNR ($C=P/N_0\to\infty$), both quantities are of the exponential order of $e^{-2RT}$, whereas for low SNR ($C\to 0$), both are about $e^{-CT/2}\sim e^{-0\cdot T}$. However, if we look at both quantities as functions of $R$ for fixed $C > 0$, there is a different behavior. Not only the phase transition points differ, but also the large $R$ asymptotics disagree. Thus, the WWB indeed captures the threshold effect of the ML estimator, but in a slightly weaker sense when it comes to the asymptotic wide-band regime.
### Discussing Some Extensions {#discussing-some-extensions .unnumbered}
It is interesting to slightly expand the scope to a situation of mismatched estimation. Suppose that instead of ML estimation based on the known waveform $s(t)$, the estimator is based on maximizing the temporal correlation with another waveform, $\tilde{s}(t-mT)$, whose energy is $E=PT$ and whose width is $\tilde{\Delta}=\Delta_0e^{-\tilde{R}T}$. In this case, the phase diagram, in the plane of $\beta$ vs. $\tilde{R}$, will remain essentially the same as in Fig. \[fig1\], except that there will be a degradation by a factor of $\rho$ in $\beta$, and by a factor of $\rho^2$ in the rate, where $$\rho{\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\frac{1}{E}\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}s(t)\tilde{s}(t)\mbox{d}t.$$ In other words, the triple point will be $(\rho^2C,2\rho/N_0)$, the vertical straight–line ferromagnetic–glassy phase boundary will be $\tilde{R}=\rho^2C$, rather than $R=C$. The other phase boundaries will be as follows: the paramagnetic–ferromagnetic boundary is the parabola $\tilde{R}=P(\rho\beta-\beta^2N_0/4)$, and the paramagnetic–glassy boundary would continue to be the parabola $\beta=\beta_c(\tilde{R})$, where the function $\beta_c(\cdot)$ is as defined before. The dependence on the parameter $R$ of the real signal is solely via its effect on the parameter $\rho$.
Our derivations above are somewhat specific to the example of time delay estimation, and for the special case of a rectangular pulse. Therefore, a few words about the more general picture are in order. First, consider time delay estimation of more general signals. We assumed that $R_s(\tau)$ vanishes for $|\tau|\ge\Delta$, but this still leaves room for more general pulses with support $\Delta$, not necessarily the rectangular one. Unfortunately, as said earlier, the exact pdf of $\epsilon_i$, $i\ne 0$, is not known for a general autocorrelation function that is induced by a general choice of $s(t)$. However, for our asymptotic analysis in the regime of $T\to\infty$, what counts (as we have seen) is actually merely the tail behavior of this pdf, and this tail is known, under fairly general conditions (see [@Adler90 p. 40], with a reference also to [@MP71]), to behave the same way as the tail of the Gaussian pdf of zero mean and variance $N_0PT/2$. Therefore, our approximate analysis in the large $T$ limit would continue to apply for other pulse shapes as well.
Second, consider the estimation of parameters other than delay (e.g., frequency offset or phase), still requiring that the time correlation between $s_m(t)$ and $s_{m'}(t)$ would essentially vanish whenever $|m-m'|$ exceeds a certain threshold (in our earlier example, $\Delta/T$). In this case, as we have seen, the high–SNR MSE is inversely proportional to the squared norm, $\dot{E}$, of the vector $\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}}(m)$ of derivatives of $\{s_i(m)\}$ w.r.t. $m$. Again, assuming that this norm is independent of $m$, it is proportional to the length of the signal locus, as discussed earlier. For a good trade-off between the high–SNR MSE and the anomalous MSE, we would like to modulate the parameter in such a way that for a given $E$, the quantity $\dot{E}$ would grow exponentially with $T$, i.e., $\dot{E}\propto e^{2RT}$, as an extension of our earlier discussion in the case of a time delay. For example, in the case of frequency–position modulation, where $s(t)=A\cos(2\pi(f_c+mW)t+\phi)$, $|m|\le M$, $W<<f_c$, both $f_c$ and $W$ should be proportional to $e^{RT}$. The corresponding analysis of $\epsilon_i$ and the associated partition function would be, in principle, similarly as before, except that one should consider the process $X_\theta=\int_{-T/2}^{+T/2}n(t)\cos(2\pi(f_c+\theta W)t+\phi)
\mbox{d}t$, and the remarks of the previous paragraph continue to apply. Similar comments apply to other kinds of parametrization.
Joint ML Estimation of Amplitude and Delay {#joint}
==========================================
We now extend our earlier study to the model $$r(t)=\alpha\cdot s(t-mT)+n(t),~~~~-\frac{T}{2}\le t\le +\frac{T}{2}$$ where now both $\alpha$ and $m$ are parameters to be estimated, and where it is assumed that $m\in[-M,+M]$ as before and $\alpha\in[\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max}]$, with $0< \alpha_{\min}\le 1\le \alpha_{\max}$ and $$\frac{1}{\alpha_{\max}-\alpha_{\min}}\cdot
\int_{\alpha_{\min}}^{\alpha_{\max}}\alpha^2\mbox{d}\alpha=1$$ which means that the average energy (w.r.t. the uniform distribution within the interval $[\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max}]$) of the received signal is still $E$. Here the energy of the received signal depends on $\alpha$, as it is given by $\alpha^2E$. The relevant partition function would be $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\beta,R)=
\int_{\alpha_{\min}}^{\alpha_{\max}}\mbox{d}\alpha\sum_i
\exp[\beta(\alpha\epsilon_i-\alpha^2PT/2)]
{\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\int_{\alpha_{\min}}^{\alpha_{\max}}\mbox{d}\alpha Z(\alpha,\beta,R).\end{aligned}$$ The analysis of $Z_a(\alpha,\beta,R)$ (which is the same expression except that the sum excludes $i=0$) in the framework of a REM–like model, is precisely the same as before except that $\beta$ is replaced by $\beta\alpha$ and there is another multiplicative factor of $\exp\{-\beta \alpha^2PT/2\}$. Accordingly, re–defining $$\psi_a(\alpha,\beta,R)=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{\ln
Z_a(\alpha,\beta,R)}{T},$$ we get the following results: For $\beta
\le\beta_c(R)/\alpha_{\max}$, $$\psi_a(\alpha,\beta,R)=R+\frac{\beta\alpha^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2)~~~~~~~\forall
\alpha_{\min}\le\alpha\le\alpha_{\max}.$$ Similarly, $\beta \ge \beta_c(R)/\alpha_{\min}$ $$\psi_a(\alpha,\beta,R)=
\beta\left(\alpha\sqrt{N_0PR}-\frac{\alpha^2P}{2}\right)~~~~~~\forall
\alpha_{\min}\le\alpha\le\alpha_{\max}.$$ Finally, for $\beta\in(\beta_c(R)/\alpha_{\max},\beta_c(R)/\alpha_{\min})$ we have: $$\psi_a(\alpha,\beta,R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
R+\frac{\beta\alpha^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2) & \alpha_{\min}\le\alpha
\le\frac{2}{\beta N_0}\sqrt{\frac{R}{C}}\\
\beta\left(\alpha\sqrt{N_0PR}-\frac{\alpha^2P}{2}\right) &
\frac{2}{\beta
N_0}\sqrt{\frac{R}{C}}\le\alpha\le\alpha_{\max}\end{array}\right.$$ Upon maximizing over $\alpha$, we get five different phases of $\psi_a(\beta,R)=\max_\alpha\psi_a(\alpha,\beta,R)$, three glassy phases and two paramagnetic ones: $$\psi_a(\beta,R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\beta\left(\alpha_{\min}\sqrt{N_0PR}-\frac{\alpha_{\min}^2P}{2}\right) &
R < \alpha_{\min}^2C~\mbox{and}~\beta>\frac{\beta_c(R)}{\alpha_{\min}}\\
\frac{\beta N_0R}{2} & R\in(\alpha_{\min}^2C,\alpha_{\max}^2C)~\mbox{and}~
\beta>\frac{2}{N_0}\\
\beta\left(\alpha_{\max}\sqrt{N_0PR}-\frac{\alpha_{\max}^2P}{2}\right) &
R >\alpha_{\max}^2 C~\mbox{and}~\beta > \frac{\beta_c(R)}{\alpha_{\max}}\\
R+\frac{\beta\alpha_{\min}^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2) &
\beta\le\min\left\{\frac{\beta_c(R)}{\alpha_{\min}},\frac{2}{N_0}\right\}\\
R+\frac{\beta\alpha_{\max}^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2) & R >
\alpha_{\max}^2C~\mbox{and}~
\beta\in\left(\frac{2}{N_0},\frac{\beta_c(R)}
{\alpha_{\max}}\right)\end{array}\right.$$ In Figure \[fig1a\], we show the phase diagram of $\psi_a(\beta,R)$. As can be seen, the paramagnetic phase is split into the two sub–phases, according to $\beta < 2/N_0$ and $\beta > 2/N_0$, whereas the glassy phase is split into three parts, according to the range of $R$.
Finally, when we take into account the contribution of $Z_0(\beta)=e^{\beta
PT/2}$, where it is assumed that that true values of the parameters are $\alpha_0=1$ and $m_0=0$, we end up with the following expression for the re–defined $$\psi(\beta,R){\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{\ln Z(\beta,R)}{T}$$ which is given by $$\psi(\beta,R)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\beta P}{2} & \left\{R < C~\mbox{and}~
\beta>\frac{2}{N_0}\right\}\bigcup\left\{
R<R_\beta~\mbox{and}~
\beta\le\frac{2}{N_0}\right\}\\
\frac{\beta N_0R}{2} & R\in(C,\alpha_{\max}^2C)~\mbox{and}~
\beta>\frac{2}{N_0}\\
\beta\left(\alpha_{\max}\sqrt{N_0PR}-\frac{\alpha_{\max}^2P}{2}\right) &
R >\alpha_{\max}^2 C~\mbox{and}~\beta > \frac{\beta_c(R)}{\alpha_{\max}}\\
R+\frac{\beta\alpha_{\max}^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2) & R > \alpha_{\max}^2 C~
\mbox{and}~
\beta\in\left(\frac{2}{N_0},\frac{\beta_c(R)}{\alpha_{\max}}\right)\\
R+\frac{\beta\alpha_{\min}^2P}{4}(\beta N_0-2) & R > R_\beta~\mbox{and}~
\beta\le\frac{2}{N_0}
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$R_\beta{\stackrel{\Delta} {=}}\frac{P}{2}\left[\beta(1+\alpha_{\min}^2)-
\frac{\beta^2N_0\alpha_{\min}^2}{2}\right].$$ The phase diagram of this function is depicted in Fig. \[fig1b\].
### Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
Although the model is linear in the parameter $\alpha$, its interaction with $m$ exhibits, in general, more phases than the parameter $m$ alone, and it causes anomalies in the estimation of $\alpha$ as well, but these anomalies have a different character than those associated with $m$: While the anomaly makes the estimator of $m$ become an essentially uniformly distributed random variable within the interval $[-M, +M]$, the anomalous estimator of $\alpha$ tends to concentrate on a deterministic value as $T\to\infty$. To see why this is true, observe that in the limit of large $\beta$ (which is relevant for ML estimation), as long as $R < C$, the estimation error is typically not anomalous. For $C < R < \alpha_{\max}^2C$, the dominant value of $\hat{\alpha}$ is $\sqrt{R/C}$, whereas for $R > \alpha_{\max}^2C$, the dominant value of $\hat{\alpha}$ is $\alpha_{\max}$. For low $\beta$, we also identify the region where the posterior of $(\alpha,m)$ is dominated by points where $\alpha=\alpha_{\min}$.
Referring to Fig. \[fig1b\], in the special case where $\alpha_{\max}=\infty$, the eastern glassy phase and the northern paramagnetic phase disappear, and we end up with three phases only: the ordered phase (unaltered), the southern paramagnetic phase, and the western glassy phase. If, in addition, $\alpha_{\min}=0$ (i.e., we know nothing a–priori on $\alpha$), then the curve $R=R_\beta$ becomes a straight line ($R=\beta P/2$) and in the paramagnetic region, we get $\psi(\beta,R)=R$. On the other hand, the case $\alpha_{\min}=\alpha_{\max}=1$ (i.e., $\alpha=1$ and there is no uncertainty in $\alpha$), we are back to the earlier case of a delay parameter only.
Summary and Conclusion {#conc}
======================
In this paper, we proposed a statistical–mechanical perspective on the threshold effect in parameter estimation of non–linearly modulated wide-band signals corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise. The proposed framework, which is mapped into a REM–like model of disordered spin glasses, provides a fairly comprehensive picture of the behavior of the ML estimator as a function of the bandwidth parameter $R$ and the temperature parameter $\beta$. We then extended the scope to joint ML estimator of two parameters.
The concepts and the techniques exercised in this paper are believed to generalize to other signal models, as well as to joint ML estimation of more than two parameters. The proposed approach may therefore serve as a yardstick for gaining insights and understanding concerning the threshold behavior in more complicated situations, including models which are expected to exhibit more than one threshold with respect to the SNR (which means more than one phase transition in the analogous physical model). For example, models of superimposed signals, where each component signal has its own threshold SNR, or combinations of threshold effects due to non–linearity (as studied here) with threshold effects that stem from ambiguity. The latter is characteristic, for example, when the delay of a narrow-band signal is to be estimated (see, e.g., [@Weiss85]).
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Interesting discussions with Yariv Kafri are acknowledged with thanks.
[AA]{}
R. J. Adler, [*An Introduction to Continuity, Extrema, and Related Topics for General Gaussian Processes*]{}, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Lecture Notes – Monograph Series, Vol. 12, 1990.
I. F. Blake and W. C. Lindsey, “Level–crossing problems for random processes,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform.Theory*]{}, vol. IT–19, no. 3, pp. 295–315, May 1973.
B. Derrida, “Random–energy model: limit of a family of disordered models,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 79–82, July 1980.
B. Derrida, “The random energy model,” [*Physics Reports*]{} (Review Section of Physics Letters), vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 1980.
B. Derrida, “Random–energy model: an exactly solvable model for disordered systems,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2613–2626, September 1981.
P. A. Floor, “On the theory of Shannon–Kotel’nikov mappings in joint source–channel coding,” Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Engineering (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, May 2008.
P. A. Floor and T. A. Ramstad, “On the analysis of Shannon–Kotel’nikov mappings,” arXiv:0904.1538v1 \[cs.IT\] 7 Apr 2009.
R. G. Gallager and C. W. Helstrom, “A bound on the probability that a Gaussian process exceeds a given function,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform.Theory*]{}, vol. IT–15, no. 1, pp. 163–166, January 1969.
F. Hekland, “On the design and analysis of Shannon–Kotel’nikov mappings for joint source–channel coding,” Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Engineering (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, May 2007.
M. B. Marcus and L. A. Shepp, “Sample behavior of Gaussian processes,” [*Proc. Sixth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob.*]{}, vol. 2, pp.423–442, 1971.
N. Merhav, “Relations between random coding exponents and the statistical physics of random codes,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 83–92, January 2009.
N. Merhav, D. Guo, and S. Shamai (Shitz), “Statistical physics of signal estimation in Gaussian noise: theory and examples of phase transitions,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1400–1416, March 2010.
M. Mézard and A. Montanari, [*Information, Physics and Computation*]{}, Oxford University Press, 2009.
T. A. Ramstad, “Shannon mappings for robust communication,” [*Telektronikk*]{}, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 114–128, 2002.
L. A. Shepp, “Radon–Nykodim derivatives of Gaussian measures,” [*Ann. Math. Statist.*]{}, vol. 37, pp. 321–354, April 1966.
D. Slepian, “The one–sided barrier problem for Gaussian noise,” [*Bell Systems Technical Journal*]{}, vol. 41, pp. 463–501, March 1962.
A. J. Weiss, [*Fundamental Bounds in Parameter Estimation*]{}, Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 1985.
A. J. Weiss and E. Weinstein, “A lower bound on the mean square error in random parameter estimation,” [*IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*]{}, vol. IT–31, no. 5, pp. 680–682, September 1985.
J. M. Wozencraft and I. M. Jacobs, [*Principles of Communication Engineering*]{}, John Wiley & Sons, 1965. Reissued by Waveland Press, 1990.
M. Zakai and J. Ziv, “On the threshold effect in radar range estimation,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. IT–15, pp. 167–170, January 1969.
[^1]: More general situations will be discussed in the sequel.
[^2]: For two non–negative functions $a(T)$ and $b(T)$, the notation $a(T){\stackrel{\cdot} {=}}b(T)$ means that $\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\ln\frac{a(T)}{b(T)}=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
It is widely accepted that small quantum groups should possess a quasitri- angular structure, even though this is technically not true. In this article we construct explicit $R$-matrices, sometimes several inequivalent ones, over certain natural extensions of small quantum groups by grouplike elements. The extensions are in correspondence to lattices between root and weight lattice. Our result generalizes a well-known calculation for $u_q(\Sl_2)$ used in logarithmic conformal field theories.\
Keywords: Quantum group, R-matrix, braided category\
MSC Classification: 16T05
---
=1 ¶[[$\mathcal P$]{}]{}
[14-19]{}[524]{}[September 2014]{}
Introduction and Summary {#introduction-and-summary .unnumbered}
========================
Hopf algebras with $R$-matrices, so called quasitriangular Hopf algebras, give rise to braided tensor categories, which have many interesting applications: Any braided vector space with a dual can be used to construct knot invariants and, using surgery, a (finite) braided tensor category gives rise to a invariant of $3$-manifolds, cf. [@Vir06] based on the well-known work [@RT90]. In [@Ros93; @KR02] the case of the representation category of a quantum group is treated. For example, if the $R$-matrix for the quantum group $U_q(\g)$ in the case $q=i,\g=\Sl_2$ is evaluated on the standard representation depending on an additional deformation parameter $\lambda$, then one obtaines in this way the Alexander-Conway-polynomial. Braided tensor categories with an additional non-degeneracy condition give rise to topological field theories [@Tur94; @KL01]. Checking which $R$-matrices below fulfill this additional condition would be an interesting follow-up to the present work.
For quantum groups, Lusztig gives in [@Lus93] Sec. 32 essentially an $R$-matrix, but it is not clear that this gives rise to an $R$-matrix over the small quantum groups $u_q(\g)$ with $q$ an $\ell$-th root of unity. In [@Ros93] this has been shown to be true whenever $\ell$ is odd and prime to the determinant of the Cartan matrix. In other cases Lusztig’s small quantum group itself usually does not admit an $R$-matrix, in many cases even the category is not braided. This has been resolved in two ways in literature:
- Several authors consider slightly smaller quotients (resp. a subcategory), i.e. $K^e=1$ for $e$ half the exponent in Lusztig’s definition, where one can obtain indeed an $R$-matrix if $\ell$ is prime to the determinant of the Cartan matrix [@Ros93]. For some applications however, it is desirable that the quotient is taken precisely with Lusztig’s choice and one wishes to focus on the even case.
- For $q$ an even root of unity, some authors consider $R$-matrices up to outer automorphism ([@Tan92; @Res95]), or quadratic extensions of $u_q(\g)$, e.g. explicitly in the case of $u_q(\Sl_2)$ in [@RT91; @FGST06] and more generally in [@GW98] for $u_q(\Sl_n)$. By [@Tur94] p. 511 Rosso has already suggested in 1993 that one should consider extensions of $u_q(\g)$ for general $\g$.
In this article we determine *all* possible $R$-matrices that can be obtained through Lusztig’s ansatz [@Lus93] Sec. 32.1, which means to vary the *toral part* $R_0$ (see below), while at the same time considering extensions of $u_q(\g)$ that are Lie-theoretically motivated and explain the exceptional behaviour with respect to the determinant of the Cartan matrix. In many cases we find several inequivalent choices different from the standard choice of $R_0$ (most notably $\g=D_{2n}$), while other cases still do not admit $R$-matrices. In particular we find indeed that also even $\ell$ (or divisible by $4$ for multiply-laced $\g$) admit $R$-matrices for extensions of Lusztig’s original quantum group.
More precisely, the extensions $u_q(\g,\Lambda)$ of $u_q(\g)$ we consider depend on a choice of a lattice $\Lambda_R\subset\Lambda\subset\Lambda_W$ between root and weight lattice, which corresponds to a choice of a complex connected Lie group associated to $\g$. We first derive a necessary form of the $R$-matrix, depending only on the fundamental group $\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$; this amounts to a question in additive combinatorics we have settled in [@LN14]. The main calculations concluding the present article is to check sufficiency in terms of certain sublattices of $\Lambda$. These sublattices depend heavily on $\g$ and on the roots of unity in question, in particular in common divisors of $\ell$ and the determinant of the Cartan matrix, which is the order of $\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$.
This article is organized as follows.
In Section \[prelim\] we fix the Lie theoretic notation and prove some technical preliminaries. In particular, we introduce some sublattices of the weight lattice $\Lambda_W$ of a simple complex Lie algebra, e.g. the so-called $\ell$-centralizer $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)$ of $\Lambda_R$ in $\Lambda_W$ (with respect to the braiding). We then give the definition of the finite dimensional quantum groups $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$ for lattices $\Lambda,~\Lambda'$, where $\Lambda'$ is a suitable sublattice of $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)$. Choices of $\Lambda'$ correspond to the choice of a quotient, see above. We recall also the definition of an $R$-matrix.
In Section \[ansatz\] we review the ansatz $R=R_0\bar\Theta$ for $R$-matrices by Lusztig, with fixed $\Theta\in u_q(\g,\Lambda)^+\otimes
u_q(\g,\Lambda)^-$ and free toral part $R_0=\sum_{\mu,\nu\in\Lambda/\Lambda'}f(\mu,\nu)K_\mu\otimes K_\nu$. We find equations for the free parameters $f(\mu,\nu)$ that are equivalent to $R$ being an $R$-matrix and depend on the fundamental group $\pi_1=\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$ of $\g$ and on some sublattices of $\Lambda_W$ associated to $q$. This ansatz was also used by Müller [@Mue98a; @Mue98b] for determining $R$-matrices for quadratic extensions of $u_q(\Sl_n)$.
In Section \[group-equations\] we will first consider those equations on $f(\mu,\nu)$, that only depend on $\pi_1$ as a group, the so-called *group-equations* for the coefficients of the ansatz in Section \[ansatz\]. We will give all solutions of the group-equations of a group $G$, where $G$ is cyclic or equal to $\Z_2\times\Z_2$, since these are the relevant cases for $G=\pi_1$ the fundamental group of the Lie algebras in interest. The case $\g=A_n$ with fundamental group $\Z_{n+1}$ is particularly hard and depends on a question in additive combinatorics, which we settled in [@LN14].
We then consider in Section \[diamond-equations\] a certain constellation of sublattices of $\Lambda$, which we call a diamond. Depending on these sublattices we define *diamond-equations*, derive a necessary condition for the existence of solutions and give again results for the cyclic case.
In Section \[solutions\] we give the main result of this article in Theorem \[Thm:solutions\], a list of $R$-matrices obtained by Lusztig’s ansatz. These are obtained by solving the corresponding group- and diamond-equations, depending on the fundamental group $\pi_1$ of $\g$, the lattice $\Lambda_R\subset \Lambda\subset \Lambda_W$, kernel $\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$ and the $\ell$-th root of unity $q$. Here, $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ denotes the lattice orthogonal to $\Lambda_W$ mod $\ell$, i.e. the set of $\lambda\in\Lambda$ with $\ell\mid(\lambda,\mu)$ for all weights $\mu$.
We develop general results that allow us to compute all $R$-matrices fulfilling Lusztig’s ansatz depending on $\g,\Lambda,\Lambda'$. Under the additional assumption \[ass:Lambda’\] on $\Lambda'$, which also simplifies some calculations, we find that in fact $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ is the only choice that allows the existence of an $R$- matrix.
\[Thm:solutions\] Let $\g$ be a finite-dimensional simple complex Lie algebra with root lattice $\Lambda_R$, weight lattice $\Lambda_W$ and fundamental group $\pi_1=\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$. Let $q$ be an $\ell$-th root of unity, $\ell\in\N$, $\ell>2$. Then we have the following $R$-matrix of the form $R=R_0\bar\Theta$, with $\Theta$ as in Theorem \[Thm:Theta\]: $$R =
\left(
\frac 1{|\Lambda/\Lambda'|}
\sum_{(\mu,\nu)\in (\Lambda_1/\Lambda'\times\Lambda_2/\Lambda')}
q^{-(\mu,\nu)} \omega(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) ~
K_{\mu}\otimes K_{\nu}
\right)
\cdot \bar\Theta,$$ for the quantum group $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$ with $\Lambda_i$ the preimage of a certain subgroup $H_i\subset\pi_1$ in $\Lambda_W$ ($i=1,2$), a certain group-pairing $\omega\colon H_1\times H_2\to \C^{\times}$ and $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ as in Def. \[elllattice\].
In the following table we list for all root systems the following data, depending on $\ell$: Possible choices of $H_1,H_2$ (in terms of fundamental weights $\lambda_k$), the group-pairing $\omega$, and the number of solutions $\#$. If the number has a superscript $*$, we obtain $R$-matrices for Lusztig’s original choice of $\Lambda'$. For $\g=D_n,\,
2\mid n$, with $\pi_1=\Z_2\times\Z_2$ we get the only cases $H_1\neq H_2$ and denote by $\lambda\neq\lambda'\in\{\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n,\lambda_{n-1}+\lambda_n\}$ arbitrary elements of order $2$ in $\pi_1$.\
$\ell$ \# $H_i\cong$ $H_i\,{\scriptstyle (i=1,2)}$
------------------------ ------------------------------- -------- ------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
$A_{n\geq 1}$
$\pi_1=\Z_{n+1}$ $^*$
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$1$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=(-1)^{n-1}$
$B_{n\geq 2}$ $2$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=\pm1$
$\pi_1=\Z_2$ $1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$, [if]{} $n$ [even]{}
$\ell\equiv 0 \mod 4$ $2^*$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=\pm1$
$\ell\neq 4$ $1^*$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$, [if]{} $n$ [even]{}
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$1$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=-1$
$C_{n\geq 3}$ $1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$\pi_1=\Z_2$ $1$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=(-1)^{n-1}$
$\ell\equiv 0 \mod 4$ $2^*$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=\pm1$
$\ell\neq 4$ $1^*$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$, [if]{} $n$ [even]{}
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$3$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda,\lambda)= -1\!\!\!$
$6$ $\Z_2\neq\Z_2'$ ${\langle\lambda\rangle},{\langle\lambda'\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda,\lambda')= 1\!\!\!$
$1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)=1$
$1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)=-1$
$\ell$ [odd]{} $\omega(\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_{n-1})= \pm1$
$\omega(\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n)= 1$
$D_{n\geq 4}$ $\omega(\lambda_{n},\lambda_{n-1})= 1$
$n$ [even]{} $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)= \mp1$
$\pi_1=\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\omega(\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_{n-1})= -1$
$\omega(\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n)= \pm1$
$\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_{n-1})= \mp1$
$\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)= -1$
$\ell$ [even]{} $16^*$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)\in\{\pm1\}$
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$D_{n\geq 5}$ $1$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle2\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(2\lambda_n,2\lambda_n)=-1$
$n$ [odd]{} $2$ $\Z_4$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=\pm1$
$\pi_1=\Z_4$ $\ell\equiv2\mod 4$ $4^*$ $\Z_4$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=c, ~c^4=1$
$\ell\equiv0\mod4$ $4^*$ $\Z_4$ ${\langle\lambda_n\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=c, ~c^4=1$
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$2$ $\Z_3$ ${\langle\lambda_6\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_6,\lambda_6)= 1,\exp(\frac{2\pi i}3)$
$E_6$ $1^*$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$\pi_1=\Z_3$ $2^*$ $\Z_3$ ${\langle\lambda_6\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_6,\lambda_6)= 1,\exp(2\frac{2\pi i}3)$
$\ell$ [odd]{}, $3\mid \ell$ $3$ $\Z_3$ ${\langle\lambda_6\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_6,\lambda_6)= c, ~c^3=1$
$\ell$ [even]{}, $3\mid \ell$ $3^*$ $\Z_3$ ${\langle\lambda_6\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_6,\lambda_6)= c, ~c^3=1$
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$1$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_7\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_7,\lambda_7)=1$
$\ell$ [even]{} $2^*$ $\Z_2$ ${\langle\lambda_7\rangle}$ $\omega(\lambda_7,\lambda_7)=\pm1$
$E_8$ $\ell$ [odd]{} $1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$\pi_1=\Z_1$ $\ell$ [even]{} $1^*$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$\ell$ [odd]{} $1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$F_4$ $\ell\equiv 2\mod 4$ $1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
$\pi_1=\Z_1$ $\ell\equiv 0\mod 4$
$\ell\neq 4$
$\ell$ [odd]{}
$G_2$ $\ell\neq 3$
$\pi_1=\Z_1$ $\ell$ [even]{}
$\ell\neq 4,6$
: Solutions for $R_0$-matrices[]{data-label="tbl:Solutions"}
The cases $B_n,C_n,F_4$, $\ell=4$ and $G_2$, $\ell=3,6$ and $\ell=4$ respectively, can be obtained in the table for $A_1^{\times n},D_{n},
D_4$, and again $A_2$ and $A_3$ respectively (cf. [@Len14] for details).
Note, that Lusztig’s $R$-matrix for $\Lambda=\Lambda_R$ correspond to the case $H=\Z_1$ and $\omega=1$. The known quadratic extension for $\Sl_2$ is the case $A_1$ with $H=\Z_2$ in the example below.
We indicate in which sense our results are *not* complete:
- Technically, one could even allow $\Lambda_R\subset \Lambda\subset
\Lambda_W^\vee$, but then one would loose the topological interpretation as different choices of a Lie group associated to $\g$.
- Our additional assumption \[ass:Lambda’\] on the considered quotients $\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$ was chosen to simplify calculations and prove uniqueness. In general $\Lambda'\in\Cent^q(\Lambda)$ would suffice (and could yield more solutions), but one would have to deal with possible $2$-cocycles in $H^2(\Lambda/\Lambda',\pi_1)$ in Lemma \[g-eq\].
Are *all* $R$-matrices of $u_q(\g)$ given by Lusztig’s ansatz and hence in our list?
Which $R$-matrices above give rise to *equivalent* braided tensor categories?
Which $R$-matrices in this article are *factorizable* an give hence rise to (non-semisimple) modular tensor categories? What are results for other Nichols algebras?
For $\g=\Sl_2$ with root system $A_1$ the fundamental group is $\pi_1=\Z_2$. Let $\alpha$ be the simple root, generating the root lattice $\Lambda_R$, and $\lambda=\frac12\alpha$ the fundamental dominant weight, generating the weight lattice $\Lambda_W$. We will give the $R$-matrices for the quantum groups $u=u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$ for $\ell$-th root of unity $q$ and lattices $\Lambda_R\subset\Lambda\subset\Lambda_W$ and $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$, which equals in the simply laced case $\ell\Lambda_R$.
The quasi $R$-matrix $\Theta$ (see Theorem \[Thm:Theta\]) depends only on the root lattice and exists in $u^+\otimes u^-$ with Borel parts $u^{\pm}$, generated by $E_{\alpha},F_{\alpha}$. With $\ell_{\alpha}=\ell/\gcd(\ell,2d_{\alpha})=\ell/\gcd(\ell,2)$ we have $$\Theta = \sum_{k=0}^{\ell_{\alpha-1}}(-1)^k \frac{(q-q^{-1})^k}{[k]_q!}
q^{-k(k-1)/2}
E_{\alpha}^k \,\otimes\, F_{\alpha}^k
\quad{\rm and}\quad
\bar\Theta = \sum_{k=0}^{\ell_{\alpha-1}}\frac{(q-q^{-1})^k}{[k]_q!}
q^{k(k-1)/2}
E_{\alpha}^k \,\otimes\, F_{\alpha}^k,$$ with $q$-factorial $[k]_q!$. The toral part $R_0$-is given by $$R_0 = \frac {1}{|\Lambda/\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}|}
\sum_{\mu,\nu\in \Lambda/\Lambda'}
q^{-(\mu,\nu)} \, \omega(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) \,
K_{\mu}\,\otimes\, K_{\nu},$$ for $H$ and $\omega\colon H\times H\to\C^{\times}$ as in Table \[tbl:Solutions\]. The possible solutions depend on $\ell$. We now check the condition $\gcd(2,d\ell,k\ell-2/d)=1$ from the theorem above ($n=1$ and $d=1,2$). For odd $\ell$, we get the following solutions by Theorem \[Thm:solutions\]: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\Z_1,\qquad \omega\colon\Z_1\times\Z_1\to \C^{\times},~
\omega(0,0)=1,\\
H&=\Z_2,\qquad \omega\colon\Z_2\times\Z_2\to \C^{\times},~
\omega(\lambda,\lambda)=1.
\end{aligned}$$ For even $\ell$ the solution for $H=\Z_1$, i.e. for $\Lambda=\Lambda_R$, does not exist (since $2\mid \ell$ and $2\mid (\ell-2)$), rather we get both possible solutions on the full support $H=\Z_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\Z_2,\qquad \omega\colon\Z_2\times\Z_2\to \C^{\times},~
\omega(\lambda,\lambda)=\pm1.
\end{aligned}$$ In these cases, the $R$-matrices are explicitly given by $$\begin{aligned}
R
&= \frac {1}{2\ell} \sum_{k=0}^{\ell_{\alpha}-1}
\sum_{i,j=0}^{2\ell-1} \frac{(q-q^{-1})^k}{[k]_q!}
q^{k(k-1)/2+k(j-i)-\frac{ij}2} \, (\pm1)^{ij} \,
E_{\alpha}^k K_{\lambda}^i \,\otimes\, F_{\alpha}^k K_{\lambda}^j
\end{aligned}$$
#### **Acknowledgements.**
The first author is supported by the DFG Research Training Group 1670. We thank Christoph Schweigert for several helpful discussions.
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
At first, we fix a convention.
\[conv\] In the following, $q$ is an $\ell$-th root of unity. We fix $q=\exp(\frac{2\pi i}{\ell})$ and for $a\in\R$ we set $q^a=\exp(\frac{2\pi ia}{\ell})$, $\ell>2$.
Lie Theory
----------
Let $\g$ be a finite-dimensional, semisimple complex Lie algebra with simple roots $\alpha_i$, indexed by $i\in I$, $|I|=n$, and a set of positive roots $\Phi^{+}$. Denote the *Killing form* by $(-,-)$, normalized such that $(\alpha,\alpha)=2$ for the short roots $\alpha$. The *Cartan matrix* is given by $$a_{ij} = {\langle\alpha_i,\alpha_j\rangle}
= 2\frac{(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)}{(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)}.$$ For a root $\alpha$ we call $d_\alpha:=(\alpha,\alpha)/2$ with $d_{\alpha}\in\{1,2,3\}$. Especially, $d_i:=d_{\alpha_i}$ and in this notation $(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)=d_ia_{ij}$. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i,~i\in I$, are given by the condition $2(\alpha_i,\lambda_j)/(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)=\delta_{ij}$, hence the Cartan matrix expresses the change of basis from roots to weights.
The *root lattice* $\Lambda_R=\Lambda_R(\g)$ of the Lie algebra $\g$ is the abelian group with rank $\mathrm{rank}(\Lambda_R)=\mathrm{rank}(\g)=|I|$, generated by the simple roots $\alpha_i$, $i\in I$.
The *weight lattice* $\Lambda_W=\Lambda_W(\g)$ of the Lie algebra $\g$ is the abelian group with rank $\mathrm{rank}(\Lambda_W)=\mathrm{rank}(\g)$, generated by the fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$, $i\in I$.
The Killing form induces an integral pairing of abelian groups, turning $\Lambda_R$ into an *integral lattice*. It is standard fact of Lie theory (cf. [@Hum72], Section 13.1) that the root lattice is contained in the weight lattice.
\[elllattice\] Let $\Lambda_R$, $\Lambda_W$ the root, resp. weight, lattice of the Lie algebra $\g$ with generators $\alpha_i$, resp. $\lambda_i$, for $i\in
I$.
(i) Following Lusztig, we define $\ell_i :=\ell/\gcd(\ell,2d_i)$, which is the order of $q^{2d_i}$, where $q$ is a primitive $\ell$-th root of unity. More generally, we define for any root $\ell_{\alpha}:=\ell/\gcd(\ell,2d_{\alpha})$. For any positive integer $\ell$, the *$\ell$-lattice* $\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, resp. $\Lambda_W^{(\ell)}$, is defined as $$\Lambda_R^{(\ell)} =\left\langle
\ell_i\alpha_i,~ i\in I
\right\rangle
\quad\text{resp.}\quad
\Lambda_W^{(\ell)} =\left\langle
\ell_i\lambda_i,~ i\in I
\right\rangle.$$
(ii) For any positive integer $\ell$, the lattice $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$, resp. $\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}$, is defined as $$\Lambda_R^{[\ell]} =\left\langle
\frac{\ell}{\gcd(\ell,d_i)}\alpha_i,~ i\in I
\right\rangle
\quad\text{resp.}\quad
\Lambda_W^{[\ell]} =\left\langle
\frac{\ell}{\gcd(\ell,d_i)}\lambda_i,~ i\in I
\right\rangle.$$
For $\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2\subset\Lambda_W$ with $\Lambda_2\subset\Lambda_1$ we define $\Cent^q_{\Lambda_1}(\Lambda_2)=
\{\eta\in\Lambda_1~|
~(\eta,\lambda)\in\ell\Z~\forall\lambda\in\Lambda_2\}$. In the situation $\Lambda_1=\Lambda_W$ we simply write $\Cent^q_{\Lambda_W}(\Lambda_2)=\Cent^q(\Lambda_2)$.
Especially, the set ${\langleK_{\eta} ~|~ \eta\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)\rangle}$ consists of the central group elements of the quantum group $U_q(\g,\Lambda_W)$, cf. Section \[qgrp\].
\[CentR\] For a Lie algebra $\g$ we have $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)=\Lambda_{W}^{[\ell]}$. We call the elements of $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)$ *central weights*.
Let $\lambda=\sum_{j\in I}m_j\lambda_j\in\Lambda_W$ with fundamental weights $\lambda_i$. For a simple root $\alpha_i$ we have $(\alpha_i,\lambda) = (\alpha_i,\sum_{j\in I}m_j \lambda_j) = d_im_i$. Thus, $\lambda$ is central weight if $\ell\mid d_im_i$ for all $i$, hence $(\ell/\gcd(\ell,d_i))\mid m_i$ for all $i$.
The same calculation gives the following lemma.
\[CentW\] For a Lie algebra $\g$ we have $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R=\Lambda_{R}^{[\ell]}$.
Quantum groups {#qgrp}
--------------
For a finite-dimensional complex simple Lie algebra $\g$, lattices $\Lambda, \,\Lambda'$ with $\Lambda_R \subset \Lambda \subset \Lambda_W$ and $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}\subset
\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$, and a primitive $\ell$-th root of unity $q$, we aim to define the finite-dimensional quantum group $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$, also called small quantum group. We construct $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$ by using rational and integral forms of the deformed universal enveloping algebra $U_q(\g)$ for an indeterminate $q$. In the following we give the definitions of the quantum groups, following the lines of [@Len14]. The different choices of $\Lambda$ are already in [@Lus93], Sec. 2.2. We shall give a dictionary to translate Lusztig’s notation to the one used here.
\[quantumBinom\] For $q\in\C^{\times}$ or $q$ an indeterminate and $n\leq k\in\N_0$ we define $$[n]_q \df \frac{q^n-q^{-n}}{q-q^{-1}} \qquad
[n]_q! \df [1]_1 [2]_q\dots [n]_q \qquad
\begin{bmatrix} n \\ k \end{bmatrix}_q \df
\begin{cases} \frac{[n]_q!}{[k]_q! [n-k]_q!}, & 0\leq k\leq n, \\
0, & \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$
\[rationalForm\] Let $q$ be an indeterminate. For each abelian group $\Lambda$ with $\Lambda_R\subset \Lambda\subset
\Lambda_W$ we define the *rational form* $U_q^{\Q(q)}(\g,\Lambda)$ over the ring of rational functions $\kk=\Q(q)$ as follows:
As algebra, let $U_q^{\Q(q)}(\g,\Lambda)$ be generated by the group ring $\kk[\Lambda]$, spanned by $K_{\Lambda}$, $\lambda\in\Lambda$, and additional generators $E_{\alpha_i},\, F_{\alpha_i}$, for each simple root $\alpha_i,\, i\in I$, with relations: $$\begin{gathered}
K_{\lambda}E_{\alpha_i}K_{\lambda}^{-1} =
q^{(\lambda,\alpha_i)}E_{\alpha_i},
\label{uq2}\\
K_{\lambda}F_{\alpha_i}K_{\lambda}^{-1} =
q^{-(\lambda,\alpha_i)}F_{\alpha_i},
\label{uq3}\\
E_{\alpha_i}F_{\alpha_j}-F_{\alpha_j}E_{\alpha_i} =\delta_{ij}
\frac{K_{\alpha_i}-K_{\alpha_i}^{-1}}{q_{\alpha_i} -
q_{\alpha_i}^{-1}}, \label{uq4}
\end{gathered}$$ and Serre relations for any $i\neq j\in I$ $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r \begin{bmatrix} 1-a_{ij}\\r
\end{bmatrix}_{q_i} E_{\alpha_i}^{1-a_{ij}-r} E_{\alpha_j}
E_{\alpha_i}^r = 0,\label{qSerreE}\\
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r \begin{bmatrix} 1-a_{ij}\\r
\end{bmatrix}_{\bar q_i} F_{\alpha_i}^{1-a_{ij}-r} F_{\alpha_j}
F_{\alpha_i}^r = 0,\label{qSerreF}
\end{gathered}$$ where $\bar q\df q^{-1}$, the quantum binomial coefficients are defined in Definition \[quantumBinom\] and by definition $q^{(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)}=(q^{d_i})^{a_{ij}}=q_i^{a_{ij}}$.
As a coalgebra, let the coproduct $\Delta$, the counit $\varepsilon$ and the antipode $S$ be defined on the group-Hopf-algebra $\kk[\Lambda]$ as usual $$\Delta(K_{\lambda}) = K_{\lambda}\otimes K_{\lambda}, \qquad
\varepsilon(K_{\lambda}) = 1, \qquad
S(K_{\lambda}) = K_{\lambda}^{-1} = K_{-\lambda},$$ and on the generator $E_{\alpha_i}, F_{\alpha_i}$, for each simple root $\alpha_i$, $i\in I$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(E_{\alpha_i})=E_{\alpha_i}\otimes K_{\alpha_i} + 1\otimes
E_{\alpha_i},&
\quad \Delta(F_{\alpha_i})= F_{\alpha_i}\otimes 1 + K_{\alpha_i}^{-1}
\otimes F_{\alpha_i},\\
\varepsilon(E_{\alpha_i})= 0,&
\quad \varepsilon(F_{\alpha_i}) = 0,\\
S(E_{\alpha_i})= -E_{\alpha_i}K_{\alpha_i}^{-1},&
\quad S(F_{\alpha_i})=-K_{\alpha_i}F_{\alpha_i}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is a Hopf algebra over the field $\kk=\Q(q)$. Moreover, we have a triangular decomposition: Consider the subalgebras $U_q^{\Q(q),+}$, generated by the $E_{\alpha_i}$, and $U_q^{\Q(q),-}$, generated by the $F_{\alpha_i}$, and $U_q^{\Q(q),0}=\kk[\Lambda]$, spanned by the $K_{\lambda}$. Then the multiplication in $U_q^{\Q(q)}=U_q^{\Q(q)}(\g,\Lambda)$ induces an isomorphism of vector spaces: $$U_q^{\Q(q),+} \otimes U_q^{\Q(q),0} \otimes U_q^{\Q(q),-}
\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow}U_q^{\Q(q)}.$$
The so-called *restricted integral form* $U_q^{\Z[q,q^{-1}]}
(\g,\Lambda)$ is generated as a $\Z[q,q^{-1}]$-algebra by $\Lambda$ and the following elements in $U_q^{\Q(q),\pm}(\g,\Lambda)$, called *divided powers*: $$E_{\alpha}^{(r)} \df \frac{E_{\alpha}^r}
{\prod_{s=1}^r
[s]_{q_\alpha}}
\quad
F_{\alpha}^{(r)} \df \frac{F_{\alpha}^r}
{\prod_{s=1}^r
[s]_{\bar q_\alpha}}
\quad \text{for all }\alpha\in\Phi^{+},r>0,$$ and by the following elements in $U_q^{\Q(q)}(\g,\Lambda)^0$: $$K_{\alpha_i}^{(r)} =
\begin{bmatrix} K_{\alpha_i};0 \\ r \end{bmatrix} \df
\prod_{s=1}^r
\frac{K_{\alpha_i}q_{\alpha_i}^{1-s}-K_{\alpha_i}^{-1}q_{\alpha_i}^{s-1}}
{q_{\alpha_i}^s - q_{\alpha_i}^{-s}},
\qquad i\in I.$$
These definitions can also be found in Lusztig’s book [@Lus93]. In order to translate Lusztig’s notation to the one used here, one has to match the terms in the following way
Lusztig’s notation notation used here
--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Index set $I$ simple roots $\{\alpha_i\mid i\in I\}$
$X$ root lattice $\Lambda_R$
$Y$ lattice $\Lambda_R\subset \Lambda\subset \Lambda_W$
$i'\in X$ ${\alpha_i}$
$i\in Y$ $\frac{\alpha_i}{d_{\alpha_i}}=\alpha_i^{\vee}$ coroot
$i\cdot j$, $i,j\in \Z[I]$ $(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)$
${\langlei,j'\rangle}=2\frac{i\cdot j}{i\cdot i},~ i\in Y, j'\in X$ ${\langle\alpha_i,\alpha_j\rangle}$
$K_i$ $K_{\alpha_i^{\vee}}$
$\tilde K_i=K_{\frac{i\cdot i}2 i}$ $K_{\alpha_i}$
We now define the *restricted specialization* $U_q(\g,\Lambda)$. Here, we specialize $q$ to a specific choice $q\in\C^{\times}$.
\[Uqg\] The infinite-dimensional Hopf algebra $U_q(\g,\Lambda)$ is defined by $$U_q(\g,\Lambda)\df U_q^{\Z[q,q^{-1}]}(\g,\Lambda)
\otimes_{\Z[q,q^{-1}]} \C_q,$$ where $\C_q=\C$ with the $\Z[q,q^{-1}]$-module structure defined by the specific value $q\in\C^{\times}$.
From now on, $q$ will be a primitive $\ell$-th root of unity. We choose explicitly $q=\exp(\frac{2\pi i}{\ell})$, see Convention \[conv\].
\[uqg\] Let $\g$ be a finite-dimensional complex simple Lie algebra with root system $\Phi$ and assume ${\rm ord}(q^2)>d_\alpha$ for all $\alpha\in\Phi$. For lattices $\Lambda,\Lambda'$ with $\Lambda_R\subset
\Lambda\subset\Lambda_W$ and $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}\subset \Lambda'\subset
\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$, we define the *small quantum group* $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$ as the algebra $U_q(\g,\Lambda)$ from Definition \[Uqg\], generated by $K_{\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and $E_{\alpha},F_{\alpha}$ with $\ell_{\alpha}>1$, $\alpha\in\Phi^+$ not necessarily simple, together with the relations $$E_{\alpha}^{\ell_{\alpha}}=0, \quad
F_{\alpha}^{\ell_{\alpha}}=0 \quad\text{and}\quad
K_{\lambda} = 1 ~ \text{for } \lambda\in\Lambda'.$$ The coalgebra structure is again given as in Definition \[rationalForm\]. This is a finite dimensional Hopf algebra of dimension $$|\Lambda/\Lambda'|\prod_{\alpha\in\Phi^+,~ \ell_{\alpha}>1}
\ell_{\alpha}^2.$$
The fact, that this gives a Hopf algebra for $\Lambda'=2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$ is in Lusztig, [@Lus90], Sec. 8.
We fix the assumption on $\Lambda'$.
\[ass:Lambda’\] We assume for the sublattice $\Lambda'\subset\Lambda_W$ in the following that $$2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}\subset \Lambda'\subset
\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$$
$R$-matrices
------------
A Hopf algebra $H$ is called *quasitriangular* if there exists an invertible element $R\in H\otimes H$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{op}(h) &= R\Delta(h) R^{-1}, \label{rmatrix}\\
(\Delta \otimes \Id)(R) &= R_{13}R_{23}, \label{co1}\\
(\Id \otimes \Delta)(R) &= R_{13}R_{12}, \label{co2}
\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta^{op}(h)=\tau\circ \Delta(h)$, where $\tau: H\otimes
H\longrightarrow H\otimes H, ~a\otimes b \longmapsto b\otimes a$ and $R_{12}=R\otimes 1,~ R_{23} = 1 \otimes R,~ R_{13} = (\tau \otimes
\Id)(R_{23})=(\Id\otimes \tau)(R_{12}) \in H^{\otimes 3}$. Such an element is called an *$R$-matrix of $H$*.
Ansatz for $R$ {#ansatz}
==============
Quasi-$R$-matrix and Cartan-part
--------------------------------
The goal of this paper is to construct new families of $R$-matrices for small quantum groups and certain extensions (see Def. \[uqg\]). Our starting point is Lusztig’s ansatz in [@Lus93], Sec. 32.1, for a universal $R$-matrix of $U_q(\g,\Lambda)$. This ansatz has been translated by Müller in his Dissertation [@Mue98a], resp. in [@Mue98b], for small quantum groups, which we will use in the following. Note, that this ansatz has been successfully generalized to general diagonal Nichols algebras in [@AY13].
For a finite-dimensional, semisimple complex Lie algebra $\g$, an $\ell$-th root of unity $q$ and lattices $\Lambda,\Lambda'$ as in Section \[qgrp\], we write $u=u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$. Let ${~}\bar{~}\colon u\to \bar u$ be the $\Q$-algebra isomorphism defined by $q\mapsto q^{-1},~E_{\alpha_i}\mapsto E_{\alpha_i},~ F_{\alpha_i}\mapsto
F_{\alpha_i}$, $i\in I$, and $K_{\lambda}\mapsto K_{-\lambda}$, $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Then the map ${~}\bar{}\,\otimes\,\bar{}\,\colon
u\otimes u\rightarrow \bar u\otimes \bar u$ is a well-defined $\Q$-algebra isomorphism and we can define a $\Q(q)$-algebra morphism $\bar\Delta\colon
u\rightarrow u\otimes u$ given by $\bar\Delta (x) = \overline{\Delta(\bar
x)}$ for all $x\in U$. We have in general $\bar\Delta\neq\Delta$.
Assume in the following, that $$\label{eq:ell-Cond}
\ell_i> 1 \text{ for all } i\in I,\text{ and }
\ell_i> -{\langle\alpha_i,\alpha_j\rangle} \text{ for all }i,j\text{ with }i\neq j.$$
\[rem:AltRootSys\] For a root system $\Phi$ of a finite-dimensional simple complex Lie algebra and an $\ell$-th root of unity $q$, the condition fails only in the following cases $(\Phi,\ell)$. In each case, the small quantum group $u_q(\g)$ is described by a different $\tilde\Phi$ fulfilling , hence the present work also provides results for these cases by consulting the results for $\tilde\Phi$.
$\Phi$ (all) $B_n$ $C_n$ $F_4$ $G_2$ $G_2$
----------------------- --------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ------- ------- -------
$\ell$ $1,2$ $4$ $4$ $4$ $3,6$ $4$
\[-7pt\] $\tilde\Phi$ (empty) $\underset{n\text{-times}}{\underbrace{A_1\times\ldots\times A_1}}$ $D_{n}$ $D_4$ $A_2$ $A_3$
The following theorem is essentially in [@Lus93]. Note that the roles of $E,F$ will be switched in our article to match the usual convention:
\[Thm:Theta\] (a) There is a unique family of elements $\Theta_\nu\in u_{\nu}^+\otimes
u_{\nu}^-$, $\nu\in\Lambda_R$, such that $\Theta_0=1\otimes 1$ and $\Theta=\sum_{\nu}\Theta_{\nu}\in u\otimes u$ satisfies $\Delta(x)\Theta = \Theta \bar\Delta(x)$ for all $x\in u$.
\(b) Let $B$ be a vector space-basis of $u^+$, such that $B_{\nu}=B\cap u^+_{\nu}$ is a basis of $u^+_{\nu}$ for all $\nu$. Here, $u_{\nu}^+$ refers to the natural $\Lambda_R$-grading of $u^+$. Let $\{b^* ~|~ b\in B_{\nu}\}$ be the basis of $u_{\nu}^-$ dual to $B_{\nu}$ under the non-degenerate bilinear form $(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)\colon u^+\otimes u^-\to \C$. We have $$\Theta_{\nu} \eq (-1)^{{\rm tr}\, \nu} q_{\nu} \sum_{b\in B_{\nu}} b^+
\otimes b^{*-} \in u_{\nu}^+ \otimes u_{\nu}^-,$$ where $q_{\nu}=\prod_i q_i^{\nu_i}$, ${\rm tr}\,\nu=\sum_i\nu_i$ for $\nu=\sum_i\nu_i \alpha_i\in\Lambda_R$.
(i) The element $\Theta$ is called the *Quasi-$R$-matrix* of $u=u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$.
(ii) Since the element $\Theta$ is unique, the expressions $\sum_{b\in
B_{\nu}} b^+ \otimes b^{*-}$ in part (b) of the theorem are independent of the actual choice of the basis $B$.
(iii) For example, if $\g=A_1$, i.e. there is only one simple root $\alpha=\alpha_1$, and $E=E_{\alpha}$, $F=F_{\alpha}$. Thus we have $$\Theta \eq \sum_{n=0}^{\ell_{\alpha}-1} (-1)^n
\frac{(q-q^{-1})^n}{[n]_q!} q^{-n(n-1)/2} E^n \otimes F^n.$$
(iv) The Quasi-$R$-matrix $\Theta$ is invertible with inverse $\Theta^{-1} = \bar \Theta$, i.e. the expression one gets by changing all $q$ to $\bar q = q^{-1}$.
\[Thm:R0\] Let $\Lambda'\subset\{\mu\in\Lambda~|~K_{\mu} \text{ central in }
u_q(\g,\Lambda)\}$ be a subgroup of $\Lambda$, and $H_1, H_2$ be subgroups of $\Lambda/\Lambda'$, containing $\Lambda_R/\Lambda'$. In the following, $\mu,\mu_1,\mu_2\in H_1$ and $\nu,\nu_1,\nu_2\in H_2$.
The element $R=R_0\bar\Theta$ with $R_0= \sum_{\mu,\nu} f(\mu,\nu)
K_{\mu} \otimes K_{\nu}$ is an $R$-matrix for $u_q(\g,\Lambda,\Lambda')$, if and only if for all $\alpha\in
\Lambda_R$ and $\mu,\nu$ the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
f(\mu+ \alpha, \nu) = q^{-(\nu, \alpha)} f(\mu,\nu),
&\quad
f(\mu, \nu+ \alpha) = q^{-(\mu, \alpha)} f(\mu,\nu),
\label{f01}
\\
\sum_{\substack{\nu_1,\nu_2\in H_2\\\nu_1+\nu_2 = \nu}}
f(\mu_1,\nu_1)f(\mu_2,\nu_2) = \delta_{\mu_1,\mu_2} f(\mu_1,\nu),
&\quad
\sum_{\substack{\mu_1,\mu_2\in H_1\\\mu_1+\mu_2 = \mu}}
f(\mu_1,\nu_1)f(\mu_2,\nu_2) = \delta_{\nu_1,\nu_2} f(\mu,\nu_1),
\label{f02}
\\
\sum_{\mu} f(\mu,\nu) = \delta_{\nu,0},
&\quad
\sum_{\nu} f(\mu,\nu) = \delta_{\mu,0}.
\label{f03}
\end{aligned}$$ Condition \[f03\] follows from \[f01\] and \[f02\] if there exists $c\in\C$ such that $f(\mu,0)=f(0,\nu)=c$ for all $\mu,\nu$. There are conditions on the order of $q$: For all $\mu,\nu$ for which there exist $\tilde\mu,\tilde\nu$ such that $f(\mu,\tilde\nu)\neq 0$, $f(\tilde\mu,\nu)\neq0$ we have $$q^{2l_i{\langle\mu,\alpha_i\rangle}}=q^{2l_i{\langle\nu,\alpha_i\rangle}}=1.$$ If this condition is satisfied then $f$ is well-defined on the preimages of $H_1\times H_2$ under $\Lambda\to\Lambda/\Lambda'$. (In particular, this is the case under our assumption $\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$.)
A set of equations
------------------
\[g-eq\] Let $\Lambda\subset\Lambda_W$ a sublattice and $\Lambda'\subset\Lambda$. Assume in addition, $\Lambda'\subset \Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$.
(i) Let $f:\Lambda/\Lambda'\times\Lambda/\Lambda' \to\C$, satisfying condition of Theorem \[Thm:R0\]. Then $$g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) \df |\Lambda_R/\Lambda'| q^{(\mu,\nu)}f(\mu,\nu),$$ defines a function $\pi_1\times\pi_1\to \C$.
(ii) If, in addition, $f$ satisfies conditions-, the function $g$ in (i) satisfies the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2 = \bar\nu} \delta_{(\mu_2-\mu_1\in
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R))}
q^{(\mu_2-\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)} g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
g(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) &= \delta_{\mu_1,\mu_2}
g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu),
\\
\sum_{\bar\mu_1+\bar\mu_2 = \bar\mu} \delta_{(\nu_2-\nu_1\in
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R))}
q^{(\nu_2-\nu_1,\bar\mu_1)} g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
g(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) &= \delta_{\nu_1,\nu_2}
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu_1),
\end{split}
\label{g02}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\bar\nu} \delta_{(\mu\in \Cent^q(\Lambda_R))} q^{-(\mu,\bar\nu)}
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) &= \delta_{\mu,0},
\\
\sum_{\bar\mu} \delta_{(\nu\in \Cent^q(\Lambda_R))} q^{-(\nu,\bar\mu)}
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) &= \delta_{\nu,0}.
\end{split}
\label{g03}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the sums range over $\pi_1$ and expressions like $\delta_{(\mu\in
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R))}$ equals $1$ if $\mu$ is a central weight and $0$ otherwise.
Before we proceed with the proof we will comment on the relevance of this equations and introduce a definition. For a given Lie algebra $\g$ with root lattice $\Lambda_R$ and weight lattice $\Lambda_W$ the solutions of the $g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)$-equations give solutions for an $R_0$ in the ansatz $R=R_0\bar\Theta$. Hence, we get possible $R$-matrices for the quantum group $u_q(\g,\Lambda_W,\Lambda')$.
We divide the equations in two types.
For central weight $0$ we call the equations - *group-equations*: $$\begin{aligned}
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) &= \sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu_1)g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu_2),\\
g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) &= \sum_{\bar\mu_1+\bar\mu_2=\bar\mu}
g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu)g(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu),\\
1 &= \sum_{\bar\nu} g(0,\bar\nu),\\
1 &= \sum_{\bar\mu} g(\bar\mu,0).
\end{aligned}$$ For $\pi_1=\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$ of order $n$ this gives us $2n^2+2$ group-equations.
For central weight $0\neq\zeta\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'$, we call the equations - *diamond-equations* (for reasons that will become transparent later): $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{(\zeta,\bar\nu_1)}g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu_1)g(\bar\mu+\bar\zeta,\bar\nu_2),\\
0 &= \sum_{\bar\mu_1+\bar\mu_2=\bar\mu}
q^{(\zeta,\bar\mu_1)}g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu)g(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu+\bar\zeta),\\
0 &= \sum_{\bar\nu} q^{-(\bar\nu,\zeta)}g(\bar\mu+\bar\zeta,\bar\nu),\\
0 &= \sum_{\bar\mu} q^{-(\bar\mu,\zeta)}g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu+\bar\zeta).
\end{aligned}$$ This gives up to $(|\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'|-1)(2n^2+2)$ diamond-equations.
(i) Since $\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ we have $q^{(\Lambda_W,\Lambda')}=1$ and terms $q^{(\mu,\nu)}$ for $\mu,\nu\in\Lambda/\Lambda'$ do not depend on the residue class representatives modulo $\Lambda'$. We check that the function $g$ is well-defined. Let $\mu,\nu\in
\Lambda$ and $\lambda'\in\Lambda'$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
g(\mu+\lambda',\nu)
&= |\Lambda_R/\Lambda'| q^{(\mu+\lambda',\nu)} f(\mu+\lambda',\nu)\\
&= |\Lambda_R/\Lambda'| q^{(\mu+\lambda',\nu)} q^{-(\lambda',\nu)}
f(\mu,\nu) \tag*{by eq. \eqref{f01}}\\
&= |\Lambda_R/\Lambda'| q^{(\mu,\nu)} f(\mu,\nu) \\
&= g(\mu,\nu),
\end{aligned}$$ and analogously for $g(\mu,\nu+\lambda')$.
(ii) We consider equations . Let $\nu_i,\nu\in\Lambda/\Lambda'$ and write $\nu_i=\bar\nu_i+\alpha_i$ and $\nu=\bar\nu+\alpha$ with $\bar\nu_i,\bar\nu\in\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$ and $\alpha_i,\alpha\in\Lambda_R$, $i=1,2$. For the sum $\nu=\nu_1+\nu_2$ we get $\bar\nu\equiv\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2$ in $\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$, i.e. there is a cocycle $\sigma(\nu_1,\nu_2)\in\Lambda_R$ with $\bar\nu=\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2+\sigma(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ in $\Lambda_W$ and $\alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2-\sigma(\nu_1,\nu_2)$. We will write $\sigma$ for $\sigma(\nu_1,\nu_2)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\nu_1+\nu_2=\nu} &f(\mu_1,\nu_1) f(\mu_2,\nu_2) \\
&= \sum_{\nu_1+\nu_2=\nu} q^{-(\mu_1,\nu_1)+ (\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) -
(\mu_2,\nu_2)+ (\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)} f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)\\
&= \sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
\sum_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2=\alpha+\sigma}
q^{-(\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) - (\mu_1,\alpha_1) + (\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)}
q^{-(\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) - (\mu_2,\alpha_2) + (\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)}
f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)\\
&= \sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{-(\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) + (\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
-(\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) + (\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)}
f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)
\sum_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2=\alpha+\sigma}
q^{- (\mu_1,\alpha_1) - (\mu_2,\alpha_2)} \tag{$\ast$}
\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, we consider the second sum over the roots ($\mu_1,\mu_2$ are fixed). $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2=\alpha+\sigma}
q^{- (\mu_1,\alpha_1) - (\mu_2,\alpha_2)}
&= \sum_{\alpha_1\in\Lambda_R/\Lambda'}
q^{- (\mu_1,\alpha_1) - (\mu_2,\alpha+\sigma-\alpha_1)} \\
&= q^{-(\mu_2,\alpha+\sigma)} \sum_{\alpha_1\in\Lambda_R/\Lambda'}
q^{(\mu_2-\mu_1,\alpha_1)}
\end{aligned}$$ The last sum equals $|\Lambda_R/\Lambda'|$ iff $\ell\mid(\mu_2-\mu_1,\alpha_1)$ for all $\alpha_1\in\Lambda_R/\Lambda'$, i.e. $\mu_2-\mu_1\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)$, and $0$ otherwise. Hence, with $C=|\Lambda_R/\Lambda'| \cdot \delta_{(\mu_2-\mu_1\in
\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R))}$, the sum $(\ast)$ simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
C\,\cdot&\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{-(\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) + (\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
-(\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) + (\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)}
q^{-(\mu_2,\alpha+\sigma)}
f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) \\
&=C\cdot\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{-(\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) + (\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
+ (\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)
-(\mu_2,\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2+\alpha+\sigma)
+ (\mu_2,\bar\nu_1)}
f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1) f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) \\
&=C\cdot q^{-(\mu_2,\nu)}
\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{(\mu_2-\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)}
q^{(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)} f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
q^{(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)} f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2),
\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this with the right hand side of the first equation of gives $$\begin{gathered}
C\cdot q^{-(\mu_2,\nu)}
\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2=\bar\nu}
q^{(\mu_2-\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)}
q^{(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)} f(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
q^{(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)} f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2) \\
= \delta_{\mu_1,\mu_2} q^{-(\mu_2,\nu)+(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu)}
f(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu),
\end{gathered}$$ and with the definition of $g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)=|\Lambda_R/\Lambda'|
q^{(\mu,\nu)} f(\mu,\nu)$ we get the following equation $$\sum_{\bar\nu_1+\bar\nu_2 = \bar\nu} \delta_{(\mu_2-\mu_1\in
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R))} q^{(\mu_2-\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)} g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu_1)
g(\bar\mu_2,\bar\nu_2)
= \delta_{\mu_1,\mu_2} g(\bar\mu_1,\bar\nu).$$ Analogously, we get the equation of the sum $\sum_{\bar\mu_1+\bar\mu_2=\bar\mu}$.
We now consider the equations . Again, $\nu=\bar\nu+\alpha$ as above. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\nu\in\Lambda/\Lambda'} f(\mu,\nu)
&= \sum_{\nu} q^{-(\mu,\nu)+(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)} f(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) \\
&= \sum_{\bar\nu} q^{(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)} f(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)
\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda_R/\Lambda'} q^{-(\mu,\bar\nu+\alpha)} \\
&= \sum_{\bar\nu} q^{-(\mu-\bar\mu,\bar\nu)} f(\bar\mu,\bar\nu)
\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda_R/\Lambda'} q^{-(\mu,\alpha)} \\
&= \delta_{(\mu\in \mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R))} |\Lambda_R/\Lambda'|
\sum_{\bar\nu} q^{-(\mu-\bar\mu,\bar\nu)} f(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) \\
&= \delta_{(\mu\in \mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R))}
\sum_{\bar\nu} q^{-(\mu,\bar\nu)} g(\bar\mu,\bar\nu) \\
&= \delta_{\mu,0}. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
The first type of equations {#group-equations}
===========================
Equations of *group-type* {#sec:Fourier}
-------------------------
\[GroupEquations\] For an abelian group $G$ we define a set of equations for $|G|^2$ variables $g(x,y)$, $x,y\in G$, which we call *group-equations*. $$\begin{aligned}
g(x,y) &= \sum_{y_1+y_2=y} g(x,y_1)g(x,y_2),\label{grpeq01}\\
g(x,y) &= \sum_{x_1+x_2=x} g(x_1,y)g(x_2,y),\label{grpeq02}\\
1 &= \sum_{y\in G} g(0,y),\label{grpeq03}\\
1 &= \sum_{x\in G} g(x,0).\label{grpeq04}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there are $2|G|^2+2$ group-equations in $|G|^2$ variables with values in $\C$.
These equations are the equations in Lemma \[g-eq\] and the following Definition for central weight $\zeta=0$.
\[solutionsgrpeq\] Let $G$ be an abelian group of order $N$, $H_1,H_2$ subgroups with $|H_1|=|H_2|=d$. Let $\omega\colon H_1\times H_2\to\C^{\times}$ be a pairing of groups. Here, the group $G$ is written additively and $\C^{\times}$ multiplicatively, thus we have $\omega(x,y)^d = 1$ for all $x\in H_1,
y\in H_2$. Then the function $$\label{g-solution}
g\colon G\times G\to \C, ~ (x,y) \mapsto \frac 1d
\, \omega(x,y)\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}$$ is a solution of the group-equations - of $G$.
Let $G,H_1,H_2$ and $\omega$ be as in the theorem. We insert the function $g$ as in in the group-equation of $G$. Let $x,y\in G$. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{y_1+y_2=y}g(x,y_1)g(x,y_2)
&=\left(\frac 1d \right)^2\sum_{y_1+y_2=y}
\omega(x,y_1)\omega(x,y_2)
\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y_1\in H_2)}\delta_{(y_2\in H_2)} \\
&=\left(\frac 1d\right)^2 \sum_{y_1+y_2=y}
\omega(x,y_1+y_2)
\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y_1\in H_2)}\delta_{(y_2\in H_2)} \\
&=\left(\frac 1d\right)^2 |H_2|\, \omega(x,y) \delta_{(x\in
H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)} \\
&= g(x,y).
\end{aligned}$$ Analogously for the sum in . We now insert the function $g$ in : $$\sum_{y\in G} g(0,y)
= \frac 1d\sum_{y\in G} \omega(0,y)\delta_{(y\in H_2)}
= \frac 1d \sum_{y\in H_2}1
= 1. \qedhere$$
Are these all solutions of the group-equations for a given group $G$?
Results for all fundamental groups of Lie algebras
--------------------------------------------------
We now treat the cases $G=\Z_N$ for $N\geq 1$ and $G=\Z_2\times\Z_2$, since these are the only examples of fundamental groups $\pi_1$ of root systems.
\[allsolutionsgrpeq\] In the following cases, the functions $g$ of Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\] are the only solutions of the group-equations - of $G$.
(a) For $G=\Z_N$, the cyclic groups of order $N$. Here, we get $\sum_{d\mid N} d$ different solutions.
(b) For $G=\Z_2\times\Z_2$. Here we get $35$ different solutions.
<!-- -->
(a) This is the content of [@LN14], Theorem 5.6.
(b) We have checked this explicitly via [MAPLE]{}.
\[cyclicSolutions\] Let $G=\Z_N$, $N\geq 1$. For any divisor $d$ of $N$ there is a unique subgroup $H=\frac Nd\Z_N\cong \Z_d$ of $G$ of order $d$. By Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\] we have, that for any pairing $\omega\colon H\times
H\to \C^{\times}$, the function $g$ as in is a solution of the group-equations -. We give the solution explicitly. For $H={\langleh\rangle}$, $h\in \frac Nd\Z_n$, we get a pairing $\omega\colon H\times H\to \C^{\times}$ by $\omega(h,h)=\xi$ with $\xi$ a $d$-th root of unity, not necessarily primitive. Thus, the function translates to $$\label{eq:cyclicSolutions}
g\colon G\times G\to\C,~ (x,y)\mapsto \frac 1d \, \xi^{\frac{xy}{(N/d)^2}}
\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid x)}\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid y)}.$$
\[2x2Solutions\] Let $G=\Z_2\times\Z_2={\langlea,b\rangle}$. For $H_1=H_2=G$ there are $2^4=16$ possible parings, since a pairing is given by determining the values of $\omega(x,y)=\pm1$ for $x,y\in\{a,b\}$. In $G$, there are $3$ different subgroups of order $2$, hence there are $9$ possible pairs $(H_1,
H_2)$ of groups $H_i$ of order $2$. For each pair, there are two possible choices for $\omega(x,y)=\pm1$, $x,y$ being the generators of $H_1$, resp. $H_2$. Thus, we get $18$ pairings for subgroups of order $d=2$. For $H_1=H_2=\{0\}$ there is only one pairing, mapping $(0,0)$ to $1$. Thus, we have $35$ pairings in total.
[-.6cm]{}[0cm]{}
$\#$ $H_i\cong$ $H_1$ $H_2$ $\omega$
------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
$16$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ ${\langlea,b\rangle}$ ${\langlea,b\rangle}$ $\omega(x,y)=\pm1$ for $x,y\in\{a,b\}$
$9\times 2$ $\Z_2$ ${\langlex\rangle}$, $x\in\{a,b,a+b\}$ ${\langley\rangle}$, $y\in\{a,b,a+b\}$ $\omega(x,y)=\pm1$
$1$ $\Z_1$ $\{0\}$ $\{0\}$ $\omega(0,0)=1$
Quotient diamonds and the second type of equations {#diamond-equations}
==================================================
Quotient diamonds and equations of *diamond-type*
-------------------------------------------------
\[def:diamond\] Let $G$ and $A$ be abelian groups and $B,C,D$ subgroups of $A$, such that $D=B\cap C$. We call a tuple $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ with injective group morphisms $\varphi_1\colon A/B\rightarrow G^*=\Hom(G,\C^{\times})$ and $\varphi_2\colon A/C\rightarrow G$ a *diamond for $G$*. We will visualize the situation with the following diagram $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.5]
\node (A) at (0,2) {$A$};
\node (B) at (-2,0) {$B$};
\node (C) at (2,0) {$C$};
\node (D) at (0,-2) {$D$};
\draw (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) -- (A);
\node (phi2) at (3.5,1) {$\hookrightarrow G$};
\node (phi1) at (-3.5,1) {$G^*\hookleftarrow$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Let $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ be a diamond for $G$. For $a\in A$ and not in $B\cap C$ we define the following equations for the $|G|^2$ variables $g(x,y)$, $x,y\in G$: $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \sum_{y_1+y_2=y,y_i\in G} \varphi_1(a)(y_1)
g(x,y_1)g(x+\varphi_2(a),y_2),\label{diaeq01}\\
0 &= \sum_{x_1+x_2=x,x_i\in G} \varphi_1(a)(x_1)
g(x_1,y)g(x_2,y+\varphi_2(a)),\label{diaeq02}\\
0 &= \sum_{y\in G} \left(\varphi_1(a)(y)\right)^{-1}
g(\varphi_2(a),y),\label{diaeq03}\\
0 &= \sum_{x\in G} \left(\varphi_1(a)(x)\right)^{-1}
g(x,\varphi_2(a))\label{diaeq04}.
\end{aligned}$$ We call this set of equations *diamond-equations* for the diamond of $G$. Here, $\varphi_i(a)$ denotes the image of $a+B$, resp. $a+C$, for $a\in A$ under $\varphi_1$, resp. $\varphi_2$.
These are up to $(|A|-1)(2|G|^2+2)$ equations in $|G|^2$ variables with values in $\C$.
We show how these equations arise in the situation of Lemma \[g-eq\].
\[diamonds\] Let $G=\pi_1$, the fundamental group of a root system $\Phi$. Assume $\Lambda'$ is a sublattice of $\Lambda_R$, contained in $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$. Let $A=\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'$, $B=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)/\Lambda'$, $C=\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)\cap \Lambda_R/\Lambda'$ and $D=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R/\Lambda'$. Then there exist injections $\varphi_1\colon A/B\to\pi_1^*$ and $\varphi_2\colon
A/C\to\pi_1$, such that $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ is a diamond for $G$. $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\node (A) at (0,2) {$\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'$};
\node (B) at (-2,0) {$\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_W)/\Lambda'$};
\node (C) at (2,0) {$\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_R)\cap\Lambda_R/\Lambda'$};
\node (D) at (0,-2) {$\mathrm{Cent}^{[\ell]}(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R/\Lambda'$};
\draw (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) -- (A);
\node (phi2) at (2.5,1) {$\hookrightarrow \pi_1$};
\node (phi1) at (-2.5,1) {$\pi_1^*\hookleftarrow$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Recall from Lemmas \[CentR\] and \[CentW\], that we have $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)=\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}$ and $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$. We have $A/C\cong
\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}/(\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}\cap\Lambda_R)$ and $\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}\subset\Lambda_W$,
To show the existence of an injective morphism $\varphi_2:A/C\to\pi_1$, we define $\tilde\varphi_2$ on $\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}$ and calculate the kernel. By Definition \[elllattice\], the generators of $\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}$ are $\ell_{[i]}\lambda_i$ for all $i\in I$, with $\ell_{[i]}\df
\ell/\gcd(\ell,d_i)$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\varphi_2 &\colon \Lambda_W^{[\ell]}\to \pi_1,~
\ell_{[i]}\lambda_i \mapsto \ell_{[i]}\lambda_i +\Lambda_R
\end{aligned}$$ gives a group morphism. Since $\Lambda'\subset\Lambda_R\cap\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}=\ker \tilde\varphi_2$, this induces a well-definend map $\varphi_2\colon A/\Lambda'\to\pi_1$. Obviously, the kernel of this map is $\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}\cap\Lambda_R$, hence the desired injection $\varphi_2\colon A/C\to\pi_1$ exists and is given by taking $\lambda+(\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}\cap\Lambda_R)$ modulo $\Lambda_R$, $\lambda\in \Lambda_W^{[\ell]}$.
Now, we show the existence of $\varphi_1$. The map $$f\colon \Cent^q(\Lambda_R)\to\Hom(\Lambda_W,\C^{\times}),~
\lambda\mapsto (\Lambda_W\to\C^{\times},~\eta\mapsto q^{(\lambda,\eta)})$$ is a group morphism. We define $g\colon \Hom(\Lambda_W,\C^{\times}) \to
\Hom(\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R,\C^{\times})$ by $g(\psi)\df \psi\circ p$, where $p$ is the natural projection $\Lambda_W\to\Lambda_W/\Lambda_R$. Thus, the upper right triangle of the following diagram commutes.
$$\begin{tikzcd}
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R) \arrow{rd}[swap]{g\circ f} \arrow{r}{f} \arrow{d}[swap]{}
& \Hom(\Lambda_W,\C^{\times}) \arrow{d}{g} \\
\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)/\Cent^q(\Lambda_W) \arrow{r}[swap]{\varphi_1}
& \Hom(\pi_1,\C^{\times}) \\
\end{tikzcd}$$
There exists $\lambda\in\ker g\circ f$, iff $q^{(\lambda,\bar\eta)}=1$ for all $\bar\eta\in\pi_1$. Since $\lambda\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)$, this is equivalent to $q^{(\lambda,\eta)}=1$ for all $\eta\in\Lambda_W$, hence $\lambda\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$. Thus, we get $\varphi_1$ as desired, which is well defined as map from $\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'\big/\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)/\Lambda'$ since $\Lambda'\subset\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)=\ker f$.
\[necessCrit\] Let $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ be a diamond as in Lemma \[diamonds\]. If $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R/\Lambda'\neq
0$, then none of the solutions of the group-equations - are solutions to the diamond-equations -. Hence under our assumptions \[ass:Lambda’\], the existence of an $R$-matrix requires necessarily the choice $\Lambda'=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R$.
If $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R/\Lambda'\neq 0$, then there exist a root $\zeta\in\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$, not contained in the kernel $\Lambda'$. Thus, there are diamond-equations with $\varphi_1(\zeta)=\one$ and $\varphi_2(\zeta)=0$, i.e. the set of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \sum_{y_1+y_2=y} g(x,y_1)g(x,y_2),\\
0 &= \sum_{x_1+x_2=x} g(x_1,y)g(x_2,y),\\
0 &= \sum_{y\in G} g(0,y),\\
0 &= \sum_{x\in G} g(x,0).
\end{aligned}$$ Since this are group-equations as in Definition \[GroupEquations\], but with left-hand side equal to $0$, solutions of the group-equations does not solve the diamond-equations in this situation.
Before examining in which case a solution of the group-equations as in Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\] is also a solution of the diamond-equations -, we show that it is sufficient to check the diamond-equations and .
\[lem:onlyScalingEq\] Let $G$ be an abelian group of order $N$, $H_1$, $H_2$ subgroups with $|H_1|=|H_2|=d$ and $\omega\colon H_1\times H_2\to \C^{\times}$ a group-pairing, such that $g\colon G\times G\to \C,~ (x,y)\mapsto
1/d~\omega(x,y) \delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}$ is a solution of the group-equations -, as in Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\]. Then the following holds:\
If $g$ is a solution of the diamond-equations , , then $g$ solves the diamond-equations , as well.
Let $g$ be a solution of the group-equations as in Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\]. Assume that $g$ solves and . Let $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$ as in Definition \[def:diamond\] and $0\neq \zeta\in A$ a non-trivial central weight. Then, for $x,y\in G$ we get by inserting $g$ in $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \sum_{y_1+y_2=y} \varphi_1(\zeta)(y_1) g(x,y_1)
g(x+\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2) \\
&= \sum_{y_1+y_2=y} \varphi_1(\zeta)(y_1) \frac1{d^2}
\omega(x,y_1) \omega(x+\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2)
\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y_1\in H_2)}
\delta_{(x+\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)}\delta_{(y_2\in H_2)} \\
&=
\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}
\delta_{(\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)}
\frac1{d^2}
\sum_{\substack{y_1+y_2=y \\ y_1,y_2\in H_2}}
\varphi_1(\zeta)(y_1)
\omega(x,y_1) \omega(x,y_2) \omega(\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2) \\
&=\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}
\delta_{(\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)}
\frac1{d^2} \omega(x,y)
\sum_{\substack{y_1+y_2=y \\ y_1,y_2\in H_2}}
\varphi_1(\zeta)(y_1) \omega(\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2) \\
&=\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}
\delta_{(\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)}
\frac1{d^2} \omega(x,y)
\sum_{y_2\in H_2} \varphi_1(\zeta)(y-y_2)
\omega(\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2) \\
&= \delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}
\delta_{(\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)} \frac1{d^2}
\omega(x,y) \varphi_1(\zeta)(y)
\sum_{y_2\in H_2} \varphi_1(\zeta)(y_2)^{-1}
\omega(\varphi_2(\zeta),y_2).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, this holds for $x=y=0$, and in this case the expression vanishes iff $$\delta_{(\varphi_2(\zeta)\in H_1)} \frac1{d^2}
\sum_{y\in H_2} \varphi_1(\zeta)(y)^{-1}
\omega(\varphi_2(\zeta),y)=0,$$ which is . Analogously, it follows that if $g$ solves it solves .
Cyclic fundamental group $G=\Z_N$
---------------------------------
In the following, $G$ will always be a fundamental group of a simple complex Lie algebra, hence either cyclic or equal to $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ for the case $D_{n}$, $n$ even. In this section, we will derive some results for the cyclic case.
In Example \[cyclicSolutions\] we have given solutions of the group-equations for $G=\Z_{N}$, i.e. for all $d\mid N$ the functions $$g\colon G\times G\to \C,~ (x,y)\mapsto \frac 1d \xi^{\frac{xy}{(N/d)^2}}
\,\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid x)}\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid y)}$$ with $\xi$ a $d$-th root of unity, not necessarily primitive. In the following, we denote by $\xi_d$ the primitive $d$-th root of unity $\exp(2\pi i/d)$.
\[solutionsDiamondsCyclic\] Let $l\geq 2$, $m\in\N$ and $G={\langle\lambda\rangle}\cong\Z_N$. We consider the following diamonds $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ with $A={\langlea\rangle}\cong\Z_N$ and injections $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\tilde\varphi_1&\colon A\to G^*,&~ a&\mapsto (\xi_N^{m})^{(-)},
\quad\text{with }
(\xi_N^m)^{(-)}\colon G\to\C^{\times},~ x\mapsto \xi_N^{mx}, \\
\tilde\varphi_2 &\colon A\to G,&~ a&\mapsto l \lambda,
\end{aligned}$$ with primitive $N$-th root of unity $\xi_N$, $B=\ker\tilde\varphi_1$ and $C=\ker\tilde\varphi_2$ and $D=\{0\}$.
Possible solutions of the group-equations - are given for any choice of integers $1\leq k\leq d$ and $d\mid N$ as in Example \[cyclicSolutions\] by $$\label{gCyclicSolution}
g\colon G\times G\to \C,~ (x,y)\mapsto \frac 1d
\left(\xi_d^k\right)^{\frac{xy}{(N/d)^2}}
\,\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid x)}\delta_{(\frac Nd\mid y)},$$ with primitive $d$-th root of unity $\xi_d=\exp(2\pi i/d)$. These are solutions also to the diamond-equations -, iff $N\mid m,l$ or the following condition hold: $$\gcd(N,dl,kl-\frac Nd m) = 1.$$
For $N\mid m,l$ there is no non-trivial diamond-equation, hence all solutions of the group-equations as in Example \[cyclicSolutions\] are possible. Assume now, that not both $N\mid m$ and $N\mid l$. We insert the function $g$ from in the diamond-equations - and get requirements for $d,k,l$ and $N$. By Lemma \[lem:onlyScalingEq\] it is sufficient to consider only equations and . Since for cyclic $G$ the function $g$ is symmetric we choose equation for the calculation. In the following we omit the $\tilde{}$ on the maps $\tilde\varphi_{1/2}\colon A\to G^*$, resp. $G$. Let $1\leq z<N$, $a\in
A$ and $y\in G$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{y=1}^N
\left(\varphi_1(za)(y)\right)^{-1}
g(\varphi_2(za), y)
&= \frac 1d \sum_{y=1}^N \xi_N^{-zm y}
\left(\xi_d^k\right)^{\frac{zl y}{(N/d)^2}}
\, \delta_{(\frac Nd \mid zl)}\delta_{(\frac Nd \mid y)} \\
&= \frac 1d \sum_{y=1}^N \xi_d^{-\frac{z my}{N/d}} \left(
\xi_d^{\frac{zkl}{(N/d)}} \right)^{\frac{y}{N/d}}
\, \delta_{(\frac Nd \mid zl)}\delta_{(\frac Nd \mid y)}, \\
&= \frac 1d \sum_{y'=1}^d \left(
\xi_d^{-zm+\frac{zkl}{(N/d)}} \right)^{y'}
\, \delta_{(\frac Nd \mid zl)},
\end{aligned}$$ with the substitution $y'=y/(N/d)$. This sum equals $0$ iff $N/d\nmid
zl$ or $d\nmid z(kl/(N/d)-m)$. This is equivalent to $N\nmid zdl$ or $N\nmid z(kl-(N/d)m)$, hence $N\nmid \gcd(zdl,z(kl-(N/d)m))$. Since this condition has to be fulfilled for all $z$ we get that $N\nmid
\gcd(dl, kl-(N/d) m)$, hence $\gcd(N,ld,kl-(N/d)m)=1$.
We spell out the condition for explicit values $m$ and $l$.
\[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\] Let $G=\Z_N={\langle\lambda\rangle}$, $l\geq 2$, $m\in\N$ and diamond $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ as in Lemma \[solutionsDiamondsCyclic\]. Depending on $m,l$ we get the following criteria for solutions of the diamond-equations. Here, we give $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ shortly by the generator of its image.
(I) If $N\mid m$ and $N\mid l$ we have the diamond $(\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_1,$ $1,0)$ and all solutions of the form are also solutions to the diamond-equations -. (Since $B,C= A$, there are no non-trivial diamond-equations.)
(II) If $N\mid m$ and $N\nmid l$ we have the diamond $(\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_{\gcd(l,N)},\Z_1,1,l\lambda)$. In this case the function $g$ as in is a solution to the diamond-equations - if $\gcd(N,dl,kl)=1$.
(III) If $\gcd(m,N)=1$ and $N\nmid l$ we have the diamond $(\Z_N,\Z_N,\Z_1,\Z_{\gcd(l,N)},\Z_1,\xi_N,$ $l\lambda)$. In this case the function $g$ as in is a solution to the diamond-equations - if $$\label{eq:gcd-condi}
\gcd(N,dl,kl-\frac Nd m)=1.$$ In most cases, $N$ is prime or equals $1$, hence we consider the two special cases
(1) If $d=1$, simplifies to $\gcd(N,l,l-Nm)=1$, which is equivalent to $\gcd(N,l)=1$.
(2) If $d=N$, simplifies to $\gcd(N,lN,kl-m)=1$, which is equivalent to $\gcd(N,kl-m)=1$.
Finally, we consider the Lie algebras with cyclic fundamental group in question and determine the values $m$ and $l$ according to the Lie theoretic data and thereby the corresponding diamonds.
\[expl:diamonds\] Let $G=\Z_N$ be the fundamental group of a simple complex Lie algebra $\g$, generated by the fundamental dominant weight $\lambda_n$. Let $\ell\in\N$, $\ell>2$, $q=\exp(2\pi i/\ell)$, $\ell_{[n]}=
\ell/\gcd(\ell,d_n)$, $m_{[n]}\df N(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)/\gcd(\ell,d_n)$ and $(G,A,B,C,D,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ be a diamond as in Lemma \[diamonds\], such that the corresponding diamond-equations - have a solution that is also a solution to the group-equations -. Then, the diamond is $$\label{eq:possibleDiamond}
(G,\Z_N,\Z_{\gcd(m_{[n]},N)},\Z_{\gcd(\ell_{[n]},N)},
\Z_1,\varphi_1,\varphi_2),$$ with injections $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\varphi_1&\colon A\to G^*,&~ \ell_{[n]}\lambda_n&\mapsto
(\xi_N^{m_{[n]}})^{(-)},
\quad\text{with }
(\xi_N^{m_{[n]}})^{(-)}\colon G\to\C^{\times},~ x\mapsto \xi_N^{m_{[n]}x},
\\
\varphi_2 &\colon A\to G,&~ \ell_{[n]}\lambda_n&\mapsto \ell_{[n]}
\lambda_n,
\end{aligned}$$ with primitive $N$-th root of unity $\xi_N=\exp(2\pi i/N)$. The group $A=\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)/\Lambda'=\Lambda_W^{[\ell]}/\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ is generated by $\ell_{[n]}\lambda_n$ and $q^{(\ell_{[n]}\lambda_n,\lambda_n)}=
(\xi_N^N)^{(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)/\gcd(\ell,d_n)}$. Since the order of $\xi_N^{m_{[n]}}$ in $\C^{\times}$ is $N/\gcd(m_{[n]},N)$ and the order of $\ell_{[n]}$ in $\Z_N$ is $N/\gcd(\ell_{[n]},N)$, the injections $\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ determine the diamond .
In the following table, we give the values $\ell_{[n]}$ and $m_{[n]}$ for all root systems of simple Lie algebras with cyclic fundamental group. $$\label{mN}
\renewcommand{{1.1}}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\multirow{2}{*}{$\g$}}
&{\multirow{2}{*}{$A_{n\geq1}$}} &{\multirow{2}{*}{$B_{n\geq2}$}}
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\multirow{2}{*}{$C_{n\geq3}$}}} &$D_{n\geq5}$
&{\multirow{2}{*}{$E_6$}} &{\multirow{2}{*}{$E_7$}} &{\multirow{2}{*}{$E_8$}}
&{\multirow{2}{*}{$F_4$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{{\multirow{2}{*}{$G_2$}}} \\
& & &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{} &$n$ odd & & & & &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{}
\\\hline
$\pi_1$ & $\Z_{n+1}$ &$\Z_2$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\Z_2$} &$\Z_4$
&$\Z_3$ &$\Z_2$ &$\Z_1$ &$\Z_1$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\Z_1$}
\\\hline
$N$ & $n+1$ &$2$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2$} &$4$ &$3$ &$2$ &$1$
&$1$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1$} \\\hline \hline
$d_n$ & $1$ & $1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$2$} & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ &
$1$ & $1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$3$} \\\hline
$\ell$ & all & all & $2\nmid\ell$ & $2\mid\ell$ & all & all & all & all
& all & $3\nmid\ell$ & $3\mid\ell$ \\\hline
$\gcd(\ell,d_n)$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ &
$1$ & $1$ & $3$ \\\hline
$(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)$ & $\frac n{n+1}$ & $\frac n2$ &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$n$} & $\frac n4$ & $\frac 43$ & $\frac
32$ & $2$ & $1$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{6} \\\hline\hline
$\ell_{[n]}$ & $\ell$ & $\ell$ & $\ell$ & $\ell/2$ & $\ell$ & $\ell$
& $\ell$ & $\ell$ & $\ell$ & $\ell$ & $\ell/3$ \\\hline
$m_{[n]}$ & $n$ & $n$ & $2n$ & $n$
& $n$ & $4$ & $3$ & $2$ & $1$ & $6$ & $2$ \\ \hline\hline
cases & (III) & (I)-(III) & (II) & (I)-(III) & (III) & (III) & (III) & (I)
& (I) & (I) & (I) \\\hline
\end{tabular}$$ In the last row we indicate which cases in Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\] apply. This will guide the proof of Theorem \[Thm:solutions\]. Note that case (II) only appears for $B_n$, $n$ even and $\ell$ odd, and for $C_n$, even $n$ and $\ell\equiv2\mod4$ or odd $\ell$.
Example: $B_2$
--------------
For $\g$ with root system $B_2$ we have $\pi_1=\Z_2$. There is one long root, $\alpha_1$, and one short root, $\alpha_2$, hence $d_1=2$ and $d_2=1$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2. Here, $\lambda_1$ is a root and $\lambda_2$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_2$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 \\
-2& 2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \frac12 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
Thus, $(\lambda_2,\lambda_2)=1$. The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$. Since $(\lambda_2,\lambda_2)=1$, we have $B=\ell\Lambda_W$. (Since $(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=n/2$, in the general case $B_n$, the group $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ depends on $n$: for even $n$ we have $B=\ell\Lambda_W$, and $B=\ell\Lambda_R$ for odd $n$.)
(ii) For even $\ell$ we have $A=C=B= \ell{\langle\frac 12\lambda_1,
\lambda_2\rangle}$ and $D=
\ell{\langle\frac12\alpha_1,\alpha_2\rangle}$. (Again, $B$ depends on $n$, hence we have $B={\langle\frac12\lambda_1,\ldots,\frac12\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle}$ if $n$ is even and $B={\langle\frac12\lambda_1,\ldots,\frac12\lambda_{n-1},2\lambda_n\rangle}$ if $n$ is odd.)
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ since by the necessary criterion of Lemma \[necessCrit\], this is the only case where possible solutions exist. We calculate Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$ as well and compare it with $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n=2=N$. Thus, for $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,\lambda_2)$. By Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\] (II), one has to check for which $d,k$ it is $\gcd(2,d\ell,k\ell)=1$. This gives the 2 solutions: $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(d,k)=(2,1)$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv 2\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1, \ldots \frac12 \alpha_{n-1}, \alpha_n\rangle}
\neq\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=N$ as above. Here, we have $\gcd(\ell,N)=N=2$, thus for $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ we get the quotient diamond $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,1,0)$. Thus, all 3 solutions of the group-equations are solutions to the diamond-equations as well by \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\] (I).
(iii) For $\ell\equiv 0\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1, \ldots \frac12 \alpha_{n-1}, \alpha_n\rangle}
=2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. Thus in this case the quotient diamond as in (ii.a) is the same for Lusztig’s kernel, namely $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,1,$ $0)$ and again all 3 solutions of the group-equations are solutions to the diamond-equations as well.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\node (A) at (0,2) {$\Z_2$};
\node (B) at (-2,0) {$\Z_2$};
\node (C) at (2,0) {$\Z_1$};
\node (D) at (0,-2) {$\Z_1$};
\draw (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) -- (A);
\node (phi2) at (3.5,1) {$\mapsto \lambda_2$};
\node (phi1) at (-3.5,1) {$1\mapsfrom$};
\node (kom) at (0,-4) {quotient diamond in case (i)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\node (A) at (0,2) {$\Z_2$};
\node (B) at (-2,0) {$\Z_2$};
\node (C) at (2,0) {$\Z_2$};
\node (D) at (0,-2) {$\Z_1$};
\draw (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) -- (A);
\node (phi2) at (3.5,1) {$\mapsto 0$};
\node (phi1) at (-3.5,1) {$1\mapsfrom$};
\node (kom) at (0,-4) {quotient diamond in cases (ii.a), (ii.b)};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Proof of Theorem A {#solutions}
==================
We treat the root systems case by case and determine the solutions of diamond equations in Section \[diamond-equations\] which are of the form $$g\colon G\times G\to \C,~ (x,y)\mapsto
\frac 1d\omega(x,y)\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}$$ with subgroups $H_1,H_2$ of $G=\pi_1$ as in Theorem \[solutionsgrpeq\].\
For this, we first determine the lattices $A=\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)=\Lambda_W^{[\ell]},~
B=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W),~ C=\Cent^q(\Lambda_R)\cap\Lambda_R,~
D=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)\cap\Lambda_R=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$, depending on $\ell$. For the Lie algebras with cyclic fundamental group (all but for root system $D_n$ with even $n$), we then determine the values $m_{[n]}$ and $\ell_{[n]}$, depending on $\ell$, $n$ and the order of $\pi_1$, and thereby the quotient diamonds and which solutions of the group equations are solutions to the corresponding diamond equations. In these cases, the $\omega$-part of the solutions to the group equations are of the form $$\omega\colon H\times H\to \C^{\times},~ (x,y)\mapsto
\left(\xi_d^k\right)^{\frac{xy}{(N/d)^2}}$$ for subgroup $H=\frac Nd \Z_{N}$ of $\pi_1$ of order $d$. We give the solutions by pairs $(d,k)$, which we determine by applying Lemma \[solutionsDiamondsCyclic\] and Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. An overview of the possible cases gives Example \[expl:diamonds\].\
For $D_n$ with even $n$ and fundamental group $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ we also determine all quotient diamonds (depending on $\ell$) and check which solutions of the group equations solve the diamond equations in a rather case by case calculation.
(1) For $\g$ with root system $A_n$, $n\geq 1$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_{n+1}$ for all $n$. The simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n}$ and $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and $\lambda_n$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_{n+1}$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$.
$$\begin{gathered}
\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & -1 & 0 & .& .& .& .&0& \\
-1& 2 &-1 & 0& .& .& .&0& \\
0 & -1 & 2 &-1& 0& .& .&0& \\
. & . & . & .& .& .& .&.& \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0& .& .&-1& 2
\end{pmatrix} \\
\id_W^R=a_{ij} \text{ with }
a_{ij} = \begin{cases}
\frac1{n+1} i(n-j+1), & \text{if } i\leq j,\\
\frac1{n+1} j(n-i+1), & \text{if } i> j.
\end{cases}
\end{gathered}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For even $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$, $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$ and $C=\ell/\gcd(n+1,\ell)\Lambda_W$.
(ii) For odd $\ell$: the same lattices as in (i).
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_{n+1},\Z_{n+1},\Z_1,\Z_{\gcd(\ell,n+1)},\Z_1,\xi_{n+1},
\ell\lambda_n)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get solutions $(d,k)$ iff $\gcd(n+1,d\ell,k\ell-\frac{n+1}d n)=1$.
(ii) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus, the quotient diamonds and solutions are as in (i).
(2) For $\g$ with root system $B_n$, $n\geq 2$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_2$ for all $n$. The long simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}$ and the short simple root $\alpha_n$, hence $d_i=2$ for $1\leq i\leq
n-1$ and $d_n=1$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2. Here, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{n-1}$ are roots and $\lambda_n$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_2$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0& 0& .& & & 0 \\
-2& 4 &-2& 0& .& & & 0 \\
.& .& .& .& .&.&.&.& \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .&-2&4&-2 \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .& 0&-2&2
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & . & . & 1 & \frac 12 \\
1 & 2 & . & . & 2 & 1 \\
. & . & . & . & . & . \\
1 & 2 & 3 & . & n-1 & \frac {n-1}2 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & . & n-1 & \frac n2
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$. Since $(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=n/2$, the group $\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ depends on $n$. It is $B=\ell\Lambda_W$ for even $n$ and $B=\ell\Lambda_R$ for odd $n$.
(ii) For even $\ell$ we have $A=C=
\ell{\langle\frac12\lambda_1,\ldots,\frac12\lambda_{n-1}, \lambda_n\rangle}$ and $D=\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1,\dots,$
$\frac12\alpha_{n-1},\alpha_n\rangle}$. Again, $B$ depends on $n$, and we have $B=\ell{\langle\frac12\lambda_1,\dots,\frac12\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle}$ for even $n$ and $B=\ell{\langle\frac12\lambda_1,\dots,\frac12\lambda_{n-1},2\lambda_n\rangle}$ for odd $n$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. In this case, the quotient diamond is given by either $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,\lambda_n)$ for even $n$, or by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,-1,\lambda_n)$ for odd $n$. Thus we are either in case (II), or in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. In the first case (even $n$) we get solutions by $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,1)$. For odd $n$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv 2\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1, \ldots ,\frac12 \alpha_{n-1}, \alpha_n\rangle}
\neq\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. The quotient diamond is given by either $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,1,0)$ for even $n$, or by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_2,\Z_1,-1,0)$ for odd $n$. Thus we are in either in case (I) or in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. In the first case (even $n$) we get all possible 3 solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$, $(2,1)$ and $(2,1)$. For odd $n$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(2,1)$ and $(2,2)$.
(iii) For $\ell\equiv 0\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1, \ldots \frac12 \alpha_{n-1}, \alpha_n\rangle}
=2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus the quotient diamonds and solutions are as in (ii).
(3) For $\g$ with root system $C_n$, $n\geq 3$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_2$ for all $n$. The short simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}$ and the long simple root $\alpha_n$, hence $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq
n-1$ and $d_n=2$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and $\lambda_n$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_2$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & -1 & 0& 0& .& & & 0 \\
-1& 2 &-1& 0& .& & & 0 \\
.& .& .& .& .&.&.&.& \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .&-1&2&-2 \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .& 0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & . & . & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & . & . & 2 & 2 \\
. & . & . & . & . & . \\
1 & 2 & . & . & n-1 & n-1 \\
\frac12 & 1 & . & . & \frac{n-1}2 & \frac n2
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=B=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv 2 \mod 4$ we have $A=
\ell{\langle\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{n-1}, \frac 12\lambda_n\rangle}$ and $C=D=\ell\Lambda_W$. Since $(\lambda_n,\lambda_n)=n$, $B=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ depends on $n$. For odd $n$ it equals $\ell\Lambda_W$ and for even $n$ it is equal to $A$.
(iii) For $\ell\equiv 0 \mod 4$ we have $A=C=
\ell{\langle\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{n-1},\frac 12\lambda_n\rangle}$ and $D=\ell\Lambda_W$. Here again, $B=\Cent^q(\Lambda_W)$ depends on $n$. For odd $n$ it equals $\ell\Lambda_W$ and for even $n$ it is equal to $A$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=2n$. In this case, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,\lambda_n)$. Thus we are in case (II) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\], hence the 2 solutions are given by $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,1)$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv 2\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\alpha_1, \ldots ,\alpha_{n-1},\frac12 \alpha_n\rangle}
\neq\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell/2$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. The quotient diamond is given by either $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,\lambda_n)$ for even $n$, or by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,-1,\lambda_n)$ for odd $n$. Thus we are in either in case (II) or in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. In the first case (even $n$) we get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,1)$. For odd $n$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$.
(iii) For $\ell\equiv 0\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=
\ell{\langle\frac12 \alpha_1, \ldots \frac12 \alpha_{n-1}, \alpha_n\rangle}
=2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell/2$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. The quotient diamond is given by either $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,1,0)$ for even $n$, or by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_2,\Z_1,-1,0)$ for odd $n$. Thus we are in either in case (I) or in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. In the first case (even $n$) we get all 3 possible solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$, $(2,1)$ and $(2,2)$. For odd $n$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(2,1)$ and $(2,2)$.
(4) \[D2k\] For $\g$ with root system $D_n$, $n\geq 4$ even, we have $\pi_1=\Z_2\times \Z_2$ for all $n$. The simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n}$ and $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and $\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n$ are the generators of the fundamental group $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ and $\lambda_{n-1}+\lambda_n$ is the other element of order $2$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$, and since $d_i=1$ for all $i$, also the values $(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)$ for $1\leq i,j\leq n$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & -1 & 0& 0& .& & & & 0 \\
-1& 2 &-1& 0& .& & .& . & . \\
.& . & .& .& .& .& .& . & . \\
.& .& .& .& .& 2&-1& 0 & 0 \\
.& .& .& .& .&-1& 2&-1 &-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .& 0&-1& 2 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& & .& 0&-1& 0 &2
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & . & 1 & \frac12 & \frac12 \\
1 & 2 & 2 & . & 2 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & . & 3 & \frac32 & \frac32 \\
. & . & . & . & . & . & . \\
1 & 2 & 3 & . & n-2 & \frac{n-2}2 & \frac{n-2}2 \\
\frac12 & 1 &\frac32 & . & \frac{n-2}2 & \frac n4 & \frac{n-2}4 \\
\frac12 & 1 &\frac32 & . & \frac{n-2}2 & \frac{n-2}4 & \frac n4
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For even $\ell$ we have $A=C=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations by a case by case calculation.
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2\times\Z_2,\Z_2\times\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ with injections $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1 &\colon \ell{\langle\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle} \to \pi_1^*, ~
\ell\lambda_{n-1}\mapsto q^{\ell(\lambda_{n-1},-)},
~\ell\lambda_{n}\mapsto q^{\ell(\lambda_{n},-)}, \\
\varphi_2 &\colon \ell{\langle\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\rangle} \to \pi_1, ~
\ell\lambda_{n-1}\mapsto \lambda_{n-1},~ \ell\lambda_{n}\mapsto
\lambda_{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the following, we will write $a\df\lambda_{n-1}$, $b\df\lambda_n$ and $c\df\lambda_{n-1}+\lambda_n$ for the 3 elements of order 2 of $\pi_1$. Since $(\lambda_j,\lambda_j)=n/4$ for $j\in\{n-1,n\}$, and $(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)=(n-2)/4$ for $i\neq j$, $i,j\in\{n-1,n\}$ we get\
$\varphi_1$ $0$ $a$ $b$ $c$ $n$
------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------------
$n\equiv0\mod 4$
$n\equiv2\mod 4$
1 -1 -1 $n\equiv0\mod4$
-1 1 -1 $n\equiv2\mod 4$
-1 1 -1 $n\equiv0\mod4$
1 -1 -1 $n\equiv2\mod 4$
$n\equiv0\mod4$
$n\equiv2\mod 4$
\
Since it suffices to consider the diamond equations and by Lemma \[lem:onlyScalingEq\], we check which function $$g\colon G\times G\to \C, ~ (x,y) \mapsto \frac 1d
\, \omega(x,y)\delta_{(x\in H_1)}\delta_{(y\in H_2)}$$ with subgroups $H_i$ of $G=\Z_2\times\Z_2$ of order $d$ and a pairing $\omega$ as in Example \[2x2Solutions\] is a solution to these equations. We get the following system of equations for $g$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn}
\begin{split}
1 &= g(0,0) + g(a,0) + g(b,0) + g(c,0) \\
1 &= g(0,0) + g(0,a) + g(0,b) + g(0,c) \\
0 &= g(0,a) \pm g(a,a) \mp g(b,a) - g(c,a) \\
0 &= g(a,0) \pm g(a,a) \mp g(a,b) - g(a,c) \\
0 &= g(0,b) \mp g(a,b) \pm g(b,b) - g(c,b) \\
0 &= g(b,0) \mp g(b,a) \pm g(b,b) - g(b,c) \\
0 &= g(0,c) - g(a,c) - g(b,c) + g(c,c) \\
0 &= g(c,0) - g(c,a) - g(c,b) + g(c,c)
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where the $\pm,\mp$ possibilities depend on wether $\ell\equiv 0$ or $2\mod 4$. It is easy to see that the trivial solution on $H_1=H_2=\Z_1$ is a solution. For $H_i\cong\Z_2$ the solution has one of the following two structures. For symmetric solutions $H_1=H_2={\langle\lambda\rangle}$ we get $\omega(\lambda,\lambda)=-1$. If $H_1={\langle\lambda\rangle}\neq{\langle\lambda'\rangle}=H_2$ we get $\omega(\lambda,\lambda')=1$. This give all possible 9 solutions with $H_i\cong\Z_2$. Finally, we check which functions on $G=\Z_2\times\Z_2$ are solutions to the diamond equations. We get 4 symmetric solutions and 2 non-symmetric solutions, which are given by their values $(\omega(x,y))_{x,y\in\{\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n\}}$ on generator pairs: $$\qquad
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix},~
\begin{pmatrix}-1 &-1 \\-1 &-1 \end{pmatrix},~
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 &-1 \end{pmatrix},~
\begin{pmatrix}-1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix},~
\begin{pmatrix}-1 & 1 \\-1 &-1 \end{pmatrix},~
\begin{pmatrix}-1 &-1 \\ 1 &-1 \end{pmatrix}.$$
(ii) For even $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R =2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. Thus the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2\times\Z_2,\Z_2\times\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_2\times\Z_2,\Z_1,\varphi_1,0)$ and the injection $\varphi_2$ is trivial. We get an analogue block of equations as , but without non-zero “shift” $\varphi_2(x)$, $x\in A$. We can add appropriate equations and get the $1=4g(0,0)$, hence only pairings of $H_1=H_2=\pi_1$ are solutions. It is now easy to check, that all 16 possible parings on $\pi_1\times \pi_1$ are solutions to the diamond equations.
(5) For $\g$ with root system $D_n$, $n\geq 5$ odd, we have $\pi_1=\Z_4$ for all $n$. The root and weight data are as for even $n$ in . The weight $\lambda_{n}$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_2$.
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv 2 \mod 4$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$, $C=
\ell{\langle\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{n-2}, 2\lambda_{n-1},
2\lambda_n\rangle}$ and $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(iii) For $\ell\equiv 0 \mod 4$ we have $A=C=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For odd $\ell$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_4,\Z_4,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\xi_4, \lambda_n)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$, $(2,1)$, $(4,2)$ and $(4,4)$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv2\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R= 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_4,\Z_4,\Z_1,\Z_2,\Z_1,\xi_4, 2\lambda_n)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get all 4 solutions $(d,k)=(4,1)$, $(4,2)$, $(4,3)$ and $(4,4)$ on $H=\Z_4$.
(iii) For $\ell\equiv0\mod 4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R= 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=n$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_4,\Z_4,\Z_1,\Z_4,\Z_1,\xi_4, 0)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get the same 4 solutions as in (ii).
(6) For $\g$ with root system $E_6$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_3$. The simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{6}$ and $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq 6$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde
C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and $\lambda_6$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_3$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_6\}$, and since $d_i=1$ for all $i$, also the values $(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)$ for $1\leq i,j\leq 6$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2& 0&-1& 0& 0& 0 \\
0& 2& 0&-1& 0& 0 \\
-1& 0& 2&-1& 0& 0 \\
0&-1&-1& 2&-1& 0 \\
0& 0& 0&-1& 2&-1 \\
0& 0& 0& 0&-1& 2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac43 &1 &\frac53 &2 &\frac43 &\frac23 \\
1 &2 &2 &3 &2 &1 \\
\frac53 &2 &\frac{10}3 &4 &\frac83 &\frac43 \\
2 &3 &4 &6 &4 &2 \\
\frac43 &2 &\frac83 &4 &\frac{10}3 &\frac53 \\
\frac23 &1 &\frac43 &2 &\frac53 &\frac43
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For $3\nmid\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For $3\mid\ell$ we have $A=C=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For $3\nmid \ell$ and $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq 2\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=4$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_3,\Z_3,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\xi_3, \lambda_6)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. Since $\ell\equiv 2\mod 3$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$, $(3,1)$ and $(3,3)$.
(ii) For $3\nmid \ell$ and $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=4$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_3,\Z_3,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\xi_3, \lambda_6)$, and we are again in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. Since $\ell\equiv 1\mod 3$ we get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$, $(3,2)$ and $(3,3)$.
(iii) For $3\mid \ell$ and $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq 2\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=4$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_3,\Z_3,\Z_1,\Z_3,\Z_1,\xi_3,0)$, hence we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get all 3 solutions $(d,k)=(3,1)$, $(3,2)$ and $(3,3)$ on $\Z_3$.
(iv) For $3\mid \ell$ and $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=4$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_3,\Z_3,\Z_1,\Z_3,\Z_1,\xi_3,0)$, and we the same solutions as in (ii.a).
(7) For $\g$ with root system $E_7$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_2$. The simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{7}$ and $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq 7$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde
C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and $\lambda_7$ is the generator of the fundamental group $\Z_2$. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_7\}$, and since $d_i=1$ for all $i$, also the values $(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)$ for $1\leq i,j\leq 7$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2& 0&-1& 0& 0& 0 & 0 \\
0& 2& 0&-1& 0& 0 & 0 \\
-1& 0& 2&-1& 0& 0 & 0 \\
0&-1&-1& 2&-1& 0 & 0 \\
0& 0& 0&-1& 2&-1 & 0 \\
0& 0& 0& 0&-1& 2 &-1 \\
0& 0& 0& 0& 0&-1 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 &2 &3 &4 &3 &2 &1 \\
2 &\frac72 &4 &6 &\frac92 &3 &\frac32 \\
3 &4 &6 &8 &6 &4 &2 \\
4 &6 &8 &12&9 &6 &3 \\
3 &\frac92 &6 &9 &\frac{15}2 &5 &\frac52 \\
2 &3 &4 &6 &5 &4 &2 \\
1 &\frac32 &2 &3 &\frac52 &2 &\frac32 \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For even $\ell$ we have $A=C=\ell\Lambda_W$ and $B=D=\ell\Lambda_R$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=3$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\xi_2, \lambda_7)$ and we are in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get solutions $(d,k)=(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$.
(ii) For $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=3$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_2,\Z_2,\Z_1,\Z_2,\Z_1,\xi_2,0)$ and we are again in case (III) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get all 2 solutions $(d,k)=(2,1)$ and $(2,2)$ on $\Z_2$.
(8) For $\g$ with root system $E_8$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_1$. The simple roots are $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{8}$ and $d_i=1$ for $1\leq i\leq 8$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde
C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and are roots. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_8\}$, and since $d_i=1$ for all $i$, also the values $(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)$ for $1\leq i,j\leq 8$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2& 0&-1& 0& 0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 2& 0&-1& 0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1& 0& 2&-1& 0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0&-1&-1& 2&-1& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0& 0&-1& 2&-1 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0& 0& 0&-1& 2 &-1 & 0\\
0& 0& 0& 0& 0&-1 & 2 &-1\\
0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0 &-1 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & 5 & 7 &10 & 8 & 6 & 4 & 2 \\
5 & 8 &10 &15 &12 & 9 & 6 & 3 \\
7 &10 &14 &20 &16 &12 & 8 & 4 \\
10 &15 &20 &30 &24 &18 &12 & 6 \\
8 &12 &16 &24 &20 &15 &10 & 5 \\
6 & 9 &12 &18 &15 &12 & 8 & 4 \\
4 & 6 & 8 &12 &10 & 8 & 6 & 3 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$ we have $A=B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_W=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For even $\ell$: same as in (i).
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=2$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,0)$ and we are in case (I) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get the only solution $(d,k)=(1,1)$.
(ii) For $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=2$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i).
(9) For $\g$ with root system $F_4$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_1$. The simple roots $\alpha_1,\alpha_{2}$ are long, $\alpha_3,\alpha_4$ are short, hence $d_1=d_2=2$ and $d_3=d_4=1$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde
C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and are roots. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_4\}$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2& 0& 0\\
-2& 4&-2& 0\\
0&-2& 2&-1\\
0& 0&-1& 2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & 6 & 4 & 2 \\
6 &12 & 8 & 4 \\
4 & 8 & 6 & 3 \\
2 & 4 & 3 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For odd $\ell$, we have $A=B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_W=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For even $\ell$, we have $A=B=C=D=\ell{\langle\frac12
\lambda_1,\frac12\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4\rangle}$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq
2\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=1$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,0)$ and we are in case (I) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get the only solution $(d,k)=(1,1)$.
(ii) For $\ell\equiv2\mod4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell{\langle\frac12\alpha_1,
\frac12\alpha_2,\alpha_3, \alpha_4\rangle} \neq
\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=1$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i).
(iii) For $\ell\equiv0\mod4$ it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell{\langle\frac12\alpha_1,
\frac12\alpha_2,\alpha_3, \alpha_4\rangle}=2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=1$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i).
(10) For $\g$ with root system $G_2$, we have $\pi_1=\Z_1$. The simple root $\alpha_1$ is short and $\alpha_2$ is long, hence $d_1=1$ and $d_2=3$. The symmetrized Cartan matrix $\tilde
C$ is given below. The fundamental dominant weights $\lambda_i$ are given as in [@Hum72], Section 13.2, and are roots. The matrix $\id_W^R$ gives the coefficients of the fundamental dominant weights in the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_2\}$.
$$\tilde C=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&-3\\
-3& 6
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\id_W^R=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 3 \\
1 & 2
\end{pmatrix}$$
The lattice diamonds, depending on $\ell$, are:
(i) For $3\nmid\ell$, we have $A=B=C=D=\ell\Lambda_W=\ell\Lambda_R$.
(ii) For $3\mid\ell$, we have $A=B=C=D=\ell{\langle\lambda_1,\frac13
\lambda_2\rangle}$.
We calculate the quotient diamonds for kernel $\Lambda'=\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}$ and compare it with Lusztig’s kernel $2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$. We then determine the solutions of the corresponding diamond-equations according to Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\].
(i) For $3\nmid\ell$ and $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R \neq 2\ell\Lambda_R =
2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=6$. Thus, the quotient diamond is given by $(\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,\Z_1,1,0)$ and we are in case (I) of Example \[expl:DiamondSolutionsCyclci\]. We get the only solution $(d,k)=(1,1)$.
(ii) For $3\nmid\ell$ and $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell\Lambda_R = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell$ and $m_{[n]}=6$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i.a).
(iii) For $3\mid\ell$ and $\ell$ odd it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell{\langle\alpha_1,
\frac13\alpha_2\rangle} \neq 2\ell{\langle\alpha_1,
\frac13\alpha_2\rangle} = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell/3$ and $m_{[n]}=2$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i.a).
(iv) For $3\mid\ell$ and $\ell$ even it is $\Lambda_R^{[\ell]}=\ell{\langle\alpha_1,
\frac13\alpha_2\rangle} = 2\Lambda_R^{(\ell)}$, $\ell_{[n]}=\ell/3$ and $m_{[n]}=2$. We get the same diamond and solution as in (i.a).
[12345]{} I. Angiono and H. Yamane. *The R-matrix of quantum doubles of Nichols algebras of diagonal type*. Preprint (2013), [`arXiv:1304.5752`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5752). B. Feigin, A. Gainutdinov, A. Semikhatov, I. Tipunin. *Modular Group Representations and Fusion in Logarithmic Conformal Field Theories and in the Quantum Group Center*. Commun. Math. Ohys, 265, 47–93 (2006).
S. Gelaki and S. Westreich. *On the Quasitriangularity of $U_q(\Sl_n)'$*. J. Amer. Math. Soc., [**57**]{}(1), 105–125 (1998).
J. E. Humphreys. . Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 9, Springer, New York, 1972.
C. Kassel. . Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 155, Springer, New York, 1995.
T. Kerler and V.V. Lyubashenko. *Non-Semisimple Topological Qunatum Field Theories for $3$-Manifolds with Corners*. Lecture Note in Mathematics, Vol. 1765, Springer, Berling, 2001.
R. Kashaev and N. Reshetikhin. *Invariants of links with flat connections in their complements. II. Holonomy R-matrices related to quantized universal enveloping algebras at roots of 1*. Preprint (2002), [`arXiv:0202212`](http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0202212.pdf).
S. [Lentner]{}. *A Frobenius homomorphism for Lusztig’s quantum groups over arbitrary roots of unity*. Preprint (2014), [`arXiv:1406.0865`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0865).
S. Lentner and D. Nett. *A theorem on roots of unity and a combinatorial principle*. Preprint (2014), [`arXiv:1409.5822`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5822).
G. Lusztig. *Quantum groups at roots of 1*. Geometriae Dedicata, [**35**]{}(1), 89–113, 1990.
G. Lusztig. . Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 110, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1993.
E. M[ü]{}ller. . Dissertation, LMU, München, 1998, [`http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/ ~algebra/Dissertationen/Mueller/doktor.ps`](http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~algebra/Dissertationen/Mueller/doktor.ps)
E. M[ü]{}ller. *Some topics on [F]{}robenius–[L]{}usztig kernels [I]{}, [II]{}*. J. Algebra, [**206**]{}(2), 624–681 (1998). N. Reshetikhin. *Quasitriangularity of quantum groups at roots of 1*. Commun. Math. Phys., **170**(1), 79–99 (1995).
M. Rosso. *Quantum Groups at a Root of 1 and Tangle Invariants*. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, [**07**]{}(20n21), 3715–3726 (1993).
N. Reshetikhin and V.G. Turaev. *Ribbon graphs and their invariants of tangles derived from quantum groups*. Commun. Math. Phys., [**127**]{}, 1–26 (1990).
N. Reshetikhin and V.G. Turaev. *Invariants of $3$-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups*. Invent. Math., [**103**]{}, 547–597 (1991).
T. Tanisaki. *Killing forms, Harish-Chandra homomorphisms and universal $R$-matrices for quantum algebras*. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, [**07**]{}(supp01b), 941–962 (1992).
V.G. Turaev. *Quantum Invariants of Knots and $3$-Manifolds*. Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 18, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1994.
*Kirby elements and quantum invariants*. Proc. London Math. Soc. [**93**]{}(2), 474–514 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Alonso, R.'
- 'Rappaport, S.'
- 'Deeg, H.J.'
- 'Palle, E.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'Received 14 March 2016 / Accepted 29 March 2016'
title: 'Gray transits of WD 1145+017 over the visible band[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The reported discovery of disintegrating planetesimals orbiting around the white dwarf [@Vanderburg:2015aa] adds to the growing evidence that a significant amount of white dwarfs (WDs) are accreting material orbiting within their tidal disruption radius. Over the last couple of decades, it has been established that around 25-50% of WDs show metal lines in their spectra (@Zuckerman:2010aa [@Koester:2014ab]) and at least 4% are known to host dusty disks [@Rocchetto:2015aa]. [@Bear:2015aa] proposed a mechanism by which sub-Earth daughter planets at a few solar radii from the WD might form, requiring planetesimals with sizes of around 100 km. The putative disintegrating planetesimals orbiting around are thus excellent laboratories to test this and other theories.
The Kepler K2 mission [@Howell:2014aa] light curve of showed transits of variable depth with several distinct periods in the range of 4.5 – 5 h [@Vanderburg:2015aa]. Subsequent ground-based follow up (@Croll:2015aa [@Gansicke:2016aa; @Rappaport:2016aa]) revealed a complicated scenario in which eclipses with depths of up to 60% were detected with durations ranging from $\sim$3 minutes to 12 minutes. The winter 2015 observing campaigns showed an increased activity in with more frequent and deeper eclipses.
Multiwavelength observations of transiting dust clouds have been used to constrain the particle sizes and compositions of material evaporating from the disintegrating planet candidates KIC12557548b (@Rappaport:2012aa [@Croll:2014aa; @Bochinski:2015aa]) and K2-22b [@Sanchis-Ojeda:2015aa]. Such constraints on the dust can be stronger when the depth of the transit is higher, owing to either larger clouds or smaller host stars. In the case of disintegrating planets, the hosts are main-sequence stars and the transiting clouds occult up to 1.5% of the flux in the most favorable events. For , the very deep transits and their short duration, which helps to minimize the impact of instrumental systematics, allow for the most constraining determination to date of the hypothesized evaporating planetary material. Prior to the work presented here, two-band simultaneous photometry served to place 2-$\sigma$ limits on the average sizes of dust grains in WD 1145+017 of $\sim$0.15$\,\mu$m or larger, or $\sim$0.06$\,\mu$m or smaller [@Croll:2015aa].
In this Letter, we report the first high-cadence spectrophotometric observations of , with grism dispersed spectra from 0.5 to 0.9 $\mu$m on two different nights. The wide-band combined light curves show a complex flux variability, as reported in recent works (@Gansicke:2016aa [@Rappaport:2016aa]), and a remarkable nonchromaticity that we use to place stronger constraints on the sizes and compositions of the occulting material. The constraints on the Ångstr[öm]{} exponents are a factor $\sim$20 better than in previous studies of either WD 1145+017 or the known disintegrating planets.
Observations and data analysis {#sec:obs}
==============================
{width="\textwidth"}
We performed an intensive follow up of using the CAMELOT camera mounted at the IAC80 telescope during January 2016. The exposure times were fixed to 60 s, and no filter was used in order to collect a maximum number of photons. A deep eclipse ($\sim$40% in flux) was observed on the night of 2016 January 16, and it was used to trigger observations at the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) two nights later. We observed using the OSIRIS instrument [@Sanchez:2012aa] with the R300R grism, and we placed a nearby reference star (UCAC4 458-051099, at a distance of $\sim$1.9) in the 12-wide slit to perform differential spectrophotometry. The exposure time was fixed to 50 s, and the readout time was $\sim$24 s using the 200 kHz readout speed and a 2$\times$2 binning.
Two sequences were obtained from 04:53 UT to 05:41 UT on the night of 2016 January 18, and a longer interval from 05:12 UT to 07:14 UT on the night of 2016 January 20. The last data points of the second sequence were taken during twilight, which occurred at 06:44 UT. The data were reduced using custom IDL routines. The images were calibrated using standard procedures, and the spectra of the target and the comparison star were extracted using a fixed aperture of 12 pixels centered on the spectral traces that were determined via Gaussian fits in the spatial direction. The zero order spectra, recorded in the images, was used to track the instrumental drifts in both spatial axes, and the wavelength calibration was updated accordingly. The flux from four different spectral regions covering the range from 4800Å to 9200Å was summed to produce four color light curves for the target and the reference star. To account for atmospheric effects, we computed the ratio between the target and the reference in all colors. The region between 7470Å and 7651Å was avoided as it contains a significant O$_2$ telluric absorption feature.
After a first inspection of the light curves, showing a number of absorption events, different regions were selected to normalize each color curve. The final light curves built this way are represented in Fig. \[fig:fig\_lc\], and the shaded regions indicate the data points used for normalization. This normalization was performed by a simple median of the data points inside those regions. To provide an estimate of the precision of the data, we calculated the standard deviation of the ratio of each color curve with respect to the combined white light curve (thus not completely independent colors), resulting in 0.3 - 1% for the four colors. The last data points on the second night show a significant deviation that we attribute to color effects due to the increased sky background at the end of the night, and the last six points were excluded from further analysis.
A cursory examination of the four-color light curves in Fig. \[fig:fig\_lc\] shows a remarkable degree of agreement among the different bands. We now proceed to interpret this achromaticity quantitatively in terms of dust scattering models.
![Plots of the dip depths in a band centered on $\lambda_m$ vs. the dip depths at $\lambda_n$ for three independent combinations of our four wavebands. The straight lines are $\chi^2$ fits to a function of the form $\lambda_{\rm m} = s_{\rm mn} \lambda_{\rm n}$. The upper and lower panels are for the data acquired on 2016 January 18 and 20, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ratios"}](fig2a_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![Plots of the dip depths in a band centered on $\lambda_m$ vs. the dip depths at $\lambda_n$ for three independent combinations of our four wavebands. The straight lines are $\chi^2$ fits to a function of the form $\lambda_{\rm m} = s_{\rm mn} \lambda_{\rm n}$. The upper and lower panels are for the data acquired on 2016 January 18 and 20, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ratios"}](fig2b_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Assessing the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents
====================================
If a cloud of small particles passes in front of a star, the fractional depth of the flux dip, $D$, that will be seen is somewhat involved, but can be written schematically as $$D(\lambda_n) = \int_r \int_\phi \int_{\lambda_n-\Delta \lambda/2}^{\lambda_n+\Delta \lambda/2} S(r,\lambda)\left(1-e^{-\tau(r,\phi;\lambda)}\right)\,d\lambda \,d\phi \, r dr
\label{eqn:dip1}
,$$ where $\lambda_n$ is the mean wavelength over a bandpass $\Delta \lambda$; $S$ is the dimensionless surface brightness of the stellar disk at projected radial distance, $r$; $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle around the stellar disk; and $\tau$ is the extinction optical depth at any location over the stellar disk. The parameter $S(r,\lambda)$ is taken to be normalized to unity over the stellar disk. For the purposes of this paper, we make three approximations, namely that: (i) $\tau$ is small; (ii) $\tau$ is constant over the fraction, $f$, of the star that the cloud covers; and (iii) the integral over the bandpass can simply be taken to be the evaluation at $\lambda_n$. In that case, Eqn. (\[eqn:dip1\]) can be written much more simply as $$D(\lambda_n) = \tau(\lambda_n) \,f ~.
\label{eqn:dip2}$$
Parameter 2016 Jan. 18 2016 Jan. 20
-------------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$s_{\rm 13}$ $0.994 \pm 0.007$ $0.988 \pm 0.007$
$s_{\rm 14}$ $1.013 \pm 0.011$ $0.983 \pm 0.010$
$s_{\rm 24}$ $1.010 \pm 0.009$ $1.000 \pm 0.010$
$\langle s_{\rm mn} \rangle$ $1.006 \pm 0.010$ $0.990 \pm 0.009$
std. dev. $s_{\rm mn}$ $0.010 \pm 0.006$ $0.009 \pm 0.005$
$\delta s_{\rm 13}$ $-0.006 \pm 0.007$ $-0.012 \pm 0.007$
$\delta s_{\rm 14}$ $+0.013 \pm 0.011$ $-0.017 \pm 0.010$
$\delta s_{\rm 24}$ $+0.010 \pm 0.009$ $+0.000 \pm 0.010$
$\langle \delta s_{\rm mn} \rangle$ $0.006 \pm 0.010$ $-0.010 \pm 0.009$
std. dev. $\delta s_{\rm mn}$ $0.010 \pm 0.006$ $0.009 \pm 0.005$
$\ln(\lambda_3/\lambda_1)$ 0.296 0.296
$\ln(\lambda_4/\lambda_1)$ 0.466 0.466
$\ln(\lambda_4/\lambda_2)$ 0.304 0.304
$\langle \ln(\lambda_n/\lambda_m) \rangle$ 0.354 0.354
$\alpha_{\rm 13}$ $-0.020 \pm 0.024$ $-0.040 \pm 0.024$
$\alpha_{\rm 14}$ $+0.027 \pm 0.024$ $-0.038 \pm 0.021$
$\alpha_{\rm 24}$ $+0.033 \pm 0.030$ $+0.001 \pm 0.033$
$\langle \alpha \rangle$ $-0.013 \pm 0.027$ $+0.026 \pm 0.032$
2-$\sigma$ limit on $|\alpha|$ 0.06 0.06
: Summary wavelength dependence of dips
\[tbl:ratios\]
We now wish to quantify what the wavelength dependence of the dips tells us about the properties of the obscuring dust. Assuming that the extinction cross section and corresponding optical depth have a wavelength dependence of the form $\sigma_{\rm ext} \propto \tau \propto \lambda^{-\alpha}$, for a fixed dust column density and composition, this defines a quantity, $\alpha$, called the “Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent”. In the optically thin regime, and using Eqn. (\[eqn:dip2\]), we can write this as $$\alpha_{\rm mn} \equiv ~ - \frac{\ln\left[D(\lambda_m)/D(\lambda_n)\right]}{\ln(\lambda_m/\lambda_n)}
.$$
In order to evaluate the ratios of $D(\lambda_m)/D(\lambda_n)$, we plot $D(\lambda_m)$ vs. $D(\lambda_n$) in Fig. \[fig:ratios\] for three independent combinations of $n$ and $m$. We then fit these curves with a function of the form $$D(\lambda_m) = s_{\rm mn} \, D(\lambda_n)
\label{eqn:slope}
.$$ The best-fit values of these slopes are reported in Table \[tbl:ratios\]. Because all the values of $s_{\rm mn}$ are within a few percent of unity, this immediately implies that the dips are at least approximately wavelength independent. We therefore find it convenient to define a quantity $\delta s_{\rm mn}$ such that $s_{\rm mn} = 1+\delta s_{\rm mn}$. In turn, this allows us to write a simple expression for the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent as $$\alpha_{\rm mn} \simeq - \frac{\delta s_{\rm mn}}{\ln(\lambda_m/\lambda_n)}
.$$ These quantities are summarized in Table \[tbl:ratios\].
As we can see from Table \[tbl:ratios\] the values of the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents are all rather close to zero, where two values from the night of 2016 January 20 are only somewhat significantly different from zero. The weighted, in the sense of minimizing $\chi^2$, mean value of the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent for each of the nights is also very consistent with zero. We take the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty on the average value of the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent to be the rms fluctuations of the three individual measurements of $\alpha_{mn}$ for each of the two observing nights.
From this analysis of $\langle \alpha \rangle$ we conclude that we have not detected any significant wavelength dependence of the dips and that a safe constraint is $| \langle \alpha \rangle | \lesssim 0.06$ (at the 2-$\sigma$ confidence level). For the purpose of comparing this to model calculations of the Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents for different minerals, we take the effective wavelengths to be 0.574 nm and 0.774 nm.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
![Calculated Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents $\alpha$ as a function of particle size for four different minerals. For each mineral we used a lognormal particle size distribution (top panel) and a narrower size distribution of 1/5th that width (bottom panel), where $R_m$ is the median particle size in the distribution. The two gray horizontal lines denote the 2-$\sigma$ lower and upper limits to $\alpha$ obtained from the GTC observations.[]{data-label="fig:angexp"}](fig_mie1.png "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![Calculated Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents $\alpha$ as a function of particle size for four different minerals. For each mineral we used a lognormal particle size distribution (top panel) and a narrower size distribution of 1/5th that width (bottom panel), where $R_m$ is the median particle size in the distribution. The two gray horizontal lines denote the 2-$\sigma$ lower and upper limits to $\alpha$ obtained from the GTC observations.[]{data-label="fig:angexp"}](fig_mie02.png "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:angexp\] shows the expected Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents for assumed lognormal particle size distributions computed for the abovementioned effective wavelengths. We considered dust composed of the following minerals: enstatite ($n=1.66$, $\kappa=2.5\times10^{-5}$), forsterite ($n=1.69$, $\kappa=2\times10^{-5}$), corundum ($n=1.76$, $\kappa=0.015$), and iron ($n=2.93$, $\kappa=3.2$), where $n$ and $\kappa$ refer to the real and imaginary indices of refraction, for which we have used the average values over the wavelength ranges considered. These Ångstr[ö]{}m exponents were calculated from Mie extinction cross sections for spherical particles of given sizes and refractive indices.
We use these Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent curves to set lower limits on the dust particle sizes of an optically thin occulter. Fig. \[fig:angexp\] shows how the observational limit of $| \langle \alpha \rangle | \lesssim 0.06$ constrains the median particle size, $R_m$, in the assumed lognormal particle size distributions of two different widths. For all but iron, in the broader of the two lognormal distributions that we considered (upper panel of Fig. \[fig:angexp\]), $R_m$ must generally be $\ga 1\ \mu$m, while for the more narrow size distribution considered (lower panel of Fig. \[fig:angexp\]), $R_m \gtrsim 0.5 \, \mu$m is inferred. However, in both cases there is also the formal, but somewhat contrived possibility that $R_m$ is very near to $0.25 \,\mu$m. For iron, $R_m$ is only restricted to median sizes of $\ga 0.1\ \mu$m. We note that the difference in permissible particle sizes is mainly driven by the refractive index $n$, with iron having a much higher refractive index than the other minerals.
It is important to note that these particle size limits apply only to relatively optically thin occulters in which the approximation from Eqn. (\[eqn:dip1\]) to Eqn. (\[eqn:dip2\]) is valid. As can be seen from these equations, there are infinite varieties of fractional coverage, $f$, and optical depth, $\tau$, that can account for the dip profiles. In the limit where $\tau$ ranges from small to large in time, but $f$ is a constant, we simulated the type of curves presented in Fig. \[fig:ratios\] and found that the curves always take the slopes that appropriately reflect the actual Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent before they converge on the line with unit slope at large $\tau$. In fact, the depth ratios are typically, significantly different from unity until $\tau$ becomes $\gtrsim 2$ unless $\alpha \simeq 0$. In the opposite limit where $\tau \rightarrow \infty$ and $f$ varies with time, it is not clear that the long, smooth transitions of the dips observed in WD 1145+017 (see, e.g., bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:fig\_lc\]; phases $0-0.2$ with an egress duration of $\sim$54 min) can be simply explained. Since the time for a small object to cross the disk of the white dwarf is $\sim$1 min, this egress time is some 54 orbit-crossing times. An optically thick cloud would have to act essentially as a knife edge that is aligned to within 1$^\circ$ of the orbital direction. This seems contrived to say the least. We therefore tentatively conclude that the observed dips are caused by variations in $\tau$ from very low to only moderate values.
We note that the dust occulters in WD 1145+017, at least during the two nights of our observations, are completely inconsistent with the dust size distribution inferred for the interstellar medium. The ISM has an effective wavelength-dependent cross section that varies roughly as $\lambda^{-1}$ over the visible range (@Cardelli:1989aa [@Fitzpatrick:1999aa]). That would correspond to an Ångstr[ö]{}m exponent of $\alpha \approx 1,$ which is ruled out by our observations.
Finally, we point out that the type of multicolor observation we conducted here should be repeated a number of times. It is possible that the grain size distribution of the dusty effluents from debris orbiting WD 1145+017 may change with time. This seems especially plausible because of the highly variable nature of the dust activity and the dip depths (see, e.g., Gänsicke et al. 2016; Rappaport et al. 2016). In addition to repeating these observations, it would also be highly desirable to extend the wavelength coverage to J and K bands, where there may be a better chance to detect the wavelength dependence of the dip depths for larger grain sizes.
We thank an anonymous referee for very constructive and helpful comments. We acknowledge the Observatorio del Teide staff, especially the ‘TOTs’, and the GTC staff for performing the observations in queue mode. RA acknowledges support by the Ramón y Cajal fellowship RYC-2010-06519. HD acknowledges support by grant AYA2012-39346-C02-02 from the Spanish Secretary of State for R&D&i (MINECO). RA, EP acknowledge funding from MINECO grants ESP2013-48391-C4-2-R and ESP2014-57495-C2-1-R.
[lcccc]{}
\
HJD\_UTC - & Flux$_1$ & Flux$_2$ & Flux$_3$ & Flux$_4$\
2,400,000 & (4800-5700Å) & (5701-6700Å) & (6701-7470Å) & (7651-9200Å)\
\
HJD\_UTC - & Flux$_1$ & Flux$_2$ & Flux$_3$ & Flux$_4$\
2,400,000 & (4800-5700Å) & (5701-6700Å) & (6701-7470Å) & (7651-9200Å)\
57406.706817 & 0.85504 & 0.85618 & 0.86684 & 0.86642\
57406.707667 & 0.83935 & 0.84446 & 0.84625 & 0.84387\
57406.708518 & 0.82020 & 0.81532 & 0.82528 & 0.81592\
57406.709368 & 0.88321 & 0.88852 & 0.89334 & 0.89977\
57406.710219 & 0.90385 & 0.90502 & 0.90820 & 0.90604\
57406.711069 & 0.87100 & 0.87537 & 0.87435 & 0.87000\
57406.711919 & 0.84286 & 0.84638 & 0.84595 & 0.85242\
57406.712770 & 0.81292 & 0.82188 & 0.81838 & 0.81870\
57406.713621 & 0.83276 & 0.84132 & 0.84166 & 0.83986\
57406.714471 & 0.86169 & 0.86762 & 0.86779 & 0.86796\
57406.715321 & 0.85608 & 0.85415 & 0.85185 & 0.84497\
57406.716172 & 0.83760 & 0.83229 & 0.82929 & 0.82576\
57406.717022 & 0.85478 & 0.85339 & 0.85575 & 0.83796\
57406.717872 & 0.73711 & 0.73910 & 0.73399 & 0.73470\
57406.718723 & 0.87359 & 0.87477 & 0.86906 & 0.87043\
57406.719573 & 0.94365 & 0.94112 & 0.94907 & 0.94783\
57406.720423 & 0.97382 & 0.96981 & 0.97240 & 0.97088\
57406.721273 & 0.97794 & 0.97421 & 0.97951 & 0.96860\
57406.722124 & 0.94523 & 0.93953 & 0.94424 & 0.93056\
57406.722974 & 0.95992 & 0.95961 & 0.96154 & 0.96601\
57406.723824 & 0.97142 & 0.95976 & 0.96713 & 0.95507\
57406.724674 & 0.99603 & 0.99521 & 1.00279 & 0.98129\
57406.725525 & 0.99967 & 1.00000 & 1.00421 & 0.99975\
57406.726375 & 1.00000 & 1.00361 & 0.99892 & 1.00288\
57406.727225 & 1.00335 & 0.99944 & 1.00000 & 0.99590\
57406.728075 & 0.99931 & 0.99378 & 0.99537 & 1.00000\
57406.728925 & 0.99681 & 0.99908 & 1.00241 & 1.00451\
57406.729775 & 0.94749 & 0.94366 & 0.94565 & 0.93679\
57406.730626 & 0.71506 & 0.70568 & 0.70671 & 0.70890\
57406.731476 & 0.84710 & 0.84069 & 0.84132 & 0.83719\
57406.732326 & 0.87370 & 0.86879 & 0.86805 & 0.86692\
57406.733177 & 0.90049 & 0.90289 & 0.90455 & 0.89769\
57406.734027 & 0.92642 & 0.91976 & 0.92682 & 0.91934\
57406.734877 & 0.93267 & 0.92839 & 0.92982 & 0.92770\
57406.735727 & 0.93069 & 0.93104 & 0.93105 & 0.92463\
57406.736577 & 0.92419 & 0.92624 & 0.93449 & 0.91868\
57406.737428 & 0.92457 & 0.92204 & 0.93151 & 0.91765\
57406.738278 & 0.94107 & 0.93151 & 0.93864 & 0.94678\
57406.739128 & 0.93882 & 0.92841 & 0.93570 & 0.93571\
57406.739978 & 0.93497 & 0.94146 & 0.93195 & 0.92869\
\[tab:tab\_phot\]
[lcccc]{}
\
HJD\_UTC - & Flux$_1$ & Flux$_2$ & Flux$_3$ & Flux$_4$\
2,400,000 & (4800-5700Å) & (5701-6700Å) & (6701-7470Å) & (7651-9200Å)\
\
HJD\_UTC - & Flux$_1$ & Flux$_2$ & Flux$_3$ & Flux$_4$\
2,400,000 & (4800-5700Å) & (5701-6700Å) & (6701-7470Å) & (7651-9200Å)\
57408.719842 & 0.97244 & 0.97550 & 0.98893 & 0.96608\
57408.720692 & 0.96361 & 0.97086 & 0.96777 & 0.95758\
57408.721543 & 0.94077 & 0.95256 & 0.95392 & 0.96518\
57408.722394 & 0.94372 & 0.94715 & 0.94158 & 0.93208\
57408.723244 & 0.95614 & 0.96168 & 0.97351 & 0.94648\
57408.724094 & 0.97752 & 0.97837 & 0.98313 & 0.97383\
57408.724945 & 0.98935 & 0.99858 & 0.98724 & 0.99570\
57408.725795 & 0.98923 & 0.99342 & 0.98572 & 1.00777\
57408.726645 & 0.97451 & 0.98130 & 0.99258 & 0.96788\
57408.727496 & 0.94976 & 0.95918 & 0.96192 & 0.96410\
57408.728347 & 0.96903 & 0.96849 & 0.97331 & 0.96555\
57408.729197 & 0.94967 & 0.95000 & 0.95119 & 0.94672\
57408.730047 & 0.93041 & 0.94109 & 0.93804 & 0.93752\
57408.730898 & 0.92981 & 0.94679 & 0.93306 & 0.93642\
57408.731748 & 0.95016 & 0.95625 & 0.95583 & 0.97135\
57408.732599 & 0.96252 & 0.96829 & 0.96304 & 0.96578\
57408.733449 & 0.98386 & 0.98653 & 0.99103 & 0.99686\
57408.734299 & 0.98292 & 0.98822 & 0.98752 & 0.99064\
57408.735150 & 0.97870 & 0.99196 & 0.98055 & 1.01343\
57408.736000 & 0.97317 & 0.98369 & 0.98831 & 0.97613\
57408.736851 & 0.97090 & 0.96699 & 0.97426 & 0.98386\
57408.737701 & 0.81054 & 0.81006 & 0.80178 & 0.80266\
57408.738551 & 0.58058 & 0.58900 & 0.59055 & 0.58307\
57408.739402 & 0.68743 & 0.68741 & 0.69962 & 0.71777\
57408.740252 & 0.82591 & 0.83105 & 0.82393 & 0.83380\
57408.741102 & 0.93604 & 0.93475 & 0.92518 & 0.95429\
57408.741953 & 0.94414 & 0.94532 & 0.94989 & 0.93912\
57408.742804 & 0.93910 & 0.93210 & 0.93669 & 0.94358\
57408.743654 & 0.91904 & 0.92838 & 0.91804 & 0.92518\
57408.744504 & 0.91392 & 0.91478 & 0.91361 & 0.91348\
57408.745355 & 0.88978 & 0.89267 & 0.88797 & 0.92303\
57408.746205 & 0.90892 & 0.90223 & 0.90291 & 0.90314\
57408.747055 & 0.94486 & 0.94234 & 0.94289 & 0.95032\
57408.747906 & 0.97384 & 0.96682 & 0.96336 & 0.96401\
57408.748758 & 0.98757 & 0.98809 & 0.98398 & 0.97123\
57408.749608 & 0.98400 & 0.99135 & 0.98815 & 1.01401\
57408.750459 & 0.99108 & 0.99182 & 0.99416 & 0.98669\
57408.751309 & 0.97554 & 0.98368 & 0.98063 & 0.97887\
57408.752159 & 0.96985 & 0.96918 & 0.97510 & 0.95446\
57408.753009 & 0.98054 & 0.98784 & 0.97103 & 0.97153\
57408.753859 & 0.99000 & 0.99660 & 0.98989 & 0.98484\
57408.754710 & 1.00294 & 0.99814 & 1.00000 & 0.98150\
57408.755560 & 0.99320 & 0.99142 & 0.99173 & 0.98495\
57408.756410 & 0.95312 & 0.96225 & 0.97044 & 0.94509\
57408.757261 & 0.83363 & 0.82843 & 0.82350 & 0.83030\
57408.758111 & 0.71731 & 0.71979 & 0.71922 & 0.71913\
57408.758962 & 0.74793 & 0.75084 & 0.75158 & 0.75717\
57408.759812 & 0.69543 & 0.69418 & 0.68693 & 0.70615\
57408.760662 & 0.66856 & 0.66733 & 0.66323 & 0.67454\
57408.761513 & 0.73268 & 0.73454 & 0.72798 & 0.72449\
57408.762363 & 0.74753 & 0.75876 & 0.75737 & 0.73723\
57408.763214 & 0.78367 & 0.77847 & 0.78183 & 0.81110\
57408.764064 & 0.77311 & 0.80832 & 0.80598 & 0.76458\
57408.764915 & 0.81752 & 0.81140 & 0.82127 & 0.83374\
57408.765765 & 0.83031 & 0.82623 & 0.83369 & 0.82681\
57408.766615 & 0.79887 & 0.79758 & 0.80339 & 0.80087\
57408.767466 & 0.82989 & 0.83446 & 0.83133 & 0.83432\
57408.768316 & 0.86142 & 0.85618 & 0.85257 & 0.85240\
57408.769167 & 0.86867 & 0.87616 & 0.87549 & 0.86589\
57408.770017 & 0.87563 & 0.87203 & 0.87712 & 0.85304\
57408.770867 & 0.84965 & 0.84779 & 0.84787 & 0.85543\
57408.771718 & 0.86491 & 0.86267 & 0.85963 & 0.86017\
57408.772568 & 0.88743 & 0.89203 & 0.87791 & 0.87022\
57408.773418 & 0.89964 & 0.90198 & 0.89976 & 0.90034\
57408.774269 & 0.86197 & 0.84985 & 0.84737 & 0.85296\
57408.775119 & 0.92823 & 0.92748 & 0.92977 & 0.93308\
57408.775970 & 0.91454 & 0.91024 & 0.90471 & 0.91638\
57408.776820 & 0.90834 & 0.91252 & 0.90915 & 0.91273\
57408.777670 & 0.92836 & 0.93635 & 0.93424 & 0.92927\
57408.778521 & 0.87752 & 0.88526 & 0.87761 & 0.87933\
57408.779371 & 0.95032 & 0.95183 & 0.94290 & 0.94094\
57408.780222 & 0.87735 & 0.87803 & 0.87731 & 0.87457\
57408.781072 & 0.92891 & 0.93599 & 0.92764 & 0.92901\
57408.781922 & 0.97883 & 0.97934 & 0.97647 & 0.98144\
57408.782773 & 0.98687 & 0.98783 & 0.99199 & 0.99998\
57408.783623 & 0.99494 & 1.00658 & 0.98946 & 1.00080\
57408.784473 & 0.98741 & 0.99251 & 0.98814 & 0.98724\
57408.785324 & 0.99222 & 1.00000 & 1.00613 & 1.00000\
57408.786174 & 1.00000 & 1.01208 & 0.99521 & 0.99729\
57408.787025 & 1.00782 & 1.00665 & 1.00358 & 1.00790\
57408.787875 & 0.98892 & 0.99854 & 0.99220 & 0.98695\
57408.788725 & 0.97077 & 0.98019 & 0.98055 & 0.98368\
57408.789576 & 0.92027 & 0.92392 & 0.90806 & 0.92322\
57408.790426 & 0.84328 & 0.85339 & 0.82852 & 0.85409\
57408.791276 & 0.84979 & 0.85477 & 0.85569 & 0.84456\
57408.792127 & 0.89358 & 0.89991 & 0.89328 & 0.88955\
57408.792977 & 0.90713 & 0.91538 & 0.91957 & 0.93071\
57408.793827 & 0.91809 & 0.91831 & 0.92025 & 0.91322\
57408.794678 & 0.91195 & 0.92015 & 0.91254 & 0.92395\
57408.795528 & 0.93179 & 0.94155 & 0.94835 & 0.93892\
57408.796413 & 0.93472 & 0.94355 & 0.94511 & 0.92556\
57408.797263 & 0.93622 & 0.93157 & 0.95165 & 0.92275\
57408.798113 & 0.93991 & 0.93619 & 0.94751 & 0.92788\
57408.798964 & 0.91857 & 0.94679 & 0.94364 & 0.92168\
57408.799814 & 0.94160 & 0.96681 & 0.95962 & 0.96157\
57408.800664 & 0.94882 & 0.98129 & 0.98681 & 0.96787\
57408.801515 & 0.94988 & 0.97578 & 0.98128 & 0.99740\
57408.802373 & 0.92148 & 0.97521 & 0.99243 & 1.00543\
57408.803225 & 0.92958 & 0.96170 & 1.02236 & 0.97246\
57408.804076 & 0.90754 & 0.94642 & 1.01382 & 1.01820\
57408.804927 & 0.90766 & 0.94351 & 0.99937 & 0.99822\
\[tab:tab\_phot2\]
[^1]: Based on observations made with the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), on the island of La Palma at the Spanish Observatorio Roque de los Muchachos of the IAC, and with the IAC80 telescope on the island of Tenerife at the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the IAC, under Director’s Discretionary Time.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We observe the electric-dipole forbidden $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition in the francium isotopes $^{208-211}$Fr and $^{213}$Fr using a two-photon excitation scheme. We collect the atoms online from an accelerator and confine them in a magneto optical trap for the measurements. In combination with previous measurements of the $7s\rightarrow7p_{1/2}$ transition we perform a King Plot analysis. We compare the thus determined ratio of the field shift constants (1.230 $\pm$ 0.019) to results obtained from new *ab initio* calculations (1.234 $\pm$ 0.010) and find excellent agreement.'
author:
- 'M. R. Kalita, J. A. Behr, A. Gorelov and M. R. Pearson'
- 'A. C. DeHart, G. Gwinner and M. J. Kossin'
- 'L. A. Orozco'
- 'S. Aubin'
- 'E. Gomez'
- 'M. S. Safronova'
- 'V. A. Dzuba and V. V. Flambaum'
bibliography:
- 'Francium7s8s.bib'
title: 'Isotope Shifts in the 7s$\rightarrow$8s Transition of Francium: Measurements and Comparison to *ab initio* Theory'
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
The isotope shift in the transition energies of an atom arises due to a combination of nuclear and atomic effects. It is an important benchmark, as it can provide information about the nuclear charge distribution and its change as more neutrons are added; the shift also depends on electron correlations. The FrPNC collaboration at TRIUMF has been studying francium with the ultimate goal of measuring atomic parity non-conservation (APNC) [@Gwinner2007; @PhysRevA.75.033418]. Others have also proposed to use francium for APNC studies [@ATUTOV2004421], and to search for time reversal violation through the existence of a permanent electric dipole moment (EDM) of the electron [@PhysRevX.2.041009; @Inoue2015]. These proposals require quantitative understanding of the atomic and nuclear structure, and in particular the overlap of the electronic wave functions with the nucleus. This overlap can be tested by comparing the measurements of hyperfine structure and isotope shift in chains of isotopes to the [*ab initio*]{} calculations [@isotopebook].
Testing the accuracy of the [*ab initio*]{} theory for field shifts in heavy atoms is also crucial for extraction of the change of nuclear radii in superheavy elements [@LaaLauBac16]. Combining theoretical and experimental isotope shift values allows the extraction of the differences in the nuclear radii of these atoms and provides an insight into their nuclear structure. Studies of isotope shift of superheavy elements are also of interest for astrophysics [@DzuFlaWeb17]. All of these projects require reliable benchmarks of theoretical calculations in order to verify their theory uncertainties. Measurements of the field shift ratios for different atomic transitions are of particular interest owing to the recently found disagreement of the Ca$^+$ D1/D2 field shift measurement with all theoretical predictions [@ShiGebGor17]. Isotope shift measurements have also been proposed as a new method to probe new light force-mediators [@BerBudDel17].
Here, we report the observation of the electric dipole forbidden $7s\rightarrow8s$ atomic transition in the francium isotopes $^{208-211}$Fr and $^{213}$Fr using a single-frequency two-photon excitation scheme, its isotope shift and the comparison to [*ab initio*]{} theory. This transition in francium is of particular interest for APNC experiments, as it is electric-dipole forbidden by electromagnetism but slightly allowed by the weak interaction. The landmark APNC experiments in cesium performed in Paris and Boulder used the equivalent $6s\rightarrow7s$ transition in cesium [[@PhysRevLett.82.2484; @doi:10.1139/p99-002; @BOUCHIAT1982358]]{}. Our isotope shift measurements are complementary to hyperfine splitting measurements, which also depend on the electronic wave functions at the nucleus. Together with the information obtained from the change in the nuclear magnetization from the measurements of hyperfine anomalies allows to create a better picture of the nuclear structure [@PhysRevLett.83.935; @PhysRevLett.115.042501]. In contrast, measurements of the electronic dipole matrix elements (obtained from lifetime measurements of excited atomic states) probe the wave functions predominantly at large distances from the nucleus [@eduardoRev].
We divide this paper into the following sections: In section \[Theory\] we briefly discuss the general theory relevant to the measured isotope shifts, in section \[Field shift theory\] we present the theoretical calculations of the field shift, in section \[Experimental details\] we describe the experimental details, in section \[Results\] we discuss our experimental results, section \[King Plot analysis\] contains a King Plot analysis and the comparison with the theoretical predictions, closing with conclusions in section \[Conclusion\].
\[sec:level1\]Theory {#Theory}
====================
Single-photon electronic transitions between states of same parity in atoms are forbidden by electric-dipole selection rules; however, a two-photon transition is allowed between states of the same parity. The selection rules for a two-photon transition where both photons are far off resonance from any intermediate states are $\Delta F= 0$ and $\Delta m_F= 0$ [@581793936].
Using two-photon spectroscopy in our set-up and previously measured hyperfine splittings of the $7s$ and $8s$ states we obtain the center of gravity (C.O.G) of the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition in five different isotopes of francium that we collect online from an accelerator and capture in a magneto-optical trap (MOT). From these measurements we deduce the isotope shifts and perform a King Plot analysis [@King:63]. Optical isotope shifts are discussed in detail in Refs. [@HEILIG1974613; @isotopebook]. Here we briefly review the theory that is relevant to the measurements reported in this paper.
For heavy elements the optical isotope shift $\delta\nu^{A A^{'}}_{IS}$, between isotopes with mass number $A$ and $A^{'}$ and nuclear mass $M_A$ and $M_{A^{'}}$ respectively, can be written as[^1] $$\delta\nu^{A A^{'}}_{IS}=(N+\mathcal{S})\frac{M_A-M_{A^{'}}}{M_AM_{A^{'}}}+F\delta\langle r^2 \rangle^{AA^{'}}.
\label{eq:shift}$$
$N$ is the normal mass shift (NMS) constant, and $\mathcal{S}$ is the specific mass shift (SMS) constant that stems from the changing mass of the nucleus between isotopes. The contribution of the normal mass shift to the frequency of an optical transition can be written in the non-relativistic limit as $$\delta \nu_{NMS}^{AA^{'}}=\nu({A}^{'})\frac{m_e(M_A-M_{A^{'}})}{M_{{A}^{'}}(M_A+m_e)},$$ where $m_e$ is the mass of the electron and $\nu(A^{'})$ is the transition frequency of an isotope with mass number $A^{'}$.
The specific mass shift is hard to calculate accurately owing to poor convergence of the perturbation theory for this quantity. This issue has been discussed in detail in [@SafJoh08]. However, the contribution of the mass shift (both normal and specific) is small for heavy atoms and simple estimations should be sufficient. Moreover, an earlier study of francium isotope shifts has demonstrated that NMS and SMS strongly cancel each other and the residual is at the level of the accuracy of the theoretical field shift calculations [@SafJoh08].
In the traditional approach, $F$ is the field shift constant that takes into account the modification of the Coulomb potential of a point-charge by that of the finite size of a nucleus. However, $F$ also depends on the nuclear radius, and this dependence may be large for heavy atoms. Nevertheless, if we consider neighbouring isotopes with small differences between mass numbers, the dependence of $F$ on the nuclear radius between these isotopes can be neglected. We check this for the francium isotopes considered in this work.
$F$ is a relatively simple single-electron scalar operator. Unlike $\mathcal{S}$, which is a two-electron operator of rank one, the field shift can be more easily included into the available, accurate, *ab initio* atomic methods. In this work, we use two completely different theory methods that we describe in Sec. \[sec:th\] and compare the results for the field shift values to evaluate the theoretical uncertainty.
The values of the quantities $N$, $\mathcal{S}$ and $F$ as defined are specific to a particular electronic transition in an atom. In our experiment, we obtain the total isotope shift $\delta\nu^{A A^{'}}_{IS}$ for the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition as expressed by Eq. \[eq:shift\].
\[sec:th\]Theoretical calculations of the field shifts {#Field shift theory}
=======================================================
The all-order method
--------------------
We use a linearized variant of the relativistic coupled-cluster method with single, double, and partial triple excitations [@SafJoh08], which is referred to as the all-order method. The exact many-body wave function in the coupled-cluster method is represented in the form [@CK:60] $$|\Psi \rangle = \exp(S) |\Psi^{(0)}\rangle, \label{cc}$$ where $|\Psi^{(0)}\rangle$ is the lowest-order atomic state vector. The operator ${S}$ for an N-electron atom consists of “cluster” contributions from one-electron, two-electron, $\cdots$, N-electron excitations of the lowest-order state vector $|\Psi^{(0)}\rangle$. Expanding the exponential in Eq. (\[cc\]) in terms of the $n$-body excitations ${S}_n$, and limiting the expansion to terms linear in single, double, and valence triple contribution, we get the wave function of a monovalent atom in state $v$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\Psi_v \rangle = \left\{ 1+S_1+S_2+S_{3v} \right\}|\Psi_v^{(0)}\rangle\\
&& = \left[ 1 + \sum_{ma} \, \rho_{ma} a^\dagger_m a_a + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{mnab} \rho_{mnab} a^\dagger_m a^\dagger_n a_b a_a + \right. \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{m \neq v} \rho_{mv} a^\dagger_m a_v + \sum_{mna} \rho_{mnva} a^\dagger_m a^\dagger_n a_a a_v \nonumber \\
&&+ \left. \frac{1}{6} \sum_{mnrab} \rho_{mnrvab}
a_m^{\dagger } a_n^{\dagger} a_r^{\dagger } a_b a_aa_v \right]|
\Psi^{(0)}_v \rangle, \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\Psi_v^{(0)}\rangle$ is the lowest-order atomic state vector. In Eq. (\[eq1\]), $a^\dagger_i$ and $a_i$ are creation and annihilation operators for an electron state $i$, the indices $m$ and $n$ range over all possible virtual states while indices $a$ and $b$ range over all occupied core states. The quantities $\rho$ are excitation coefficients. The single double (SD) method is the linearized coupled-cluster method restricted to single and double excitations only. The all-order singles-doubles-partial triples (SDpT) method is an extension of the SD method in which the dominant part of $S_{3v}$ is treated perturbatively. A detailed description of the SDpT method is given in Ref. [@SafJoh08].
To derive equations for the excitation coefficients, the wave function $|\Psi_v\rangle$ is substituted into the many-body Schrödinger equation $H | \Psi_v\rangle=E| \Psi_v\rangle, \label{eq2}$ and terms on the left- and right-hand sides are matched, based on the number and type of operators they contain, giving the equations for the excitation coefficients. The Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) starting potential with the inclusion of the Breit interaction is used to produce a finite basis set of the orbitals for all subsequent calculations. The equations for the excitation coefficients are solved iteratively until the valence correlation energy converges to a specified numerical accuracy. This procedure effectively sums the series of the dominant many-body perturbation theory (MBPT) terms, with each iteration picking up a new order of MBPT. Thus, the method includes dominant correlation corrections to all orders of MBPT.
Field-shift calculations: Method I
----------------------------------
If we describe the nucleus as a uniformly charged ball of radius $R$, the change in the nuclear potential induced by a change in the nuclear radius $\delta R$, is given by $$\delta V(r) = \frac{3Z}{2R^2}\left[ 1- \frac{r^2}{R^2} \right] \delta R,$$ $r\leq R$. Re-writing this result in terms of the mean square radius $\langle r^2 \rangle=(3/5) R^2$, we define a field-shift operator $F(r)$ as [@WJbook] $$\delta V= F(r) \delta \langle r^2 \rangle,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
F(r)& = & \frac{5Z}{4R^3}\left[ 1- \frac{r^2}{R^2} \right], r\leq R \nonumber \\
& = & 0, r > R.\end{aligned}$$
When we use a more elaborate Fermi distribution to describe the nucleus $$\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_0}{1+\mathrm{exp}([r-c]/a)},$$ where $c$ is the 50% fall-off radius of the density, and $a$ is related to the 90%-10% fall-off distance by $t=4\mathrm{ln}(3)a$, we find negligible differences with the results obtained using the formula for a simple uniform ball for the field-shift operator and a variant that uses the Fermi distribution.
In our first method we use the all-order approach and we calculate the field shift constant as an expectation value of the field-shift operator $\langle F \rangle$ given by $$F_{wv}=\frac{\langle \Psi_w |F| \Psi_v \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle \Psi_v
| \Psi_v \rangle \langle \Psi_w | \Psi_w \rangle}}, \label{eqr}$$ where $|\Psi_v\rangle$ and $|\Psi_w\rangle$ are given by the expansion (\[eq1\]) limited to single and double excitations. The resulting expression for the numerator of Eq. (\[eqr\]) consists of the sum of the DHF matrix element $f_{wv}$ and twenty other terms that are linear or quadratic functions of the excitation coefficients.
---- -------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ---------- --------- -----------
I DHF -14239 -3649 -485 0 1.299
I All-order SD -22522 -4677 -683 348 1.224
I All-order SDpT -21268 -4554 -674 304 1.232
I All-order SD$_{\textrm{sc}}$ -21647 -4602 -670 333 1.231
I All-order SDpT$_{\textrm{sc}}$ -21618 -4603 -687 312 1.230
II MBPT 2 -22480 -4732 -695 311 1.227
II MBPT 3 -19441 -4359 -455 449 1.259
II BO+fit -20947 -4381 -670 310 1.224
II All-order SD -21236 -4436 -675 333 1.224
II All-order SD+E3 -20181 -4322 -599 371 1.235
II All-order SDpT -20582 -4421 -635 338 1.234
II Final -20580(650) -4420(100) -635(40) 338(33) 1.234(10)
---- -------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ---------- --------- -----------
\[tab:1\]
Field-shift calculations: method II
-----------------------------------
In the second method, we use an all-order finite-field approach [@DzuJohSaf05]. Calculations of the field shift are done for the reference isotope A with a nuclear charge radius $R$ by replacing a nuclear potential $V(r)$ by $$V(r) +\lambda \delta V(r)$$ where $\lambda$ is a scaling parameter $$\delta V(r) = \frac{dV}{dR} \delta \langle R \rangle.$$ The Fermi distribution is used for the charge distribution and the derivative $\frac{dV}{dR}$ is calculated numerically. The value of $\lambda$ is chosen in such a way that the corresponding change in the nuclear potential is sufficiently small for the final energy to be a linear function of $\lambda$ but much larger than the numerical uncertainty of the calculations. The calculations are carried out for several values of $\lambda$ and the field shift constant for an atomic state $v$ is calculated as a derivative $$F=\frac{dE_v(\lambda)}{d\lambda}.$$ Therefore, the calculation of the field shift constants reduces to the calculation of the energy in this method.
Theory results and discussion
-----------------------------
The results for the field shift constants $F$ of francium levels calculated using both methods are given in Table \[tab:theory\]. ${\mathcal{R}}$ is the ratio of the field shift constants for the $7s\rightarrow7p_{1/2}$ and $7s\rightarrow8s$ transitions: $${\mathcal{R}}=\frac{F(7p_{1/2})-F(7s)}{F(8s)-F(7s)}.
\label{eqR}$$ Results obtained in several approximations are given for both methods. The DHF lowest order matrix elements are given to show the size of the correlation corrections. The all-order single-double (SD) and partial triple (SDpT) results are listed in the SD and SDpT rows. In method I, some classes of omitted contributions from higher excitations may be estimated by the scaling procedure described in [@SafJoh08], these results are listed with the subscript “sc”. For method II, we also include the field shift constants obtained using the second- and third-order MBPT energy calculations to show the size of the third and higher-order corrections. The energy in the SD approximation is missing a part of the third-order contribution, which is restored in the results in the “SD+E3” row. The SDpT energies include a complete third-order contribution and do not need to be corrected. We also carried out other calculation using Brueckner orbitals (BO) with fitting of the correlation potential to the experimental energies, described in [@DzuJohSaf05]. The results are listed in the row labelled “BO+fit”. We take the *ab initio* method II SDpT results as final. The uncertainties are estimated from the spread of the all-order results. We note that the uncertainty of the $7s$ field shift constant was underestimated in [@DzuJohSaf05]. The relative uncertainty in the ratio ${\mathcal{R}}$ is smaller than the uncertainties in the field shift constants for each level as correlation corrections to the $7s$ and $8s$ states are similar, and the field shift for the $7p_{1/2}$ level is small in comparison to the field shifts of the $7s$ and $8s$ levels.
\[sec:level1\]Experimental details {#Experimental details}
==================================
We use francium ions produced at the Isotope Separator and Accelerator (ISAC) facility at TRIUMF. The ions are delivered to our experiment at the rate of 4$\times$10$^7$$/$s to 2$\times$10$^9$$/$s, and we collect them online on a zirconium foil neutralizer of area 19 $\times$ 12 mm$^2$ and of thickness 0.03 mm. Typically, we collect the ions on the foil for 20 s before rotating the foil by 90$^{\text{o}}$ and electrically heating it for 1 s to release neutral francium atoms from the heated foil (with maximum efficiency of 30$\%$). We collect the released atoms first in a MOT inside a coated glass cell (collection chamber), then we transfer the atoms to another MOT inside a stainless steel vacuum chamber (science chamber, with maximum transfer efficiency of 20$\%$ for this work), by pushing them with a pulse of laser light resonant with the D2 line in francium at 718 nm [@Zhang2016]. The MOT in the science chamber is located at 0.7 m, directly below the MOT in the collection chamber. We operate both MOTs on the D2 line of francium and they share two Ti:Sapphire lasers. We use one laser (MSquared SolsTIS) for trapping, and we use the other laser (Coherent 899-21) for re-pumping the atoms. We maintain a pressure of $\approx$2 $\times$10$^{-10}$ Torr in the science chamber. A detailed description of the francium trapping facility (FTF) can be found in Refs. [@1748-0221-8-12-P12006; @Zhang2016]. We can operate our apparatus with a range of isotopes ($^{206-213,221}$Fr) by adjusting our trap and re-pump laser frequencies, and requesting a specific isotope from ISAC [@PhysRevA.90.052502].
We perform two-photon spectroscopy using atoms confined in the MOT in the science chamber. We use a third Ti:Sapphire laser (MSquared SolsTIS) at 1012 nm as our spectroscopy laser, in order to excite the $7s(F=U)\rightarrow8s(F=U)$ transition, where $F=U(L)$ is the upper(lower) hyperfine manifold of the $s$ levels.
We lock the frequencies of all three lasers to a stabilized HeNe laser (Melles-Griot 05-STP-901) using a computer-controlled feedback system [@:/content/aip/journal/rsi/69/11/10.1063/1.1149171].
The linearly polarized spectroscopy laser beam of 350 mW power is focused to 1/$e^2$ (intensity) diameter of 0.015 cm, using an achromatic lens of 30 cm focal length. The lens is mounted on a translational stage to fine-tune the overlap of the laser beam with the atom cloud. In order to increase the average intensity of the spectroscopy beam across the atom cloud, the beam is re-collimated and re-focused back on itself in a double-pass scheme using a second 30 cm focal length lens and a mirror. An optical isolator (LINOS, FI-980-TI) is necessary to reduce optical feedback into the laser.
We apply a frequency offset between the beam pick off for locking and the spectroscopy laser beam directed at the atom cloud by using an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) in double-pass configuration. We ramp the offset by 18.86 MHz over 12 s (a 37.72 MHz scan across the 7s$\rightarrow$8s resonance).
We detect the resonance of the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition by collecting 817 nm photons resulting from the decay of atoms from the $7p_{1/2}$ state to the $7s$ ground state (D1 line of francium and about 100 nm away from the the D2 line as shown in Fig.\[fig:level\]).
We direct the 817 nm photons onto a photomultiplier tube (PMT, Hamamatsu H7422 operated in photon counting mode) using a double-relay optical system. To reduce background counts from the trap beams at 718 nm, we place an edge filter (Semrock LP02-785RU) and a longpass coloured glass filter (Thorlabs FGL780M) in front of the PMT. The 718 nm light scattered by the MOT does not contribute significantly to our background counts. We save PMT data as a function of time for later analysis. The beginning of the offset frequency scan and the beginning of PMT data collection is synchronized using a digital trigger. During the scans, the trap light is cycled on and off with a 2 ms period (50% duty cycle) and with an extinction ratio of 1000:1, while the repumper and spectroscopy light remain on continuously. We collect data when the trap light is off to suppress the ac Stark shift that it produces, as well as to minimize background counts. During each MOT collection-transfer cycle, we perform a single offset frequency scan of the spectroscopy laser.
![Energy level diagram for francium with relevant transitions. Atoms in the 7$s$ state are excited to the 8$s$ state with two 1012 nm spectroscopy laser photons (solid arrows). The spontaneous decay (dashed arrows) via the 7$p_{1/2}$ level is detected at 817 nm. This figure is not to scale. []{data-label="fig:level"}](LevelDia.pdf){width=".36\textwidth"}
\[sec:level1\]Results {#Results}
=====================
The hyperfine interaction splits the $s$ states into two hyperfine levels. We measure transition frequencies from the upper hyperfine level of the $7s$ ground state to the upper hyperfine level of the $8s$ excited state (Fig. \[fig:level\]) in five different isotopes of francium: $^{208}$Fr (radioactive half-life T$_{1/2}$ = 59 s), $^{209}$Fr (50 s), $^{210}$Fr (192 s), $^{211}$Fr (186 s) and $^{213}$Fr (35 s). Fig. \[fig:awesome\_image\] shows typical 817 nm fluorescence for scan of the two photon excitation in the isotope $^{211}$Fr. 10 scans of 12 s duration each are used to generate this plot. The separation between bins is 157 kHz.
![Two-photon spectroscopy data for the $7s(F=5) \rightarrow8s(F=5)$ transition in $^{211}$Fr. The vertical axis shows PMT counts of 817 nm photons. The frequency scan starts at the zero of the horizontal axis. The dashed line is a fit to the data (see text). The bottom plot shows the normalized residuals of the fit.[]{data-label="fig:awesome_image"}](ResFig.pdf){width="46.00000%"}
In order to locate the fluorescence peak, we fit the data to a product of an exponentially decaying function and a Voigt function using a computer program that utilizes the ROOT analysis framework. The exponential decay takes into account the exponential rate of loss of atoms from the trap (the 1/$e$ lifetime of the atoms in the trap can be as long as 14 $\pm$ 3 s) during the laser scans. The program uses the “MINUIT" function minimization package to find the best parameters that minimize the $\chi^2$ of the fit [@BRUN199781]. We float the following fit parameters: peak position, background level, width (Lorentzian and Gaussian), $1/e$ decay constant, and peak height. Over the five isotopes, the $\chi^2$/(degree of freedom) for the fits varies from 1.2 to 1.8.
The 7$s\rightarrow 8s$ transition energy $\nu_0$ is given by the relation $\nu_0=2\times(\nu_f+\nu_w)$, where $\nu_f$ is the offset frequency of the peak from the fit and $\nu_w$ is the probe laser frequency at the beginning of a scan, i.e. for zero offset frequency, as measured with our wavemeter (Angstrom WS-U-10). The factor of two is due to the two-photon nature of the transition that we excite. We correct the wavemeter reading by comparing it to a diode laser referenced by saturated absorption to the $5s(F=2)\rightarrow5p_{3/2}(F=3)$ transition of $^{87}$Rb [@Ye:96].
Using 7$s\rightarrow 8s$ transition energies from our measurements and previously published measurements of the hyperfine splittings of the $7s$ state of the isotopes [@COC198566], and the hyperfine splitting of the $8s$ state in $^{210}$Fr [@PhysRevA.59.195] and considering that the ratio of the hyperfine splittings of the $7s$ and the $8s$ states are same across the isotopes (because the difference in hyperfine anomaly is negligible for $s$ states with different quantum number), we determine the C.O.G. of the $7s\rightarrow 8s$ transition in the five isotopes. We obtain the isotope shifts of the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition by subtracting the C.O.G. of the transition in the isotopes from the C.O.G. of the same transition in $^{213}$Fr.
We find the 1$\sigma$ error in the peak position obtained from the fitting program to be less than one bin. We assign a conservative estimate of 157 kHz (frequency separation between bins) to the error in the peak position obtained from the fit.
From our data we estimate the uncertainty in the peak position ($\nu_f$) obtained from the scans to be 1 MHz. For this analysis, we start each laser scan with a similar laser frequency as measured by our wavemeter with 1 MHz resolution. We assign 2 MHz uncertainty to the isotope shift measurements due to non reproducibility of the scans.
The ac Stark shift due to the trap light at 718 nm is reduced by dimming the trap light by a factor of 1000 during data collection yielding a negligible contribution to the uncertainty.
The ac Stark shift of the 1012 nm light that we use to drive the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition was theoretically studied in Ref. [@PhysRevA.93.043407]. For our typical 1012 nm laser power of 350 mW and beam diameter of 150 $\mu$m, the estimated shift is $<$ 50 kHz. The laser power is typically stable at the $<$ 5% level, and the error on our measurements due to this effect is negligible.
The energy levels involved in the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition have similar $g$ factors and hence similar Zeeman effects. There is no linear shift in the measured transition frequency due to the magnetic field gradient of 10 G/cm of our MOT (this is due to the $\Delta m_F= 0$ selection rule). The cold atom cloud has a diameter of about 1 mm and resides close to the zero of the magnetic field. We do not include any error or systematic shift on the the isotope shift measurements due to magnetic fields.
We add all these errors in quadrature to estimate the uncertainty on our measurements of the transition frequencies of the $7s(F=U) \rightarrow 8s(F=U)$ transition in the five isotopes. In order to determine the error in our calculation of the C.O.G., we use the reported errors in the measurements of the hyperfine constants of the $7s$ and $8s$ states from Ref. [@COC198566] and Ref. [@PhysRevA.59.195]. The results from our measurements and the isotope shifts in the D1 line of francium from Ref. [@PhysRevA.90.052502] are shown in Table \[fig:awesome\_table\]. The isotope shifts in the D1 line are calculated for this analysis from data reported in Ref. [@PhysRevA.90.052502], using $^{213}$Fr as the reference isotope.
[ccccccc]{}
& &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Isotope & & & &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
208 & 7 & 19732.58581(18) & -5123(6) &-6341(5)\
209 & 9/2 & 19732.53758(15) & -3678(6) &-4563(4)\
210 & 6 & 19732.52411(15) & -3274(6) &-4058(4)\
211 & 9/2 & 19732.48021(15) & -1958(6) &-2431(4)\
213 & 9/2 & 19732.41489(15) & 0 & 0\
\[fig:awesome\_table\]
\[sec:level1\]King Plot analysis {#King Plot analysis}
================================
{width=".67\textwidth"}
In order to perform the King Plot analysis, we plot the modified isotope shifts of the D1 line against the modified isotope shift of the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition. This gives a straight line [@King:63] according to the relationship $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{M_AM_{A^{'}}}{M_A-M_{A^{'}}}\delta\nu_{IS,D1}={} &\frac{F_{D1}}{F_{SS}}\frac{M_AM_{A^{'}}}{M_A-M_{A^{'}}}\delta\nu_{IS,SS}+ \\ &(N_{D1}+\mathcal{S}_{D1})-\frac{F_{D1}}{F_{SS}}(N_{SS}+\mathcal{S}_{SS}),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:kps}$$ where $N_{D1}$($N_{SS}$), $\mathcal{S}_{D1}$($\mathcal{S}_{SS}$) and $F_{D1}$($F_{SS}$) are the normal mass shift, specific mass shift, and the field shift of the D1( $7s\rightarrow8s$) transition, with $M_A$ as the mass of the reference isotope. The resulting King Plot is shown in Fig.\[fig:kp\].
We fit the data obtained from the King Plot to a straight line using a computer program that utilizes the ROOT analysis framework. The program minimizes $\chi^2$ of the fit using “MINUIT", taking into account errors in both the horizontal and the vertical axes [@Press:2007:NRE:1403886]. Fig. \[fig:kp\] shows the fitted straight line to the data. We find the value of $\chi^2$/(degree of freedom) from the fit to be 0.54. This corresponds to a P value of 0.58 for our straight line fit to the data. The slope is equal to the ratio of the field shift constants of the D1 transition and of the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition according to Eq. \[eq:kps\]. This represents the ratio of the change in electron densities at the nucleus during the corresponding transitions. Since an $8s$ electron has a larger probability density at the nucleus compared to a $7p_{1/2}$ electron, the ratio of the field shift constants is expected to be greater than 1. From the fit we find $\frac{F_{D1}}{F_{SS}}$ = 1.230 $\pm$ 0.019. We compare this result to the theoretical value of ${\mathcal{R}}$ (Eq. \[eqR\]) of 1.234 $\pm$ 0.010 from Table \[tab:1\] and find excellent agreement. From the intercept of the straight line, we find $(N_{D1}+\mathcal{S}_{D1})-\frac{F_{D1}}{F_{SS}}(N_{SS}+\mathcal{S}_{SS})$ = ($-$0.41 $\pm$ 0.85)$\times$10$^{6}$ MHz amu. The errors reported here for the slope and the intercept are the 1$\sigma$ errors obtained from the fit. The normal mass shift constant for the D1 transition is $N_{D1}$= 201 GHz amu, and the normal mass shift constant for the $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition is $N_{SS}$= 325 GHz amu. From this we find : $\mathcal{S}_{D1}-\frac{F_{D1}}{F_{SS}}\mathcal{S}_{SS}$ = $-$214(847) GHz amu.
\[sec:level2\]Conclusion {#Conclusion}
========================
We have observed the electric dipole forbidden $7s\rightarrow8s$ transition using two-photon excitation in five different isotopes of francium towards our efforts to perform APNC experiment in this rare alkali atom. Combining our measurements with previous measurements of the $7s\rightarrow7p_{1/2}$ transition we have performed a King Plot analysis and extracted the ratio of field shift constants. Our measurements provide benchmarks for theoretical calculations necessary to interpret results of future APNC experiments. Towards this we find excellent agreement between *ab initio* theory and experiment for the ratio of field shift constants.
\[sec:level2\]Acknowledgements {#Acknowledgements}
==============================
We thank the ISAC staff at TRIUMF for developing the francium beam and Mikhail Kozlov for helpful discussions. The francium experiment is operated with NSERC (Canada) and NSF PHY-1307536 (USA) grants and was established with equipment funds by DOE (USA) and NSERC (Canada). TRIUMF receives federal funding through a contribution agreement with the National Research Council of Canada. M.S.S. is supported by NSF grant PHY-1620687 (USA) and the UNSW group by the Australian Research Council. M.S.S. thanks the School of Physics at UNSW, Sydney, Australia for hospitality and acknowledges support from the Gordon Godfrey Fellowship program, UNSW. S.A. acknowledges support from Fulbright Canada, and E.G. from CONACYT (Mexico). A.C.dH and M.J.K. were supported in part via the University of Manitoba GETS program.
[^1]: In the relativistic case, $F \delta \langle r^2\rangle$ is replaced by $\tilde{F} \delta \langle r^{2\gamma}\rangle$, where $\gamma=(1- Z^2 \alpha^2)^{1/2}$ [@DzuFlaWeb17].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '[**In Mott insulators, the strong electron-electron Coulomb repulsion prevents metallicity and charge excitations are gapped. In dimensions greater than one, their spins are usually ordered antiferromagnetically at low temperatures. Geometrical frustrations can destroy this long-range order, leading to exotic quantum spin liquid (QSL) states [@Balents10]. However, their magnetic ground states have been a long-standing mystery [@Anderson73; @Moessner01; @Wen02; @Morita02; @Motrunich05; @Lee05; @Yoshioka09; @Qi09; @Block11; @Pot12; @Mis99; @Kyu06; @Lawler08]. Here we show that a QSL state in the organic Mott insulator EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ with two-dimensional triangular lattice [@Itou08; @Yamashita10; @Itou10; @Yamashita11; @Kanoda11] has Pauli-paramagnetic-like low-energy excitations, which are a hallmark of itinerant fermions. Our torque magnetometry down to low temperatures (30mK) up to high fields (32T) reveal distinct residual paramagnetic susceptibility comparable to that in a half-filled two-dimensional metal. This demonstrates that the system is in a magnetically gapless ground state, a critical state with infinite magnetic correlation length. Moreover, our results are robust against deuteration, pointing toward the emergence of an extended ‘quantum critical phase’, in which low-energy spin excitations behave as in paramagnetic metals with Fermi surface, despite the frozen charge degree of freedom.** ]{}'
author:
- 'D. Watanabe$^{1,*}$'
- 'M. Yamashita$^{1,2}$'
- 'S. Tonegawa$^1$'
- 'Y. Oshima$^2$'
- 'H.M. Yamamoto$^{2,3}$'
- 'R. Kato$^2$'
- 'I. Sheikin$^4$'
- 'K. Behnia$^5$'
- 'T. Terashima$^6$'
- 'S. Uji$^6$'
- 'T. Shibauchi$^1$'
- 'Y. Matsuda$^1$'
title: 'Novel Pauli-paramagnetic quantum phase in a Mott insulator'
---
At sufficiently low temperatures, condensed matter systems generally tend to order. QSLs are a prominent exception, in which no local order parameter is formed while the entropy vanishes at zero temperature. In two- or three-dimensional (2D or 3D) systems, it is widely believed [@Balents10] that QSL ground states may emerge when interactions among the magnetic degrees of freedom are incompatible with the underlying crystal geometry. Typical 2D examples of such geometrically frustrated systems can be found in triangular and kagome lattices. Largely triggered by the proposal of the resonating-valence-bond theory on spin-1/2 degrees of freedom residing on a 2D triangular lattice [@Anderson73] and its possible application to high-transition-temperature superconductivity [@Lee06], realizing/detecting QSLs has been a long-sought goal. Until now, quite a number of QSLs with various types of ground states have been proposed [@Anderson73; @Moessner01; @Wen02; @Morita02; @Motrunich05; @Lee05; @Yoshioka09; @Qi09; @Block11; @Pot12; @Mis99; @Kyu06; @Lawler08], but the lack of real materials had prevented us from understanding the nature of QSLs.
The two recently discovered organic Mott insulators, $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$ [@Shimizu06; @Yamashita08; @Yamashita09; @Goto10; @Pratt11] and EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ [@Itou08; @Yamashita10; @Itou10; @Yamashita11] (see Fig.1a), are very likely to be the first promising candidates to host a QSL in real bulk materials [@Kanoda11]. In these systems, (BEDT-TTF)$^{\frac{1}{2}+}$ cations or Pd(dmit)$_2^{\frac{1}{2}-}$ anions are strongly dimerized and spin-1/2 units of (BEDT-TTF)$_2$ and \[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ form 2D triangular structure. In both systems, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)[@Shimizu06; @Itou08] and muon spin rotation[@Goto10; @Pratt11] measurements exhibit no sign of long-range magnetic ordering down to a very low temperature whose energy scale corresponds to $J/10,000$ ($J/k_B\sim 250$K for both compounds), where $J$ is the nearest-neighbour exchange coupling energy. These findings aroused great interest because even in a quantum spin-1/2 triangular lattice antiferromagnet, the frustration brought on by the nearest-neighbour Heisenberg interaction is known to be insufficient to destroy the long-range ordered ground state. Several classes of QSL states have been put forth to explain these exotic spin states, yet their ground state remains puzzling. Between the two compounds, EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ appears to be more ideal to single out genuine features of the QSL, because more homogeneous QSL state can be attained at low temperatures [@Itou10]. In contrast, $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$ has been reported to have an inhomogeneous and phase-separated spin state [@Shimizu06; @Goto10].
What is remarkable in the QSL state of EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ is the presence of the gapless excitations, which are highly mobile with long mean free path, as reported by thermal conductivity [@Yamashita10] and heat capacity measurements [@Yamashita11]. However, there are two fundamental questions that still remain open. The first one is the magnetic nature of the gapless excitations, which cannot be obtained from the above measurements. Whether the excitations are magnetic or nonmagnetic bears direct implications on the spin-spin correlation function. The second question concerns the phase diagram; how the QSL varies when tuned by the non-thermal parameter, such as frustration, is the key to understanding the ground state. The uniform susceptibility in the low-temperature limit provides pivotal information on the magnetic character of the ground state. However, conventional measurements using SQUID magnetometer are susceptible to paramagnetic contributions due to impurities. Indeed, for EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$, the temperature region of importance is below $\sim$5 K, but SQUID signal is dominated by the paramagnetic contributions residing on the non-magnetic cation EtMe$_3$Sb layers [@Yamashita10]. To resolve the intrinsic magnetic susceptibility of the QSL in single crystalline samples, we performed the magnetic torque $\bm{\tau}$ measurements by using micro-cantilever method [@Okazaki11] (Fig.1b), which is the cross product of the applied field $\bm{H}$ and the magnetization $\bm{M}$ ($M_i=\Sigma_i\chi_{ij}H_j$ where $\chi_{ij}$ is the spin susceptibility tensor diagonalised along the magnetic principal axes, see Figs.1c and d) as $\bm{\tau} = \mu_0 V \bm{M} \times \bm{H}$, where $\mu_0$ is the permeability of vacuum and $V$ is the sample volume. The most advantage of this method is that the large Curie contribution from impurity spins is cancelled out (Supplementary Information).
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Figures1e and f depict the magnetic torque curves of EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ (h$_9$-dmit) when the magnetic field of $\mu_0H=7$T is rotated within the $ac^{\ast}$ and $bc^{\ast}$ plane, where $\theta$ is the polar angle measured from the $c^{\ast}$ axis. In these figures, we also plot the angular dependence of the gyromagnetic ratio ($g$-factor) arising from the spin-1/2 of \[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ dimers. The uniform susceptibility $\chi_{\perp}$ and magnetization $M_{\perp}$ perpendicular to the $ab$ plane ($\parallel c^{\ast}$ axis) can be determined from the torque and $g$-factors (Supplementary Information). Figures2a and b depict the temperature dependence of $\chi_{\perp}$ at $\mu_0H=7$T and the field dependence of $M_{\perp}$ at $T=30$mK, respectively, for pristine crystal (h$_9$-dmit) and its deuterated compound (d$_9$-dmit), which has different degrees of geometrical frustration [@Yamashita11]. The absolute value of $\chi_{\perp}$ is nearly 1.5 times larger than $\chi$ of polycrystalline samples of h$_9$-dmit determined by the SQUID magnetometer (Fig.2a).
The most notable features are (i) $\chi_{\perp}$ is temperature independent below 2K and remains finite in zero temperature limit (Fig.2a) and (ii) $M_{\perp}$ increases nearly linearly with the applied field up to 17T (Fig.2b). In the dmit materials the orbital paramagnetic (Van Vleck) susceptibility is very small (Supplementary Information), and thus the spin (Pauli) paramagnetism should be responsible for the observed temperature-independent and field-linear paramagnetic response. These results in the low-temperature limit provide direct evidence of the presence of low-lying gapless ‘magnetic’ excitations. It is also clear that the gapless excitations observed in the thermal conductivity [@Yamashita10] and the heat capacity [@Yamashita11] measurements contain the magnetic ones. As the spin gap $\Delta$ is inversely proportional to the magnetic correlation length $\xi$, this spin-gapless QSL state has infinite $\xi$. Therefore the presence of the gapless magnetic excitations is of crucially importance, as it immediately indicates that the QSL is in a critical state where the spin-spin correlation function decays with distance $r$ in an anomalous non-exponential manner: a simple example is the power-law decay $\langle S^z(r)S^z(0)\rangle \propto r^{-\eta}$ with $\eta>0$ for the so-called algebraic spin liquid [@Wen02]. While NMR measurements report an anomaly at 1K [@Itou10], no anomaly is observed in the magnetic susceptibility, which is consistent with the thermal conductivity [@Yamashita10] and specific heat measurements [@Yamashita11]. This indicates that the NMR anomaly at 1K is not a signature of the thermodynamic transition, but a phenomenon which may be related to the slow spin dynamics of the QSL.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
There are two possible phase diagrams for the QSL as a function of frustration, as illustrated in Figs.3a and b. With increasing frustration, a magnetically ordered phase with broken symmetry is destroyed at a critical value, beyond which a QSL phase without broken symmetry appears. The first case is that a gapless QSL with infinite $\xi$ emerges only at a quantum critical point (QCP) [@Sachdev99], beyond which the spin-gapped QSL with finite $\xi$ appears (Fig.3a). In this case the QSL is placed in a category of topological spin liquid in which spin correlation function decays exponentially with distance as $\exp(-r/\xi)$ except at QCP. The second case is that there is an extended critical ‘phase’, where the gapless QSL with infinite correlation length is stably present (Fig.3b). These two cases can be distinguished by comparing $\chi_{\perp}$ of h$_9$-dmit and d$_9$-dmit at $k_B T \ll J$, because deuteration of the Me groups in EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ changes the degrees of geometrical frustration by reducing $t'/t$ [@Yamashita11]. As shown in Figs.2a and b, both h$_9$- and d$_9$-dmit crystals exhibit essentially the same paramagnetic behaviours with no spin gap, indicating that both materials are in a critical state down to $k_B T \sim J/10,000$. These results lead us to conclude the presence of an extended quantum critical phase of the spin-gapless QSL (Fig.3b).
The presence of a stable QSL ‘phase’ with gapless magnetic excitations is hard to explain in the conventional bosonic picture. Within this picture, when the magnetic long-range order is established, the gapless Nambu-Goldstone bosons, i.e. magnons, would arise as the consequence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the spin SU(2) symmetry. When the system evolves into the QSL state with no symmetry breaking, the common wisdom is that both of the magnetic order and Nambu-Goldstone bosons disappear at the same time. This implies that the presence of gapless QSL phase has some exotic elementary excitations. Among them, ‘spinon’ excitation, which is a chargeless spin-1/2 quasiparticle (half of the magnons), has been discussed extensively. In theories of the QSL with the bosonic spinons, the magnetic order is described by the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) [@Giamarchi2008] of the bosonic spinons. When the magnetic order is destroyed or the BEC disappears, the bosonic spinons in the resulting QSL can only be gapless at the critical point beyond which they become gapped [@Qi09]. The presence of an extended region of spin-gapless QSL phase at zero or very low temperatures, therefore, would suggest that the underlying QSL phase may be better described by the QSL with fermionic spinons [@Lee05; @Block11].
Indeed, the gapless magnetic excitations bears some resemblance to the elementary excitations in the spin channel of metals with Fermi surface, i.e. Pauli paramagnetism. Here we examine a thermodynamic test simply by analysing the data in accordance with the assumptions that the elementary quasiparticles in the QSL phase are 2D fermions with Fermi surface, even though the system is an insulator (see Supplementary Information for detail calculations). Using $\chi_{\perp}=8.0(5)\times10^{-4}$ emu/mol (Fig.2a), the specific heat coefficient of the fermionic excitations, which corresponds to the Sommerfeld constant in metals, is estimated to be $\approx 56$mJ/K$^2$mol. This value is of the same order of magnitude reported by the heat capacity measurements [@Yamashita11]. Moreover, the Fermi temperature, which is predicted to be the order of magnitude of $J/k_B$($\sim250$K) [@Katsura10], is estimated to be $\sim 480$K. Thus, although the present simple estimations should be scrutinized, these thermodynamic quantities appear to be quantitatively consistent with the theory of the QSL that possesses a spinon Fermi surface. In d$_9$-dmit, while $\gamma$-value is enhanced by nearly twice [@Yamashita11], $\chi_{\perp}$ is reduced by nearly 15%, compared with h$_9$-dmit. This may indicate that the nonmagnetic excitations, which enter not in $\chi_{\perp}$ but in $\gamma$, are enhanced close to the magnetic end point, whose origin deserves further studies.
The most direct evidence of the presence of the Fermi surface may be given by the quantum oscillation measurements [@Motrunich06]. To search such oscillations, we have measured the torque up to $\mu_0H=32$T at 30mK (Supplementary Information). We find an extended paramagnetic response up to the highest field, but no discernible oscillation is observed within the experimental resolution (inset in Fig.2b). A possible explanation for this is that the coupling between the applied magnetic field and the gauge flux which causes the quantum oscillations is very small.
The presently revealed extended Pauli-paramagnetic quantum phase bears striking resemblance to metals with Fermi surface rather than insulators even though the charge degrees of freedom are frozen. We also emphasise that the presence of such a novel quantum phase might provide profound implications on the physics of other class of strongly interacting many-body systems in the vicinity of the end point of long-range order as well as the exotic quantum spin systems.
We thank fruitful discussion with L. Balents, S. Fujimoto, T. Goto, M. Imada, N. Kawakami, Y.B. Kim, P.A. Lee, R. Moessner, N. Nagaosa, T. Sasaki, T. Senthil, and K. Totsuka. This research has been supported through Grant-in-Aid for the Global COE program “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from MEXT of Japan, KAKENHI from JSPS, and grant-in-aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (No. 20110003) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
Supplementary Information
=========================
Methods
-------
Single crystals of (Et = C$_2$H$_5$, Me = CH$_3$, dmit = 1,3-dithiole-2-thione-4,5-dithiolate) were grown by the air-oxidation method. This material has a layered structure (space group $C2/c$) with the lattice parameters $a=14.515$Å, $b=6.408$Å, and the inter-layer distance $d=c^*/2=18.495$Å. The deuterated crystals of d$_9$-EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ were prepared by the same method using (Et(CD$_3$)$_3$Sb)$_2$\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$. The deuterium atoms were introduced by CD3I (99.5%D). Typical sample size is $\sim 1$mm $\times$ 1mm $\times$ 0.05mm.
All magnetic torque measurements were carried out by attaching one single crystal to a cantilever with a tiny amount of grease. Piezo-resistive cantilevers were used in the measurements at Kyoto University ($\mu_0H < 7$T, $T > 0.3$K) and at NIMS ($\mu_0H < 17$T, 30mK $\leq T \leq 1$K). In the measurement at High magnetic field facility at Grenoble (30mK $\leq T \leq 1$K), magnetic fields up to 32 T were provided by a resistive magnet and a capacitance-sensing metallic cantilever was used. To determine the absolute value of $\chi_\perp$ (Fig.2a), sensitivities of the each cantilever were calibrated in situ by detecting $\sin\theta$ oscillation due to the sample mass at zero field. Thermal equilibrium between samples and cryostat at the lowest temperature was ensured by immersing the whole setup into the mixture of the dilution refrigerator.
Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements have been performed in RIKEN by using a conventional X-band EPR spectrometer (JEOL, JES-RE3X) equipped with a continuous He-flow cryostat. The angular dependence measurement of the $g$-value was carried out using the same single crystal at 4K, and the $g$-value for each angle has been precisely obtained from the correction using the Mn$^{2+}$ field marker.
Determination of susceptibility from the torque measurements {#chi}
------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we describe how we determine the uniform susceptibility $\chi_{\perp}$ and magnetization $M_{\perp}$ from the torque measurements.
By adopting principal axes of $g$-factor ($\bm{p}$, $\bm{q}$ and $\bm{r} = \bm{p} \times \bm{q}$ as shown in Fig.1c and d) as orthogonal coordinate system, the spin susceptibility tensor can be diagonalized as $$\bm{M} = \begin{pmatrix}
\chi_{pp} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \chi_{qq} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \chi_{rr}
\end{pmatrix}
\bm{H}. \label{chidiag}$$
The torque detected by the cantilever method is a component perpendicular to the field-rotating plane (Fig.1b). For the $c^\ast-a$ rotation this is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{c^\ast-a}(\theta) &=& \left( \bm{c^\ast} \times \bm{a} \right) \cdot \left( \bm{M} \times \bm{H} \right) \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\mu_0H^2V(\chi_{qq}-\chi_{pp})\sin 2(\theta+\theta_0),\end{aligned}$$ and for the $c^\ast-b$ rotation we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{c^\ast-b}(\theta) &=& \left( \bm{c^\ast} \times \bm{b} \right) \cdot \left( \bm{M} \times \bm{H} \right) \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\mu_0H^2V(\chi_{pp}\sin^2\theta_0+\chi_{qq}\cos^2\theta_0-\chi_{rr})\sin 2\theta. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
These equations show that the torque should have a sinusoidal shape with two-fold oscillation crossing zero at the maximum and minimum positions of the $g$-factor. This is exactly what we observed (Fig.1:e and f). This indicates that the susceptibility can be diagonalized as in Eq.(\[chidiag\]) and that the anisotropy of the $g$-factor is the origin of the anisotropy of the susceptibility in this spin liquid system.
Having established that the magnetic susceptibility reflects the anisotropy of $g$-factor, we assume that the susceptibility is proportional to the square of the $g$-factor ($\chi_{ii} = g_{ii}^2 \tilde{\chi}$) as in conventional paramagnetic systems. Then $\chi_{ij}$ can be obtained by the reduced susceptibility $\tilde{\chi}$, which is determined from $\tau_{c^\ast-a}$ and $\tau_{c^\ast-b}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{c^\ast-a}(\theta) &=& \frac{1}{2}\mu_0H^2V(g_{qq}^2-g_{pp}^2)\tilde{\chi}\sin 2(\theta+\theta_0) \\
\tau_{c^\ast-b}(\theta) &=& \frac{1}{2}\mu_0H^2V(g_{pp}^2\sin^2\theta_0+g_{qq}^2\cos^2\theta_0-g_{rr}^2)\tilde{\chi}\sin 2\theta \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where the principal values of $g$-factor and $\theta_0$ are provided by the electron paramagnetic resonance measurements (Fig.1e and f) as $g_{pp} = 1.9963$, $g_{qq} = 2.0325$, $g_{rr} = 2.0775$, $g_{c^\ast c^\ast} = 2.0217$ and $\theta_0 = 32$degree. The susceptibility for the magnetic field perpendicular to the basal plane is, therefore, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\perp} = g_{c^\ast c^\ast}^2 \tilde{\chi}, \qquad M_{\perp} = \chi_{\perp}H.\end{aligned}$$ The two independent measurements $\tau_{c^\ast-a}$ and $\tau_{c^\ast-b}$ give quantitatively consistent results for $\chi_{\perp}$ (red and green circles in Fig.2a, respectively), confirming the validity of our analysis.
Origin of the paramagnetic susceptibility
-----------------------------------------
The obtained $\chi_{\perp}(T)$ in the spin-liquid state of EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ is nearly temperature-independent at low temperatures below $\sim 2$K. This immediately indicates that in the torque measurements, the Curie contribution from the free spins of the impurities is almost exactly cancelled out. This indicates that such free spins are not subject to the $g$-factor anisotropy, which may be explained if the impurity spins reside at the EtMe$_3$Sb cation site between the dmit layers. The absence of the Curie term is also confirmed from the field-linear magnetization without saturation in a wide field range covering large $B/T$ ratios, which cannot be fitted by the Brillouin function.
The paramagnetic temperature-independent susceptibility, in general, may be originated from the orbital Van Vleck susceptibility and the spin Pauli susceptibility. However, the Van Vleck term is found to be negligibly small in the closely related isostructural material Et$_2$Me$_2$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ with slightly different cations Et$_2$Me$_2$Sb. In this material, a large spin gap is formed below the first-order transition at $\sim 70$K, which has been attributed to the charge disproportionation in \[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ anions. The susceptibility jumps from the value close to the present EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ case at high temperature to almost zero below the transition, indicating the absence of the Van Vleck paramagnetic susceptibility [@Tamura05]. This strongly suggests that the sizable paramagnetic temperature-independent susceptibility in the spin liquid state of EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$ can be fully attributed to the spin Pauli susceptibility. We also note that the diamagnetic Landau susceptibility, if present, should give a very minor correction to the Pauli susceptibility, because we did not observe the quantum oscillations at high magnetic fields.
Estimation of thermodynamic quantities of 2D Fermion from $\chi_{\perp}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we explain the estimations of the specific heat coefficient ($\gamma$) and the Fermi temperature ($T_F$) by assuming the system can be described by simple 2D fermions with Fermi surface as in conventional metals, even though the system is an insulator. The Pauli susceptibility is given by $$\chi_{\perp}=\frac{1}{4}g_{c^{\ast}}^2 \mu_B^2 D(\varepsilon_F),$$ where $\varepsilon_F$ is the Fermi energy, $D(\varepsilon_F)$ is the density of states and $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. In 2D systems, $D(\varepsilon_F)=n/\varepsilon_F$ where $n$ is the number of fermion (spin) per volume. Using $\chi_{\perp}=8.0(5)\times10^{-4}$ emu/mol (Fig.2a), the specific heat coefficient of the fermionic excitations, which corresponds to the Sommerfeld constant in metals, yielded by the equation $$\gamma = \frac{1}{3} \pi^2 k_B^2 D(\varepsilon_F) = \frac{1}{3}\pi^2k_B^2 \frac{4 \chi_{\perp}}{g_{c^{\ast}}^2 \mu_B^2} \sim \text{56~mJ/K$^2$ mol}$$ This value is of the same order of magnitude as the values reported by the heat capacity measurements [@Yamashita11]. Provided that a substantial portion of the gapless excitations observed by specific heat is magnetic, the $\gamma$ and $\chi_{\perp}$ values result in a Wilson ratio close to unity, which is a basic properties of metals. The Fermi temperature, given by the relation $$T_F=\varepsilon_F/k_B=\frac{g_{c^{\ast}}^2\mu_B^2}{4\chi_{\perp}k_B} \sim \text{480\,K},$$ which is in the same order as $J/k_B \sim 250$ K.
Search for quantum oscillations
-------------------------------
To find a quantum oscillation due to a spinon Fermi surface, the magnetic torque of the pristine sample (h$_9$-dmit (C)) was measured up to 32T. The magnetization $M_{\perp}$ is estimated from the torque as described in section \[chi\]. After subtracting the background signal determined by a linear approximation to data above 12T, the data is plotted as a function of $1/H$ as red line in the upper inset of Fig.2b. However, no discernible oscillation is observed within the experimental resolution.
An important requirement to observe the quantum oscillation in the torque (de Haas-van Alphen effect) in a metal is a long mean free path $\ell=v_F\tau$ ($v_F$ is the Fermi velocity and $\tau$ is the scattering time) to satisfy that $\omega_c\tau=\frac{eB\tau}{m^*}=\mu B$ exceeds unity, where $\omega_c$ is the cyclotron frequency, $m^*$ is the effective mass and $\mu$ is the mobility. In a simple metal, the mobility can be estimated by using the residual thermal conductivity $\kappa_0/T$, the Sommerfeld constant $\gamma$, and the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_F$ through $$\mu=\frac{e\tau}{m^*}=\frac{3\kappa_0/T}{2\gamma\varepsilon_F}.$$ By using $\kappa_0/T\approx0.2$W/K$^2$m [@Yamashita10], $\gamma\approx 20$mJ/K$^2$mol [@Yamashita11], and $\varepsilon_F/k_B\sim 480$K estimated by the present susceptibility measurements, we can roughly estimate $\mu\sim 0.18$T$^{-1}$ in the spin-liquid state of EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$. This yields $\omega_c\tau>5$ at 32T, which strongly suggests that the impurity scattering effect is not the main origin of the absence of the quantum oscillations.
A possible explanation for the absence of the quantum oscillations is that the coupling between the applied magnetic field and the gauge flux which causes the quantum oscillations is very small. This seems to be consistent with the fact that our torque curves can be described only by the $g$-factor anisotropy, without showing any contribution from the orbital (spinon) motion in the 2D plane. We also point out that the thermal Hall effect in this material [@Yamashita10] is negligibly small compared with a theoretical suggestion [@Katsura10], which may be originated from the same physics.
[99]{}
Balents, L. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets. [*Nature*]{} [**464**]{}, 199-208 (2010).
Anderson, P. W. Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator. [*Mater. Res. Bull.*]{} [**8**]{}, 153-160 (1973).
Moessner, R. & Sondhi, S. L. Resonating valence bond phase in the triangular lattice quantum dimer model. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 1881-1884 (2001).
Wen, X. G. Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**65**]{}, 165113 (2002).
Qi, Y., Xu, C., & Sachdev, S. Dynamics and transport of the $Z_2$ spin liquid: Application to $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{}, 176401 (2009).
Block, M. S., Sheng, D. N. Motrunich, O. I., & Fisher, M. P. A. Spin Bose-Metal and Valence Bond Solid phases in a spin-1/2 model with ring exchanges on a four-leg triangular ladder. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{}, 157202 (2011).
Morita, H., Watanabe, S., & Imada, M. Nonmagnetic insulating states near the Mott transitions on lattices with geometrical frustration and implications for $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**71**]{}, 2109-2112 (2002).
Motrunich, O. I. Variational study of triangular lattice spin-1/2 model with ring exchanges and spin liquid state in $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**72**]{}, 045105 (2005).
Lee, S.-S. & Lee, P. A. U(1) gauge theory of the Hubbard model: Spin liquid states and possible application to $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{}, 036403 (2005).
Yoshioka, T., Koga, A., & Kawakami, N. Quantum phase transitions in the Hubbard model on a triangular lattice. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{}, 036401 (2009).
Potter, A.C., Barkeshli,M., McGreevy, J., & Senthil, T. Quantum spin liquids and the metal-insulator transition in doped semiconductors. Preprint at arXiv:1204.1342 (2012).
Misguich, G., Lhuillier, C., Bernu, B., & Waldtmann, C. Spin-liquid phase of the multiple-spin exchange Hamiltonian on the triangular lattice [*Phys. Rev. B.*]{} [**60**]{}, 1064-1074 (1999).
Kyung, B., & Tremnlay, A.-M.S. Mott Transition, Antiferromagnetism, and $d$-Wave Superconductivity in Two-Dimensional Organic Conductors [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 046402 (2006).
Lawler, M. J., Paramekanti, A., Kim, Y. B., & Balents, L. Gapless spin liquids on the three dimensional hyper-kagome lattice of Na$_4$Ir$_3$O$_8$. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{}, 197202 (2008).
Itou, T., Oyamada, A., Maegawa, S., Tamura, M. & Kato, R. Quantum spin liquid in the spin-1/2 triangular antiferromagnet EtMe$_3$Sb\[Pd(dmit)$_2$\]$_2$. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**77**]{}, 104413 (2008).
Yamashita, M. [*et al.*]{} Highly mobile gapless excitations in a two-dimensional candidate quantum spin liquid. [*Science*]{} [**328**]{}, 1246-1248 (2010).
Itou, T., Oyamada, A., Maegawa, S. & Kato, R. Instability of a quantum spin liquid in an organic triangular-lattice antiferromagnet. [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**6**]{}, 673-676 (2010).
Yamashita, S. [*et al.*]{} Gapless spin liquid of an organic triangular compound evidenced by thermodynamic measurements. [*Nature Commun.*]{} [**2**]{}, 275 (2011).
Kanoda, K. & Kato, R. Mott physics in organic conductors with triangular lattices. [*Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.*]{} [**2**]{}, 167-188 (2011).
Lee, P. A., Nagaosa, N. & Wen, X. G. Doping a Mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**78**]{}, 17-85 (2006).
Shimizu, Y., Miyagawa, K., Kanoda, K., Maesato, M. & Saito, G. Emergence of inhomogeneous moments from spin liquid in the triangular-lattice Mott insulator $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**73**]{}, 140407 (2006).
Yamashita, S. [*et al.*]{} Thermodynamic properties of a spin-1/2 spin-liquid state in a $\kappa$-type organic salt. [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**4**]{}, 459-462 (2008).
Yamashita, M. [*et al.*]{} Thermal-transport measurements in a quantum spin-liquid state of the frustrated triangular magnet $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**5**]{}, 44-47 (2009).
Nakajima, S. [*et al.*]{} Microscopic phase separation in triangular-lattice quantum spin magnet $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$ probed by muon spin relaxation. [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**81**]{}, 063706 (2012).
Pratt, F. L. [*et al.*]{} Magnetic and non-magnetic phases of a quantum spin liquid. [*Nature*]{} [**471**]{}, 612-616 (2011).
Okazaki, R. [*et al.*]{} Rotational symmetry breaking in the hidden-order phase of URu$_2$Si$_2$. [*Science*]{} [**331**]{}, 439-442 (2011).
See, for example, Sachdev, S. [*Quantum Phase Transitions*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999).
Giamarchi, T., Rüegg, C., Tchernyshyov, O. Bose-Einstein condensation in magnetic insulators. [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**4**]{}, 198-204 (2008).
Katsura, H., Nagaosa, N. & Lee, P. A. Theory of the thermal Hall effect in quantum magnets. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{}, 066403 (2010).
Motrunich, O. I. Orbital magnetic field effects in spin liquid with spinon Fermi sea: Possible application to $\kappa$-(ET)$_2$Cu$_2$(CN)$_3$. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**73**]{}, 155115 (2006).
Tamura, M. & Kato, R. Spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnets on anisotropic triangular lattice, \[Pd(dmit)$_2$\] salts: How do they release frustration? [*Polyhedron*]{} [**24**]{}, 2817-2820 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Ben Coltman
- Yixuan Li
- Antonio Padilla
title: 'Cosmological consequences of [*Omnia Sequestra*]{}'
---
Introduction
============
In an effective quantum field theory, radiative corrections to the vacuum energy generically scale like the fourth power of the cut-off. In the absence of gravity, this sensitivity to the ultra-violet (UV) sector of the theory is unobservable. However, once gravity is switched on, vacuum energy couples to the metric through the covariant measure, sourcing Einstein’s field equations. The implications for the resulting spacetime are catastrophic, curving the geometry to scales that lie at least sixty orders[^1] of magnitude beyond the observational limits. We can reconcile theory with experiment by including a finite correction to the counter term for vacuum energy although its value must be fine-tuned to one part in $10^{60}$ or worse. Furthermore, this tuning is unstable against subtle changes to the UV sector of the theory, representing the worst violation of naturalness known to Physics. This is known as the cosmological constant problem [[@zeldovich; @wein; @pol; @cliff; @me]]{}.
Vacuum energy sequestering has been proposed as a mechanism for stabilising the observed cosmological constant against these radiative corrections to vacuum energy [[@KP1; @KP2; @KP3; @KPSZ; @KPS; @KP4; @etude; @irat; @mon]]{}. Sequestering exploits new rigid degrees of freedom, constant in space and time, whose global variation forces a cancellation between radiative corrections and a dynamical counterterm. The physics of the mechanism is strongly reminiscent of so-called decapitation [@decap; @selftun], with non-trivial behaviour kicking in at infinite wavelength. The observed cosmological constant turns out to be stable against radiative corrections, depending only on spacetime averages of local matter excitations, as well as boundary fluxes whose values are UV insensitive and should be fixed empirically.
Recently, sequestering has been shown to emerge at low energies from a pair of field theory monodromies [@mon] (see also [@irat]) raising hope for a realisation of the mechanism within string theory. Although these monodromy constructions introduce new local degrees of freedom, they are taken to be extremely heavy, at the GUT scale or beyond, so that at low energies we are only sensitive to their rigid behaviour. Such low energy descriptions coincide with the global modifications of General Relativity that characterise the original sequestering proposals [@KP1; @KP2; @KP3; @KPSZ; @KPS; @KP4; @etude]. The most sophisticated version of these corresponds to what we shall call [*Omnia Sequestra*]{} (OS). This is the theory developed in [@KP4], which has the capacity to cancel off radiative corrections to vacuum energy from loops that include virtual gravitons as well as matter fields. The main goal of this paper is to elaborate further on this proposal, with particular emphasis on cosmological implications.
Our first goal is to estimate the size of the residual cosmological constant in the theory. This is insensitive to radiative corrections to the vacuum energy, depending instead on historic integrals of localised matter sources, performed over the entire spacetime. These integrals reveal the presence of a potentially dangerous power law divergence, coming from standard matter profiles near the cosmological singularity. Such historic integrals, performed over the whole of spacetime, are required to calculate the spacetime averages and are an artefact of the global modification of gravity. Divergences were also present in earlier sequestering proposals [@KP2], although in that case they were at most logarithmic, at least for homogeneous matter satisfying dominant energy conditions. Of course, divergences themselves are not the issue since we do not expect our effective theory to apply to arbitrarily high scales. What matters is how they scale with the cut-off. If we are to retain naturalness, [*power law*]{} scaling with the cutoff must not be allowed to contaminate the observed cosmological constant. Fortunately, in OS, the contamination can be diluted in a large and old universe, thanks to the spacetime averaging. In an infinite Universe there is no contamination whatsoever! In the end, we find that the historic integrals only make a small contribution to the residual cosmological constant, less than the current dark energy scale. This was also the case in earlier models of sequestering [@KP2], although the result is less trivial in this instance.
A significant part of our analysis will include a study of vacuum energy phase transitions in OS, both homogeneous and inhomogeneous, the latter mirroring a similar analysis carried out for earlier versions of the sequestering proposal [@KPS]. Although radiative (in)stability is at the heart of the cosmological constant problem, phase transitions provide an added complication. This is because they change the finite part of the vacuum energy, generically by ${\cal O}(M^4)$, where $M$ is the scale of the phase transition. For the QCD phase transition, we have $M \sim $ GeV, meaning that the vacuum energy before and after the transition differs by $ {\cal O}(\textrm{GeV}^4)$, which is some $46$ orders of magnitude larger than the critical density today, $ {\cal O}(\textrm{meV}^4)$. Somehow, the Universe knew what energy density to pick for the QCD vacuum prior to transition to an accuracy of one part in $10^{46}$, such that it would be cancelled to a sufficient extent after the transition. Electroweak and GUT phase transitions pose similar problems.
The geometric response to phase transitions is therefore a crucial question for sequestering models. If the vacuum energy remains constant in time, it is successfully sequestered away, but when there is a jump, it is not immediately clear which value of the vacuum energy should get cancelled. It can certainly not be both since the dynamical counterterm is single valued across the entire spacetime[^2]. In [@KP2; @KPS] it was shown that for early sequestering proposals, vacuum energy is cancelled most efficiently in those regions of spacetime that dominate the four-volume. For homogeneous transitions, this means that the earlier the transition, the more efficiently it is sequestered at late times. In an infinite Universe, sequestering is perfectly efficient after the last transition. For inhomogeneous transitions mediated through bubble nucleation, one finds that, generically, it is the near-Minkowski vacua that dominate the four-volumes for the allowed configurations. This means no fine-tuning is required to achieve a near Minkowski solution, even in the presence of multiple vacua.
Qualitatively, we find that these results carry through to OS, although there are some differences in the detail. For example, for homogeneous transitions, the Universe needs to survive for a sufficiently long time, beyond the current epoch, to ensure that the jump in vacuum energy does not contaminate the late time value of the cosmological constant. We also find new constraints on the functional form of the scalar potentials in the theory. Despite these subtleties, our results do seem to indicate that the sequestering mechanism has the capacity to deal efficiently with phase transitions, without fine-tuning, regardless of which particular proposal one is interested in.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows: in the next section we shall review the OS proposal, which has the capacity to tame the effects of vacuum energy loops including virtual gravitons as well as matter fields. Our analysis will include a few additional nice-ities including an extension of the theory to include a spacetime boundary and an appropriate choice of boundary condition. In section \[sec:homog\], we shall study cosmological implications of OS, focussing on homogeneous configurations. We perform estimates for spacetime averages by computing historic integrals, as well as studying the effects of homogeneous phase transitions and inflation. In section \[sec:bubble\] we consider inhomogeneous tunnelling events mediated through bubble nucleation. We compute tunnelling rates using Euclidian methods before Wick rotating back to Lorentzian signature to get an understanding of the geometric response seen by local observers. As we stated above, sequestering cancellations are generically most efficient in regions which dominate the four-volume, favouring near Minkowski vacua without any need to fine-tune. Finally, in section \[sec:conc\], we conclude.
Omnia Sequestra {#sec:review}
===============
The OS action is given by [@KP4], $$\begin{gathered}
S = \int \text{d}^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{M_\text{Pl}^2}{2} R - \Lambda (x) + \theta (x) R_{\text{GB}} \right. \\ \left. +\frac{1}{4!} \frac{\tensor{\epsilon}{^\mu^\nu^\lambda^\sigma}}{\sqrt{-g}} \left( \sigma \left(\frac{\Lambda }{\mu ^4}\right) \tensor{F}{_\mu_\nu_\lambda_\sigma} + \hat\sigma(\theta) \tensor{\hat F}{_\mu_\nu_\lambda_\sigma}\right) \right]+S_\text{m}\left[\tensor{g}{^\mu^\nu},\Psi\right] \qquad \label{GS}\end{gathered}$$ where the metric $\tensor{g}{_\mu_\nu}$ has Ricci scalar $R$, and $R_{\text{GB}}=\tensor{R}{_\mu_\nu_\lambda_\sigma}\tensor{R}{^\mu^\nu^\lambda^\sigma} -4 \tensor{R}{_\mu_\nu}\tensor{R}{^\mu^\nu}+R^2$ is associated with the Gauss-Bonnet invariant. The action also contains a pair of 4-form field stengths $\tensor{F}{_\mu_\nu_\lambda_\sigma} = 4\tensor{\partial}{_[_\mu}\tensor{A}{_\nu_\lambda_\sigma_]}$ and $\tensor{\hat F}{_\mu_\nu_\lambda_\sigma} = 4\tensor{\partial}{_[_\mu}\tensor{\hat A}{_\nu_\lambda_\sigma_]}$ each of whom is conjugate to the potential for a scalar field, respectively $ \sigma \left(\frac{\Lambda }{\mu ^4}\right)$ and $\hat\sigma(\theta)$. The scalars themselves correspond to a dynamical counterterm for the cosmological constant, $\Lambda(x)$, and a linear Gauss-Bonnet coupling, $\theta(x)$. At this stage, the potentials are assumed to be smooth functions with the argument of $\sigma$ normalised by the scale, $\mu$, generically assumed to lie at the cutoff. As for earlier versions of sequestering, both functions cannot be linear[^3]. $S_\text{m}$ describes the action for the matter fields minimally coupled to the metric.
Note that the second integral in (\[GS\]) is a non-gravitating, topological sector, as can be seen from the absence of the metric. The 4-forms act as a covariant measure and their gauge symmetries completely remove the local degrees of freedom, which fixes $\theta(x)$ and $\Lambda(x)$ on-shell. However, off-shell these scalars are fields, and their variation and selection of background values via the field equations constrain the spacetime average of the Gauss-Bonnet term, $\langle R_\text{GB} \rangle$. The couplings of $\theta(x)$ and $\Lambda(x)$ to the gravitational sector as well as to the 4-forms ensure the constraint on $\langle R_\text{GB} \rangle$, which yields the equation for the bare cosmological constant counterterm that guarantees cancellation of the loop corrections.
To illustrate, we will look at the global limit of the theory, and integrate out the 3-forms in . This constrains the scalars $\Lambda$ and $\theta$ to be constant in space and time. In other words, they become rigid degrees of freedom with no local variation, even off-shell. The resulting effective action is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
S = &&\int \text{d}^4x \sqrt{-g} \left( \frac{M_{\text{Pl}}^2}{2} R-\Lambda + \theta R_{\text{GB}} \right) +S_\text{m}\left[\tensor{g}{^\mu^\nu},\Psi\right] +
\sigma \left(\frac{\Lambda }{\mu ^4}\right) c + \hat\sigma(\theta) \hat c \label{GSEA}\end{aligned}$$ where the two scalars now behave as rigid Lagrange multipliers forcing global constraints on the theory. Here the constants $c=\int_\Sigma A$ and $\hat c=\int_\Sigma \hat A$ can be identified with fluxes of the 3-forms $A=\frac{1}{3!}\tensor{A}{_\nu_\lambda_\sigma}dx^\nu \wedge dx^\lambda \wedge dx^\sigma$ and $\hat A=\frac{1}{3!}\tensor{\hat A}{_\nu_\lambda_\sigma}dx^\nu \wedge dx^\lambda \wedge dx^\sigma$ through the spacetime boundary, $\Sigma$. Varying with respect to the metric and the rigid scalars, the resulting field equations are, M\_\^2 G\_= T\_-g\_\[GSFE1\] c= \^4x, ’ c=-R\_ \^4x \[GSFE2\] where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor and $T_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_m}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}$ is the energy momentum tensor. The ratio of the latter two equations constrains the spacetime average of the Gauss-Bonnet term in terms of the boundary fluxes, R\_ =-\^4 \[con\] This geometric constraint is crucial. The important point is that it is not scale invariant and so it constrains the infinite wavelength mode of the scalar curvature, which is the observable associated with the cosmological constant. Further, as $\hat c \to 0$, the action possesses a shift symmetry in the Gauss-Bonnet coupling, $\theta$, that protects the form of the constraint under graviton loops. In contrast, in earlier versions of sequestering there is a geometric constraint on the spacetime average of the Ricci scalar [@KP1; @KP2; @KPSZ] but this is spoiled by graviton loops because there is no analogue of this shift symmetry for the Planck mass. In any event, for OS, it is the stability of the constraint against graviton loops that allows us to extend the sequestering mechanism to take care of radiative corrections to vacuum energy that includes graviton loops as well as matter loops [@KP4].
To see the cancellation of vacuum energy loops, we derive an effective gravity equation by eliminating the rigid degrees of freedom [@KP4], \[AvgFE\] M\_\^2 [G]{}\_=[T]{}\_- T g\_- g\_, where $T=g^{\mu\nu} T_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Delta \Lambda$ is given by, \[resCC\] \^2=where $\tensor{W}{_\mu_\nu_\alpha_\beta}$ is the Weyl tensor. Now consider the effect of radiative corrections to vacuum energy. Firstly, note that the regularized vacuum energy contributions to the energy momentum tensor, $\langle vac|\tensor{T}{^\mu_\nu}| vac \rangle = -V_\text{vac} \tensor{\delta}{^\mu_\nu}$, will drop out of terms on the second line of (\[AvgFE\]). The Weyl tensor is scale invariant so it too is immune from vacuum energy, while $\langle R_\text{GB} \rangle$ is constrained by . The latter contains a potential source of instability through its dependence on $\Lambda$ and $\theta$, which receive radiative corrections that go as $\delta \Lambda \sim {\cal O}(M^4)$ and $\delta \theta \sim {\cal O}(1)\log(M/m)$, where $M$ is the effective field theory cut-off and $m$ is a typical mass scale [@Demers]. However, as long as $\sigma$ and $\hat \sigma$ are smooth functions and $\mu\gtrsim M$, it is easy to see that radiative corrections to $\Delta \Lambda$ are no worse than an order one rescaling, $\delta \Delta \Lambda \sim {\cal O}(1) \Delta \Lambda$, in accordance with naturalness. Therefore, in OS, the conclusion is that the observed cosmological constant is stable against all radiative corrections to vacuum energy, including in the contributions of virtual gravitons.
A more complete definition of OS should include boundary conditions and any additional boundary terms required for a well defined variational principle, the analogue of the Gibbons-Hawking term in General Relativity [@GibbonsHawking]. For an action of the form , the analogue of the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term is given by [@Davis; @Boundary_terms], \[boundaryterm\] -\_d\^3 x where $h_{ij}$ is the induced metric on the spacetime boundary, $\Sigma$, with corresponding Einstein tensor $\hat G^{ij}$. The extrinsic curvature, $K_{ij} =-\frac12 {\cal L}_n h_{ij}$, is defined in terms of the Lie derivative of the induced metric with respect to the [*outward*]{} pointing normal, $n^a$, and $K=h^{ij}K_{ij}$ is its trace. Finally, we define [@Davis], J\_[ij]{}=13 along with its trace $J=h^{ij} J_{ij}$. The full action is now given by supplemented with the boundary term ). Its variation now yields a boundary contribution of the form [@Davis; @Boundary_terms], -12 \_d\^3 x with, $$\begin{aligned}
I^{ij} &&=-M_\text{Pl}^2 (K^{ij}-K h^{ij} ) -4\theta (3 J^{ij}-J h^{ij}+ 2 \tensor{\hat P}{^i^k^l^j}\tensor{K}{_k_l} )+\ldots \qquad \label{Iij} \\
I^\theta &&= 8 (J-2 \hat G^{ij} K_{ij} ) \label{Ith}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tensor{\hat P}{^i^k^l^j}$ is the double dual of the Riemann tensor and the ellipsis denote terms proportional to gradients of $\theta$ that will vanish automatically thanks to the bulk equations of motion.
If we were to impose Dirichlet boundary conditions on all fields, the action and variational principle would now be well defined. However, as explained analogously in [@KPS], Dirichlet boundary conditions on either $\theta$ or $\Lambda$ would suppress their off-shell global fluctuations which are crucial to the success of the sequestering mechanism. To preserve the vacuum energy cancellation we must impose Neumann boundary conditions instead, n\^a \_a |\_=0, n\^a \_a |\_=0 Further imposing Dirichlet boundary conditions on the metric would now be problematic. Instead, we seek a boundary condition of the form $\delta h_{ij}|_\Sigma =A_{ij}\delta \theta|_\Sigma $ where $A_{ij}$ is chosen so that, ( + I\^)|\_= 0 , guaranteeing a stationary action on-shell. The task of finding a suitable choice of $A_{ij}$ is simplified for a three dimensional boundary by noting that the double dual of the Riemann tensor, $\tensor{\hat P}{^i^k^l^j}$, vanishes identically in 3 dimensions. We can also use the Cayley-Hamilton theorem for a $3 \times 3$ matrix, applied to $K_{ij}$, to show that $J_{ij}$ is a pure trace, $J_{ij}=-\frac23 h_{ij} \det K$. As a result, the final expression for simplifies considerably, giving $I^{ij}=-M_\text{Pl}^2 (K^{ij}-K h^{ij} ) $. In the end, we found a one parameter ($z$) family of suitable choices for $A_{ij}$, $$\begin{gathered}
A_{ij}=\frac{1}{M_\text{Pl}^2} \Bigg[ -16 \left(\hat R_{ij}-\frac14 \hat R h_{ij} \right)
-\frac{16}{3} \left( K_{ik} K^k{}_j- K K_{ij} -\frac{1}{4}(K_{kl} K^{kl}-K^2) h_{ij} \right) \Bigg] \\
+z \left[2 K K_{ij}+(K_{kl} K^{kl}-K^2 ) h_{ij} \right] \label{Aij}\end{gathered}$$ We have not been able to establish an intuitive geometric interpretation of this choice, although we note that for $z=0$, the extrinsic curvature terms appear in combinations familiar to the bulk curvature tensor, via the Gauss-Codazzi equations.
Cosmological Implications {#sec:homog}
=========================
Before studying the cosmological dynamics in detail, it is convenient to rewrite our effective gravity equation after explicitly splitting the energy-momentum tensor up into its constant vacuum energy part, $V_\text{vac}$ and local excitations, described by $\tau_{\mu\nu}$. To this end we write $T_{\mu\nu}=-V_\text{vac} g_{\mu\nu}+\tau_{\mu\nu}$ so that the vacuum energy drops out altogether and we obtain, M\_\^2 [G]{}\_=\_-\_ g\_ where we have a residual cosmological constant given by, \[Lres\] \_=14 +with, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{resCC2}
\Delta\Lambda^2=\frac{3M_\text{Pl}^4}{8}\Bigg[\left\langle R_{GB} \right\rangle - \left\langle (\tensor{W}{_\mu_\nu_\alpha_\beta})^2 \right\rangle
\left.
+\frac{2}{M_\text{Pl}^4} \left\langle \left({\tau}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\tau{g}_{\mu\nu}\right)^2 \right\rangle
-\frac{1}{6 M_\text{Pl}^4}\left(\left\langle \tau^2 \right\rangle - \left\langle \tau \right\rangle^2\right) \right]\end{gathered}$$ where $\tau=g^{\mu\nu} \tau_{\mu\nu}$. As emphasized previously, this residual cosmological constant is stable against radiative corrections to the vacuum energy and should now be fixed empirically. Of course, this is the same approach one takes for any relevant operator in effective field theory. For example, the electron mass is radiatively stable thanks to chiral symmetry, but its value cannot be predicted in effective field theory and should be set by measurement.
Let us now focus on a homogeneous and isotropic background, described by the standard cosmological metric, \[frw\] ds\^2=-dt\^2+a(t)\^2 d[**x**]{}\^2\_where $a(t)$ is the scale factor at time $t$, and $ d{\bf x}^2_\kappa$ is the metric on unit sphere ($\kappa=1$), plane ($\kappa=0$) or hyperboloid ($\kappa=-1$). Assuming that the local matter content of the Universe is described by a homogeneous energy density, $\rho$ and pressure, $p=w\rho$, we find that the dynamics is described by a Friedmann equation, \[frw1\] H\^2+= where $\Lambda_\text{res}=-\frac14 \langle (1-3w)\rho \rangle +\Delta \Lambda$ and, = \[DL\] Here we have used the fact that the Weyl tensor vanishes on a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric , as well as the constraint . Following [@KP2] , we evaluate the spacetime averages by assuming that the cosmology takes place over a (regulated) proper time interval $t_\text{in} < t < t_\text{out}$, with a (regulated) spatial co-moving volume $\text{Vol}_3$. For example, when we explicitly compute the constraint in this way we obtain, R\_[GB]{} =-\^4 \[con1\] The cancellation of the spatial volumes will be generic for all spacetime averages computed on this background.
Calculation of historic integrals {#calculation-of-historic-integrals .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
Let us now estimate the historic integrals that appear in and . To do so, we follow [@KP2] and split the cosmological history into intervals $(t_i,t_{i+1})$, for which the dominant source, $\rho$, has equations of state $w_i$ and the cosmological evolution has an [*effective*]{} equation of state $\bar w_i$. Generically we expect $w_i=\bar w_i$, although exceptions could include an epoc of curvature domination or domination by the residual cosmological constant, $\Lambda_\text{res}$, as one might expect to see at late times. In this $i$th interval, we can use the energy conservation equation $\dot \rho=-3H(\rho+p)$ and the Friedmann equations to obtain, \[FEqs\] H=H\_[i+1]{}()\^[-(1+|w\_i)]{}, =\_[i+1]{}()\^[-3(1+ w\_i)]{}, where $a_j$ and $H_j$ denote the scale and Hubble factors evaluated at time $t_j$. Let us define the generic contributions to the integrals in and evaluate them using . For $n=0, 1, 2$ we write, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{n, i} &{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}& f_{n, i} \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} dt \,a^3 \rho^n \\
&=& \left(\frac{a^3 \rho^n}{H}\right)_{i+1} \frac{ f_{n, i}}{g_{n, i}} \left[1-\left(\frac{a_i}{a_{i+1}}\right)^{g_{n, i}} \right] \\
&=& \left(\frac{a^3 \rho^n}{H}\right)_{i} \frac{ f_{n, i}}{g_{n, i}}\left[\left(\frac{a_{i+1}}{a_{i}}\right)^{g_{n, i}}-1 \right] \end{aligned}$$ where, f\_[n, i]{}=
1 & n=0\
1-3w\_i & n=1\
1+3w\_i & n=2
and, g\_[n,i]{}=32 (3+|w\_i)-3n(1+ w\_i) Note that for $g_{n, i}=0$, we understand the formulae for $I_{n, i}$ by taking the limit as $g_{n, i}\to 0$, in which case we obtain logarithms. Let us also define $I_n=\sum_i I_{n, i}$ where the sum is performed over all intervals in the entire cosmic history, so that now we may write, \[Lres1\] \_=-14 Owing to the quadratic nature of the global constraint, our solution comes with two roots. At this stage, we have no compelling reason to pick one root over the other. In higher dimensional Gauss-Bonnet gravity, solutions also split into two branches, and it is the branch that admits a smooth Einstein limit that typically avoids pathological behaviour [@GB].
Consider first an expanding phase, so that adjacent intervals satisfy $a_{i-1} \ll a_i \ll a_{i+1}$. We obtain the following ratio, | |= Depending on the values for the $g_{n, i}$, there are three possible scenarios[^4]:
1. $|I_{n, i} |\gg |I_{n, i-1}|$ e.g. when $g_{n,i}>0, g_{n,i-1} >0$, \[ir\]
2. $|I_{n, i} |\sim |I_{n, i-1}|$ e.g. when $g_{n,i}<0, g_{n,i-1} >0$,
3. $|I_{n, i} |\ll |I_{n, i-1}|$ e.g. when $g_{n,i}<0, g_{n,i-1} <0$\[uv\]
When case \[ir\] occurs, the later interval dominates thanks to the largeness of $a_{i+1}$, for appropriate values of $g_{n, i}$. In contrast, when case \[uv\] occurs, the earlier interval dominates thanks to the smallness of $a_{i-1}$, again, for appropriate values of $g_{n, i}$. One can obtain analogous results in a contracting phase (if there is one). What all this tells us is that the sums $I_n$ are dominated by their extreme infra-red and ultra-violet intervals, where the scale factor is largest and smallest respectively. To develop this further, let us define the infra-red interval as $a_\star< a< a_\text{max}$ and the ultra-violet interval as $a_\text{min}<a < a_\dagger$, where $a_\text{max}$ is the largest scale factor in the cosmic history, and $a_\text{min}$ is the smallest. $a_\text{min}$ is not taken to be zero, as one might naively expect, but to a regulated finite value consistent with the UV cut-off of the theory. In contrast, we do allow $a_\text{max}$ to be infinite, in principle. The precise values of $a_\star$ and $a_\dagger$ are not important in what follows. We may now write[^5], I\_n \~I\_n\^[UV]{}+I\_n\^[IR]{} where, $$\begin{aligned}
I_n^{UV} &=&\left(\frac{a^3 \rho^n}{H}\right)_{\star} \frac{ f_{n, UV}}{g_{n, UV}} \left[1-\left(\frac{a_\text{min}}{a_{\star}}\right)^{g_{n, UV}}\right] \\
I_n^{IR} &=&\left(\frac{a^3 \rho^n}{H}\right)_{\dagger} \frac{ f_{n, IR}}{g_{n, IR}} \left[\left(\frac{a_\text{max}}{a_{\dagger}}\right)^{g_{n, IR}}-1\right] \end{aligned}$$ These terms contain possible divergences as $a_\text{min} \to 0$ (for $g_{n, UV} \leq 0$) and $a_\text{max} \to \infty$ (for $g_{n, IR} \geq 0$). Of course, what we are really interested in are the ratios $I_n/I_0$. To this end we note that $g_{0, i}=\frac32(3+\bar w_i) \in [3, 6]$ for an effective equation of state $\bar w_i \in [-1, 1]$. This range is consistent with sources that satisfy the dominant energy condition. In any event, it follows that there is no divergent UV contribution to $I_0$, so that we simply have, \[I0\] I\_0 \~I\_0\^[IR]{} \~()\_ ()\^[32(3+|w\_[IR]{})]{} Now consider the ratios. From the infra-red regime, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_n^{IR}}{I_0} &\sim& \frac32(3+\bar w_{IR} ) \rho^n_\dagger \frac{ f_{n, IR}}{g_{n, IR}} \left(\frac{a_\text{max}}{a_{\dagger}}\right)^{-3n(1+ w_{IR})} \nonumber \\
& \sim& \frac32(3+\bar w_{IR} ) \rho^n_\text{max} \frac{ f_{n, IR}}{g_{n, IR}}\end{aligned}$$ The matter equation of state satisfies the dominant energy condition with vacuum energy excluded[^6], $w_i \in(-1, 1]$, so there is no divergence in the ratio $I_n^{IR}/I_0$ for $n=1, 2$. Indeed, we see that this ratio scales like $ \rho^n_\text{max}$, where $\rho_\text{max}$ is the homogeneous energy density associated with localised matter sources at the point where the Universe is at its largest. This contribution vanishes in an infinite Universe thanks to the dilution of such sources.
Now consider the ultra-violet regime. Here we have, \~- 32(3+|w\_[IR]{} ) For $g_{n, UV} <0$, there is a dangerous [*power law*]{} divergence as $a_\text{min} \to 0$ in a finite Universe (where $a_\text{max}$ is finite). Such a divergence could contaminate the observed cosmological constant, $\Lambda_\text{res}$, with power law cut-off dependence, in violation of naturalness. Indeed, given the allowed values $w_i \in(-1, 1], \bar w_i \in [-1, 1]$, we have that $g_{n, i} \in [3-6n, 6)$ and therefore a potentially dangerous cut-off dependence for $n=1, 2$. If we choose to identify $\bar w_{UV}=w_{UV}$, we can reduce the cut-off scaling to at worst a logarithmic one (for $w_{UV}=1$) for $n=1$ [@KP2], although for $n=2$, power law dependence remains for $w_{UV} \in [-1/3, 1]$.
This unnatural cut-off dependence can be eliminated in an infinite Universe, thanks to the volume suppression as $a_\text{max} \to \infty$. This suggests that there is a lower bound on the size of the Universe set by naturalness. Let’s have some fun by estimating this, noting first that $\frac{I_n^{UV}}{I_0} \sim \left(\frac{a^3 \rho^n}{H}\right)_{\text{min}}/\left(\frac{a^3}{H}\right)_{\text{max}} $. If we take $\rho_\text{min} \sim M_\text{Pl}^2 H^2_\text{min}$ then we can write, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_n^{UV}}{I_0} &\sim& \left(\frac{\mathcal{N}}{a_\text{max}/a_0} \right)^3 \frac{H_\text{max}}{H_0} (M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2)^n \\
&\lesssim& \left(\frac{\mathcal{N}}{a_\text{max}/a_0} \right)^3 (M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2)^n\end{aligned}$$ where $a_0$ is the present day scale factor and, =()\^[13 ]{} Here we have integrated over the cosmic history from the cutoff to the present day, giving, = ( )\^[32(1+|W(a\_, a\_0,))]{} where, 1+|W(a\_, a\_0)= and $\bar w (\ln a)$ is the effective equation of state when the scale factor has size $a$. We have also assumed $H_\text{min}\sim l_{UV}^{-1} $ where $l_{UV}$ is the length scale at which we cut off the theory (possibly the string length or the Planck length). In any event, provided $a_\text{max}/a_0 \gtrsim \mathcal{N}$, we are guaranteed that the UV contribution does not exceed the scale set by the critical density today, $I_n^{UV}/I_0 \lesssim (M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2)^n$.
The condition $a_\text{max}/a_0 \gtrsim \mathcal{N}$ is only required for $n=1, 2$, and given that $\bar W \in [-1, 1]$ our strongest bound comes from $n=2$ and $\bar W=1$. This yields $a_\text{max}/a_0 \gtrsim (H_0 l_{UV})^{-2/3}$, which for a Planckian cut-off, is a comforting $
a_\text{max}/a_0 \gtrsim 10^{40}
$ or $92$ more efolds of expansion! In any event, we trust that the reader has enough time to finish going through the rest of this paper.
Bringing everything together, we see that the residual cosmological constant receives up to three distinct contributions: the IR part of the historic integrals scaling as $\rho_\text{max} \lesssim M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2$; the UV part of the historic integrals scaling as $\left(\frac{\mathcal{N}}{a_\text{max}/a_0} \right)^\frac{3}{n} \left(\frac{H_\text{max}}{H_0}\right)^\frac{1}{n} M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2 \lesssim M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2$; and the flux contribution, scaling as $\Lambda_\text{flux}=\sqrt{-\frac{3}{8} M_\text{Pl}^4 \mu^4 \frac{\hat \sigma'}{\sigma'} \frac{\hat c}{c}}$. The latter can be fixed empirically and assumed to lie below the dark energy scale. In conclusion, then, provided the Universe grows sufficiently large, the residual cosmological constant will not exceed the critical density of the Universe today.
Homogeneous phase transitions {#homogeneous-phase-transitions .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
We now consider the effect of a single homogeneous phase transition in the vacuum energy. As explained in the introduction, such transitions shift the potential by a constant amount ${\cal O}(M^4)$, where $M$ is the scale of the transition, with well known examples being the electroweak and the QCD phase transitions. Assuming a rapid transition, we can model this by a step function of size $\Delta V=V_2-V_1$, at time $t_*$, so that the energy momentum tensor is given by $\tensor{T}{_\mu_\nu}=-V(t)\tensor{g}{_\mu_\nu}+\tau_{\mu\nu}$, where, \[PT\] V(t) = {
[ll]{} V\_1 & t < t\_\*\
V\_2 & t > t\_\*
. and $\tau_{\mu\nu}$ represents localised sources with equation of state in the range $(-1, 1]$, consistent with the dominant energy condition. In what follows, we will make use of the following shorthand for the spacetime volume before transition, \_1=\_3 \_[t\_]{}\^[t\_\*]{} dt a\^3 the spacetime volume after, \_2=\_3 \^[t\_]{}\_[t\_\*]{} dt a\^3 and their ratio $\mathcal{I}=\frac{\Omega_2}{\Omega_1}$. We also define the following “before" and “after" averages, respectively, \_1=, \_2= Finally we introduce the local excitation of the potential, V=V(t)-V=
-V & t<t\_\*\
V & t>t\_\*
We are now ready to write down the effective gravity equation in the presence of a homogeneous transition. It is given by $
M_\text{Pl}^2 G_{\mu\nu}=-\Lambda_\text{eff}(t) g_{\mu\nu}+\tau_{\mu\nu}
$ where the effective cosmological constant is, \_(t)=V ++14 and, $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta \Lambda^2=
- \frac{\mathcal{I}}{(1+\mathcal{I})^2} \left[(\Delta V)^2 -\frac12 \Delta V \left( \langle \tau\rangle_2 -\langle \tau \rangle_1
\right)\right] \\
+\frac34\left\langle \left({\tau}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}\tau{g}_{\mu\nu}\right)^2 \right\rangle -\frac{1}{16}\left(\left\langle \tau^2 \right\rangle - \left\langle \tau \right\rangle^2\right)
-\frac{3}{8} M_\text{Pl}^4 \mu^4 \frac{\hat \sigma'}{\sigma'} \frac{\hat c}{c} \end{gathered}$$ For $\Delta V=0$, this result reduces to and for vanishing Weyl tensor, as of course it should. To study the effect of the phase transition, we focus on the $\Delta V$ dependent terms in our expression. These introduce some time dependence in the effective cosmological constant, through $\delta V$. To develop some intuitive understanding let us first consider very early and very late transitions. For a very early transition, we expect $\mathcal{I} \gg 1$ and so to get some insight we take the limit $\mathcal{I} \to \infty$. In this case, the effective cosmological constant after the transition loses all knowledge of the scale of the jump. Prior to the transition, the effective cosmological constant is strongly sensitive to $\Delta V$. In contrast, for late transitions, modelled intuitively with the limit $\mathcal{I} \to 0$, we have the opposite: no sensitivity to $\Delta V$ prior to transition, but strong sensitivity after. Although the details are different, these conclusions are qualitatively the same as for earlier models of sequestering: sequestering works best in the volume that dominates the spacetime. This means that we always have late time suppression of the jump for early transitions [@KP2].
Let us now estimate the size of this volume ratio and the impact on the effective cosmological constant more carefully. As we saw in the previous section, historic integrals are generically dominated by the period in which the Universe is largest. This corresponds to the latest time during an expanding phase. We shall consider phase transitions occurring in the past, during expansion, consistent with the structure of the Standard Model. The results of the previous section (see equation and use ) then suggest that, \_1+\_2 =I\_0 =[O]{}(1)( )\_, \_1 =[O]{}(1) ( )\_\* and so, =[O]{}(1) ()\^3 -1 \~[O]{}(1) ()\^3 where we have used the fact that $a_\text{max} \gg a_*$ and $H_\text{max} \ll H_*$. Since $\mathcal{I} \gg 1$, we have that, \[DLjump\] \^2 -+…where $\ldots$ denote transition independent terms and, V
-V & t<t\_\*\
& t>t\_\*
As anticipated, we get strong dependence on the scale of the jump, prior to the transition. This will yield a short burst of inflation just before the transition occurs. After the transition, it would seem that any dependence on the scale of the jump is heavily suppressed. To see by how much, recall that integrating the cosmic history from the transition to the maximum size, we can show that, = ( )\^[32(1+|W(a\_\*, a\_))]{} where $1+\bar W(a_*, a_\text{max})=\frac{ \int_{\ln a_*}^{\ln a_\text{max}} d\ln a ~(1+\bar w (\ln a)) }{{ \int_{\ln a_*}^{\ln a_\text{max}} d\ln a }}$. It then follows that the contribution to $\delta V$ after the transition goes as, V\_ = [O]{}(1) ( )\^ M\_\^2 H\_\^2 We expect $|\Delta V| = {\cal O}(1) M_\text{Pl}^2 H_*^2$ and so since $\bar W(a_*, a_\text{max}) \in [-1,1]$, it follows that this contribution is no larger than the critical density at maximum size, or indeed the critical density today, $\delta V_\text{after} \lesssim M_\text{Pl}^2 H_\text{max}^2 \lesssim M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2$. This reflects similar conclusions drawn in [@KP2]. In an infinitely old, asymptotically de Sitter Universe, we get exponential suppression since $\bar W(a_*, a_\text{max})= -1$.
Now consider the jump contributions to $\Delta \Lambda$ as shown in . Similar considerations yield, = [O]{}(1) ( )\^2 ( )\^[- ]{} M\_\^4 H\_\^4 For the other contribution, we adapt the results of the previous section to estimate the “before" and “after" averages as $\langle \tau\rangle_1 \sim {\cal O}(1) \rho_* \gg \langle \tau \rangle_2 \sim {\cal O}(1) \rho_\text{max}$. This then gives the scale, ( \_2 -\_1 ) = [O]{}(1) ( )\^[- ]{} M\_\^4 H\_\^4 Assuming $|\Delta V|, \rho_* = {\cal O}(1) M_\text{Pl}^2 H_*^2 $ the result is that the jump contributions to $\Delta \Lambda$ both come in at the scale, \_= [O]{}(1) ( )\^[- ]{} M\_\^2 H\_\^2 In contrast to $\delta V_\text{after}$, this contribution has the potential to be enhanced relative to the critical density at maximum size $M_\text{Pl}^2 H_\text{max}^2$, whenever $\bar W \in (-1/3, 1]$. This enhancement could easily make $\Delta \Lambda$ larger than the critical density today. Requiring that this is [*not*]{} the case imposes the following bound, |W <-13(), r= where we have assumed $r<\frac34$. As we have stated previously, in an infinitely old, asymptotically de Sitter Universe, we get $\bar W(a_*, a_\text{max})= -1$ and so there are no dangerously large contributions to $\Delta \Lambda$. But what if the current de Sitter phase is only transient? Let’s have more fun and estimate how long this quasi de Sitter stage needs to last in order to ensure there is no dangerous enhancement of $[\Delta\Lambda]_\text{jump}$. To do this, we crudely model the history of the universe as radiation dominated from $a_*$ until $a_\text{eq}$, then matter dominated from $a_\text{eq}$ until $a_\text{de}$, and finally quasi-de Sitter behaviour from $a_\text{de}$ until $a_\text{max}$. We shall not assume that $a_\text{max}$ is infinite, allowing for the possibility that the quasi de Sitter stage comes to an end close to the maximum size. In any event, we find that, |W=-1 Assuming $r$ to be small then requiring $\bar W <-1/3$, we obtain the following lower bound on the would-be size of the Universe, a\_>a\_ To bring this to life, we note that the QCD phase transition, matter-radiation equality and matter-dark energy equality occur at redshifts of $10^{12}, 3400$ and $0.4$ respectively. Setting $a_* \sim a_{QCD}$, our bound then implies $
a_\text{max}/{a_0} \gtrsim 10^{10}
$ which is less constraining than our estimate in the previous section. Earlier transitions would suggest a longer future, of course.
Inflation {#inflation .unnumbered}
---------
We have seen in previous sections how a large and old Universe can eliminate potentially large and unnatural contributions to the residual cosmological constant. The standard mechanism for achieving a large Universe is through inflation so it is natural to ask if it can be embedded in a theory of OS. We might be concerned that the inflaton source behaves like a constant vacuum energy to zeroth order in slow roll and will therefore be sequestered. This conclusion is too quick, however. Inflation resembles a (slow) phase transition and, as we have just seen, the corresponding scale is visible in the effective cosmological constant [*prior*]{} to the end of the transition. Compatibility with inflation was shown for earlier models of sequestering [@KP2], and we will now show that this is also the case here.
We assume, for simplicity, standard single field inflation (for a review, see [@Lindeinf]), described by a canonical scalar $\varphi$ with potential $V(\varphi)$, minimally coupled to the metric. During inflation, all other sources of energy-momentum are quickly diluted away, and, during slow roll, we have that the effective Friedmann equation and energy conservation equation are given by, H\^2 , 3H -V’ where we have also neglected spatial curvature. We now ask whether or not the inflationary contribution to the residual cosmological constant can significantly affect the dynamics. If inflation were to go on like this forever, the answer would be “yes”, since the sequestering mechanism would force an exact cancellation between a constant value for $V$ and $\Lambda_\text{res}$. Of course, inflation must end, and it turns out that its contribution to $\Lambda_\text{res}$ is nowhere near large enough to compete with the potential.
To see this, let us now estimate the inflationary contribution to $\Lambda_\text{res}$. Again, assuming slow roll, we have that $ \tau_{\mu\nu} \approx - V(\varphi)g_{\mu\nu}$. It follows that, -4 where inflation starts at time $t_\text{start} \approx t_\text{in}$ and ends at time $t_\text{end} \ll t_\text{out}$. We can estimate the integrals to give, = [O]{}(1) V\_( )\^3 where $V_\text{inf}=M_\text{Pl}^2 H_\text{inf}^2$ and $H_\text{inf}^2$ is the scale of inflation. Since $H_\text{max} \ll H_\text{inf}$ and $a_\text{end} \ll a_\text{max}$ we have that $|\langle \tau \rangle|$ is much less than the scale of the potential during inflation $V_\text{inf}$. Similarly, we find that, \^2 = [O]{}(1) V\^2 \_( )\^3 V\^2 \_ and $\left \langle \left(\tau_{\mu\nu} -\frac14 \tau g_{\mu\nu} \right)^2 \right\rangle \approx 0$. Since the flux contribution, $\Lambda_\text{flux} \lesssim M_\text{Pl}^2 H_0^2 \ll V_\text{inf}$, we conclude that, $|\Lambda_\text{res}| \ll V_\text{inf}$, or in other words, inflation in OS goes through as normal.
Geometric consequences of choosing the flux {#geometric-consequences-of-choosing-the-flux .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
The boundary fluxes, given by $c$ and $\hat c$, are taken to be infra-red geometric quantities, whose values are simply given as fixed boundary conditions in the effective field theory. Nevertheless, it is interesting to explore the consequences of particular choices. For example, in an homogeneous universe, vanishing $\hat c$ forces the spatial curvature to be negative, consistent with a spatially open Universe. To see this we simply set $\hat c=0$ in , then solve the integral to give, |\_[c=0]{}=- The right hand side of this expression is negative for all real choices of $\dot a_\text{in}$ and $\dot a_\text{out}$. We emphasize that for generic $\hat c$, there are no such well defined constraints on the spatial geometry. Indeed, more generally we have from , =--\^4 where the second term can take either sign and be as large or small as we like, depending on the choices for the flux and the cosmological dynamics.
Inhomogeneous Phase Transitions {#sec:bubble}
===============================
Transitions in vacuum energy can also occur locally through bubble nucleation. In standard Einstein gravity, the formalism for describing this was pioneered by Coleman and collaborators [@Coleman_1; @Coleman_2; @Coleman_DeLuccia] and adapted to early models of sequestering in [@KPS]. There it was shown that vacuum energy was most efficiently sequestered in regions of spacetime of largest volume, favouring near-Minkowski configurations without fine-tuning. We shall now show that similar conclusions can be drawn for OS.
First we assume a potential that interpolates between two minima, separated by a scale $\Delta V$. Tunnelling from one vacuum to the other can occur via spontaneous nucleation of a spherical bubble containing the new vacuum in the interior, then expanding at the speed of light. As we will see, not all configurations are kinematically allowed, at least if we assume a sensible microscopic structure in the bubble wall. Further, for the kinematically allowed configurations, we can estimate the rate of transition per unit volume by computing the so-called bounce solution to the Euclidean field equations.
Let us proceed by first computing the bounce. As usual, we will work in the thin wall approximation [@Coleman_DeLuccia], and assume that the bounce solution is O(4) invariant [@O4_1; @O4_2]. Under these assumptions we can write the metric with the ansatz $ds^{2} = dr^{2} + \rho^{2}(r) d\chi^{2}$ where $d \chi^{2}=\gamma_{ij}dx^idx^j$ is the unit 3-sphere. In a neighbourhood of the bubble wall, we adopt a coordinate system with the wall at $r=0$, the bubble exterior corresponding to $r>0$ (which we will call denote $\mathcal{M_+}$), and the interior $r<0$ (which we will denote $\mathcal{M_-}$). We shall also refer to the exterior as the “old" vacuum, and to the interior as the “new". The rotational invariance allows us to write all fields as functions of the radial coordinate $r$ only. For example, the $3$-forms components are now, A\_[ijk]{}=A(r)\_[ijk]{}, A\_[ijk]{}=A(r)\_[ijk]{} . The computation of the Gauss-Bonnet term gives, \[RGB\] R\_= - 24 ( - ) , while the Ricci scalar is still, \[Ricci\] R= 6 ( - - ) . We can now write down the equations of motion. We obtain constant $\Lambda$ and $\theta$ on-shell, while the remaining equations can be written, $$\begin{aligned}
3 M_\text{Pl}^2 \left( \frac{\rho'^2}{\rho^2}-\frac{1}{\rho^2} \right) &=& -(\Lambda+V(r)) \, , \label{deltaN}\\
M_\text{Pl}^2 \left( \frac{\rho'^2}{\rho^2}-\frac{1}{\rho^2}+2\frac{\rho''}{\rho} \right) &=& -(\Lambda+V(r)+\sigma_\text{w} \delta (r)) \, ,\qquad \label{deltarho} \\
\frac{\sigma'}{\mu^4} A'(r) &=& \rho^3 \, , \label{deltaLambda}\\
\hat \sigma' \hat A'(r) &=& 24 \left(1-\rho'^2 \right) \rho'' \, . \qquad \label{deltatheta}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that (\[deltaN\]) and (\[deltarho\]) are unchanged from General Relativity (GR), while (\[deltaLambda\]) is the same as in [@KPS]. The potential, $$V(r)=\begin{cases} V_+ & r>0 \\V_- & r<0 \end{cases}$$ is taken to be a step function interpolating between the constant minima, whereas the bubble wall is modelled with a delta-function weighted by a tension $\sigma_\text{w}$.
Solving away from the bubble wall, we find that, \[rho\] (r) = q(r\_[0]{} + r), where $\epsilon = \pm 1$, and, \[q2\] q\^[2]{} = represents the local value of the spacetime vacuum curvature. Here $q^2$ can be positive, zero, or negative for a spherical, planar or hyperbolic geometry respectively[^7]. For the planar geometry, we can formally take the limit of as $q\to 0$, while for the hyperbolic case we analytically continue the formula to imaginary values of $q$. In all case, we can rewrite (\[RGB\]) and (\[Ricci\]) in terms of the local curvature $q$, \[q\_squared\] R=12q\^2 , R\_=24q\^4 . Matching conditions across the wall require continuity in $3$-sphere radius, $\rho$, and the $3$-form, $A$, at $r=0$, or in other words, \_[+]{}= \_[-]{}, A(0\^+)=A(0\^-) where labels $\pm$ denote evaluation in $\mathcal{M}_\pm$. In contrast, integrating equations and across the bubble wall yields the following discontinuities, \[discs\_rho’\] 2M\_\^2 =-\_ , A(0)= ( ’(0) - ) where $\Delta Q = Q_+-Q_-$ and $\rho_0=\rho(0^+)=\rho(0^-)$. The jump in $\rho'$ is just the jump in extrinsic curvature across the bubble wall, familiar from the Israel junction conditions [@Israel; @Davis]. Less familiar is the jump in $\hat A$, which can be rewritten as, A(0\^+)-A(0\^-)= - where $\bar Q=(Q_++Q_-)/2$ is the average across the wall. The jump in $\hat A$ occurs because $\hat A$ couples to energy-momentum through the curvature. Tensional thin walls therefore behave as membranes charged under $\hat A$, as in [@KPS], although the mapping between the wall tension and the effective $3$-form charge is now different. In a physical set-up, we would, of course, expect the bubble wall to have finite thickness, allowing for a smooth but rapid transition in the value of $\hat A$.
Requiring that the bubble wall is supported by a sensible microscopic configuration, we require that it carries non-negative tension. Through this places the usual kinematic constraint on the allowed configurations, \[tencon\] (qr\_[0]{} ) 0 Now let us turn our interest to the tunnelling rates between vacua. In the semi-classical theory of vacuum decay, including gravity, these rates are given by [@Coleman_1; @Coleman_2; @Coleman_DeLuccia], \~e\^[-B/ ]{} , where, B=S\_ S\_|\_-S\_|\_ . is the difference in the Euclidean actions for the bounce and the initial vacuum. Splitting $B$ into parts originating from different terms in the action, we can write, \[B\] B=B\_-c -c . where $B_\text{GR}=-2 M_\text{Pl}^2 \Omega_3 \Delta \left[\frac{1}{ q^2} [\rho'^3]^{0}_{r_\text{min}}\right]+\sigma_\text{w} \Omega_3 \rho_0^3$, represents the tunnelling exponent computed in GR for the same geometrical configuration and $\Omega_3$ is the volume of the unit $3$-sphere. The flux terms are of the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta c & {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}&\int_\text{bounce} F_4-\int_\text{initial vac} F_4 \nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{\mu^4}{\sigma'}\Omega_3 \Delta \left[\int_{r_\text{min}}^0 dr \rho^3 \right] \, , \nonumber\\
&=&
-\frac{\mu^4}{\sigma'}\Omega_3 \Delta \left[-\frac{1}{3 q^4} [\rho'(3-\rho'^2)]^0_{r_\text{min}} \right ]\, .
\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \hat c & {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}&\int_\text{bounce} \hat F_4-\int_\text{initial vac} \hat F_4 \nonumber \\
& =&\frac{24 \Omega_3}{\hat \sigma'} \Delta \left[
\rho'(r_\text{min})- \frac{1}{3} \rho'^3(r_\text{min}) \right]
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\delta \hat c$ does not depend on quantities on the brane thanks to an exact cancellation that occurs due to the junction condition on $\hat A$. It is also worth highlighting that $r_\text{min}$ is *a priori* different for the false vacuum and the bounce solution. Indeed, for the bounce, the radial coordinate $r \in [r_\text{min}^-, r_\text{max}^+]$, passing from the interior, with $r<0$, to the exterior, $r>0$. The precise values of $r_\text{max}$ and $r_\text{min}$ depend on the sign of the curvature and the orientation of the bubble [@KPS]: r\_=
-r\_0 , & =+1 ,\
r\_0- , & =-1, q\^2 >0 ,\
- , & =-1, q\^2 0 ,
, r\_=
-r\_0 , & =+1, q\^2>0 ,\
, & =+1, q\^2 0 ,\
r\_0 , & =-1 .\
Similarly, for the initial vacuum, the radial coordinate spans a range $r \in [r_\text{min}^+, r_\text{max}^+]$, although there is no longer any notion of exterior versus interior.
The contribution from the Gauss-Bonnet term in is notable by its absence. Because of its topological nature in four dimensions, the bulk Gauss-Bonnet contribution is a total derivative, and is projected into a pure boundary contribution, at $r_\text{max}$ and $r_\text{min}$. These are then cancelled by the generalised Gibbons-Hawking boundary terms .
In principle, the constraint on the wall tension does not forbid configurations in which the unbounded part of a Minkowski or AdS space tunnels to a new vacuum. However, these cannot be considered bubble solutions and are inconsistent with a suitable boundary prescription. The complete list of allowed transitions are summarised in table \[table:configs2\].
$\text{S}_{+}-\text{S}_{-}$ $\text{S}_{+}-\text{H}_{-} $ $\text{H}_{+}-\text{S}_{-} $ $\text{H}_{+}-\text{H}_{-} $
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
$\epsilon_{\pm} = 1$ $(qr_{0})_{+} \geq (qr_{0})_{-} $ $|q|_{+} \leq |q|_{-} $
$\epsilon_{\pm} = -1$ $(qr_{0})_{+} \leq (qr_{0})_{-} $
$\epsilon_{+} = 1, \epsilon_{-} = -1$ $\overline{ qr_{0} } \in [\pi/2, \pi]$
$\epsilon_{+} = -1, \epsilon_{-} = 1$ $\overline {qr_{0} }\in [0, \pi/2]$
Focussing now on the allowed configurations we note that they all have [@KPS], ’(r\_)=1, -1 ’(0\^+) ’(0\^-) . and so, $$\begin{aligned}
B_\text{GR} &=& 2\Omega_3 M_\text{Pl}^2 \rho_0^2 \Delta \left[ \frac{1}{1+\rho'(0)} \right] \geq 0\\
-\sigma \delta c &=& \Omega_3\frac{\mu^4 \rho_0^4}{3} \frac{\sigma}{\sigma'}{\Delta} \left[ \frac{1}{1+\rho'(0)} +\left( \frac{1}{1+\rho'(0)} \right)^2 \right] \quad \\
-\hat \sigma \delta \hat c &=& 0\end{aligned}$$ Bringing it all together, we find that the tunnelling rate is given by an exponent, B=2\_3 M\_\^2 \_0\^2 ( 1+ ) + \_3 , This suggests that a sufficient condition to avoid infinitely enhanced tunnelling rates, and a catastrophic instability in the theory, is $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma'}>0$.
We now consider two special cases as in [@Coleman_DeLuccia]: tunnelling from de Sitter into Minkowski and tunnelling from Minkowski into Anti de Sitter. For tunnelling from de Sitter into Minkowksi ($q^2 \to 0$), we have that $\rho'(0^-)=1$ and $\rho'(0^+) \in [-1,1]$, and a tunnelling exponent, B=B\_ , where, as in [@Coleman_DeLuccia; @KPS], $B_\text{GR}=\Omega_3 \frac{M_\text{Pl}^2}{q^2} s^2$ and, s=1-’(0\^+)=( ) . Given the constraint $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma'}>0$ and the fact that in this case we have $ s \in [0,2]$, we see that the corrections due to OS always suppress this tunnelling event relative to GR.
Now consider the tunnelling from Minkowski into anti de Sitter ($0 \to -|q|^2$). Now we have $\rho'(0^+)=1$ and $\rho'(0^-) \geq 1$, and a tunnelling exponent, B=B\_ , where, now, $B_\text{GR}=\Omega_3 \frac{M_\text{Pl}^2}{|q|^2} s^2$ and, s=1-’(0\^-)=-( ) . Transitions for which $|q|^2< \sigma_\text{w}^2/4M_\text{Pl}^4$ are forbidden by energetic considerations [@Coleman_DeLuccia]. In anti de Sitter the bubble cannot get big enough for the energy stored in the wall to balance the energy stored in the interior. Once again, given the constraint $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma'}>0$ and the fact that in this case we have $ s \leq 0$, we see that OS corrections always suppress this tunnelling event. To sum up, for a consistent theory of OS satisfying the constraint $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma'}>0$, the allowed inhomogeneous tunnelling events coincide exactly with those in GR, but always occur at a slower rate.
Finally we consider the evolution of the bubble once it has materialised. To see what it does, we simply Wick rotate the bounce solution back to Lorentzian signature. The Lorentzian solutions in our case are geometrically identical to those described in considerable detail, including their global structure, in [@KPS]. It is far too lengthy to repeat here and we refer the reader to [@KPS] for further details. The only difference in the generalised case under consideration here is the mapping between the local curvature and the fluxes.
To find this relation, we note that the integrated versions of (\[deltaLambda\]) and (\[deltatheta\]) are written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fluxes}
c &=& \int F_4 = \frac{\mu^4}{\sigma'}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}=\frac{\mu^4}{\sigma'}(\Omega_++\Omega_-) \\
\hat c &=& \int \hat F_4 = -\frac{1}{\hat\sigma'}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} R_{\text{GB}} =-\frac{24}{\hat \sigma'} (q_+^4 \Omega_++q_-^4 \Omega_-)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_+$ is the spacetime volume corresponding to the initial vacuum and $\Omega_-$ to the new vacuum. In particular, $\Omega_+$ includes the entire spatial volume at all times up until the nucleation of the bubble, and then the exterior spatial volume afterwards. $\Omega_-$ is simply the bubble interior.
Taking ratios of the two fluxes, we obtain, = + , where $\mathcal{I}=\frac{\Omega_{+}}{\Omega_{-}}$ is ratio of the spacetime volumes occupied by each particular vacuum, and we recall that $\Lambda_\text{flux}=\sqrt{-\frac{3}{8} M_\text{Pl}^4 \mu^4 \frac{\hat \sigma'}{\sigma'} \frac{\hat c}{c}} $. From equation , we also have that, q\^2 q\_+\^2-q\_-\^2= It follows that, q\_\^2= where $\mathcal{R}=\frac{\mathcal{I}-1}{\mathcal{I}+1}$. Owing to the quadratic nature of the global constraint, our solution comes in two families, parametrised by $\alpha=\pm1$.
Now, if the old vacuum dominates the spacetime volume, then $\mathcal{I} \gg1$ and so $\mathcal{R} \approx 1$. It then follows that the local curvature in this region, $q_+^2$, is largely insensitive to the jump in vacuum energy, being given entirely by $\Lambda_\text{flux}$. In contrast, $q_-^2$ is highly sensitive to $\Delta V$. The reverse is true when the new vacuum dominates the spacetime volume. Then we have $\mathcal{I} \ll1$ and so $\mathcal{R} \approx -1$: $q_+^2$ becomes highly sensitive to $\Delta V$, while $q_-^2$ is given by $\Lambda_\text{flux}$.
The computation of the spacetime volumes, which ultimately control which regions sequester vacuum energy most efficiently, is a highly non-trivial exercise. The volumes are formally divergent to the infinite past and the infinite future. However the divergence rates can be correlated using the covariant junction conditions. Full details are presented in the appendix of [@KPS], and the results can be carried over to the present case. We do so, however, with an additional word of caution. These ratios were computing using a global time regulator. Other regulators exist and could yield potentially different results due to the so-called measure problem, familiar from eternal inflation [@meas]. The global time regulator was chosen in [@KPS] because global coordinates cover the entire spacetime. We have nothing more to say on this difficult question. Let us simply quote the stated ratios and explore their consequences for the case under consideration here.
For a transition from $X$ to $Y$, where $X, Y$ are dS (de Sitter), M (Minkowski) or AdS (anti de Sitter), we label the corresponding volume ratio as $\mathcal{I}_{X \to Y}$. From [@KPS], we then have, $$\begin{aligned}
\I_{dS \to dS} &\sim & \frac{q_-}{q_+} \, , \\
\I_{dS \to M} &=& 0 \, , \\
\I_{dS \to AdS} &=& \infty \, , \\
\I_{M \to AdS} &=& \infty \, , \\
\I_{AdS \to AdS} &=& \infty \, ,\end{aligned}$$ The consequences of these ratios turn out to be the same as in [@KPS], so we summarize those results. For phenomenologically interesting de Sitter to de Sitter transitions, we can have transitions in either direction. Transitions that lower the curvature ($q_- \ll q_+$) are far more probable and for these we have $\I \ll 1$, ensuring insensitivity to $\Delta V$ in the low curvature new vacuum. For the suppressed transitions that raise the curvature ($q_-\gg q_+$), we have $\I \gg 1$, again ensuring insensitivity to $\Delta V$ in the low curvature vacuum, although this time it is the old vacuum. More generally, the following behaviour prevails: for a given transition, insensitivity to $\Delta V$ is achieved in the vacuum with lowest absolute curvature. The one exception to this rule is transitions from large curvature de Sitter to small curvature anti de Sitter vacua.
This generic behaviour is important. It suggests that vacua with low absolute curvature do not require fine-tuning to achieve their low curvature: the sequestering mechanism will always take care of the required cancellations. We now see how this is common to all sequestering models.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
In this paper, we have explored the cosmological framework of [*Omnia Sequestra*]{}, the generalised theory of vacuum energy sequestering with the capacity to enforce cancellation of all radiative corrections to vacuum energy, including both matter and graviton loops [@KP4].
As in older models of sequestering, the cosmological behaviour relies on certain historic integrals, although their structure is different in subtle but important ways. As usual, the historic integrals feed into the residual cosmological constant that we observe through the large scale curvature. In OS, we find that there are potentially dangerous divergences coming from the singular region of spacetime. These represent a potential UV instability that could render the observed cosmological constant power law dependent on the UV cut-off of the theory. Such a scenario would mean a violation of naturalness and the theory would do no better than General Relativity. However, it turns out that this behaviour can be tamed in a sufficiently large and old Universe, and eliminated altogether in a Universe that continues for eternity. For a Planckian cut-off, 92 more efolds in expansion will be sufficient. We also find that the scale of residual cosmological constant can be assumed to be bounded above by the scale of the critical density today. This relies on two things: that the Universe grows old enough to tame any cut-off dependence in the historic integrals, and that the flux contribution is not too large.
We also studied the effect of phase transitions through these historic integrals. For homogeneous transitions, we once again encountered potential naturalness problems that mirrored the UV sensitivity problem described in the previous paragraph. More precisely, we find that the residual cosmological constant at late times can become sensitive to jumps in vacuum energy from transitions at early times. Again, these contributions can be tamed as long as the Universe gets sufficiently old and eliminated altogether in an eternal universe. In particular, in a crude historical model, the effect of the QCD phase transition at high redshift would require the Universe to continue for at least 23 more efolds. Again, with this proviso, we found that the late time behaviour became insensitive to the scale of the phase transiton.
The role of the 3-form fluxes was also investigated. This is boundary data, assumed to be UV insensitive and taking on values that should be set empirically within the effective field theory. Nevertheless, there are geometric consequences of certain choices. In particular, we showed that for a vanishing flux ratio, the spatial geometry is forced to be that of a hyperboloid.
The formalism for OS was reviewed in some detail in section \[sec:review\], and built upon to include the effect of spacetime boundaries. Owing to the non-trivial global dynamics in sequestering models, this extension is non-trivial but was important to allow for a study of inhomogeneous transitions, through the nucleation of a spherical bubble and the bounce computation originally developed for GR by Coleman and De Luccia [@Coleman_DeLuccia]. Indeed, via a calculation of the bounce, we were able to show that the allowed transitions coincided with those from GR. An important new ingredient, however, was the mapping from the source potential to the local curvature. The local curvature became insensitive to the scale of the transition in the region of spacetime that dominated the volume. As in [@KPS], the consequence of this is that generically those vacua with low absolute curvature are the least sensitive to the scale of the transition. This may seem obvious, but it is not. One could have a scenario in which the low curvature is highly sensitive to the transition scale and one has to fine-tune. Indeed, there is one particular scenario where precisely this happens, although it is not generic.
The meaning of tunnelling probabilities in sequestering models may seem unclear at first glance, since the local value of the cosmological constant seems to have knowledge of whether or not tunnelling will occur. Indeed, for a spacetime without any bubbles of true vacuum, there is complete cancellation of vacuum energy, whereas if a bubble exists to the future the cancellation is inexact, depending on the ratio of spacetime volumes as explained above. However, there is no tension with the probabilistic interpretation of quantum tunnelling. On the one hand, the tunnelling rate per unit volume per unit time is faithfully captured by the bounce, corresponding to a saddle point of the [*Euclidean*]{} action. The various spacetime configurations that may occur with and without bubble nucleation are all stationary points of the [*Lorentzian*]{} action. This is exactly as in General Relativity, the only difference being that the sequestering solutions are also required to satisfy an additional global constraint. Furthermore, as a local observer, we have no way of knowing if the residual cosmological constant we measure contains contributions from inexact cancellations due to future bubble nucleation, or some future fluctuation in the local energy-momentum and its resulting contribution to the spacetime average.
Although our analysis has been thorough, some specific questions remain. In particular, we noted that the quadratic nature of Gauss-Bonnet ultimately means that there are multiple roots for the residual cosmological constant. This deserves further investigation: does it lead to problems with well-posedness and branching; is there a physical mechanism for selecting one branch over the other? We have also been unable to attach any extra physical significance to the generalised boundary conditions we proposed for a well defined variational principle. Establishing this may yield a deeper understanding of the model and how it can be embedded in a more complete theory.
The presiding message is that all sequestering models exhibit similar cosmological behaviour. The phenomenology is consistent with observation, without fine-tuning, and seems to favour Universes that grow old and big. To a large extent, sequestering is best interpreted as a mechanism for cancellation of vacuum energy, rather than a specific model. With this perspective the future focus should really be to better understand how and why it does what it does, at a much deeper level. This depth of understanding should help facilitate the search for the mechanism at a fundamental level, probably as an emergent low energy effect in a UV complete theory.
A.P. would like to thank David Stefanyszyn and Florian Niedermann for useful discussions, and Nemanja Kaloper for the initial collaborations in vacuum energy sequestering. B.C. is supported by a STFC studentship and A.P. by a Leverhulme Research Project Grant and a STFC Consolidated Grant. A.P. would also like to thank dead feline and boxing commentator, Andy Clarke, for advice on latin constructions used in the title.
[99]{}
Y. B. Zeldovich, JETP Lett. [**6**]{}, 316 (1967) \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**6**]{}, 883 (1967)\]; Sov. Phys. Usp. [**11**]{}, 381 (1968).
S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1989). J. Polchinski, hep-th/0603249. C. P. Burgess, arXiv:1309.4133 \[hep-th\]. A. Padilla, arXiv:1502.05296 \[hep-th\]. N. Kaloper and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 9, 091304.
N. Kaloper and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{} (2014) 8, 084023 \[Addendum-ibid. D [**90**]{} (2014) 10, 109901\]. N. Kaloper and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{} (2015) 10, 101302 N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, D. Stefanyszyn and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) 5, 051302 N. Kaloper, A. Padilla and D. Stefanyszyn, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{} (2016) no.2, 025022 \[arXiv:1604.04000 \[hep-th\]\]. N. Kaloper and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{} (2017) no.6, 061303 \[arXiv:1606.04958 \[hep-th\]\]. G. D’Amico, N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, D. Stefanyszyn, A. Westphal and G. Zahariade, JHEP [**1709**]{} (2017) 074 \[arXiv:1705.08950 \[hep-th\]\]. N. Kaloper, arXiv:1806.03308 \[hep-th\]. A. Padilla, arXiv:1806.04740 \[hep-th\]. A. Adams, J. McGreevy and E. Silverstein, hep-th/0209226. F. Niedermann and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{} (2017) no.25, 251306 \[arXiv:1706.04778 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Lombriser, arXiv:1805.05918 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. G. Demers, R. Lafrance and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 2245 \[gr-qc/9503003\].
A. D. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys. [**738**]{} (2008) 1 \[arXiv:0705.0164 \[hep-th\]\]. S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{} (1977) 2929 Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{} (1977) 1248\]. C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{} (1977) 1762. S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{} (1980) 3305.
A. Padilla and V. Sivanesan, JHEP [**1208**]{} (2012) 122 \[arXiv:1206.1258 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 024030 \[hep-th/0208205\].
G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{} (1977) 2752. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2752 S. R. Coleman, V. Glaser and A. Martin, Commun. Math. Phys. [**58**]{} (1978) 211. A. Masoumi and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 104029 \[arXiv:1207.3717 \[hep-th\]\]. W. Israel, Nuovo Cim. B [**44S10**]{} (1966) 1 \[Nuovo Cim. B [**44**]{} (1966) 1\] Erratum: \[Nuovo Cim. B [**48**]{} (1967) 463\].
C. Charmousis and A. Padilla, JHEP [**0812**]{} (2008) 038 \[arXiv:0807.2864 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Linde and M. Noorbala, JCAP [**1009**]{} (2010) 008 \[arXiv:1006.2170 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: Sixty orders of magnitude corresponds to a theory with a TeV cut-off, yielding a curvature scale of the order $(\textrm{TeV})^2/M_\text{Pl}$, sixty orders of magnitude above the Hubble scale, $H_0 \sim 10^{-33}$ eV.
[^2]: See, however, [@lucas] for an interesting attempt to apply the mechanics of sequestering locally.
[^3]: Choosing both functions to be linear would mean there was no way to map the relevant observable (in this case, the observed curvature on the largest scales) to boundary data for either $\Lambda$ or $\theta$.
[^4]: When $g_{n,i}>0, g_{n,i-1} <0$ we could in principle be in any of the three cases, depending on the relative size of the scale factors.
[^5]: In an expanding then contracting Universe, we would get UV and IR contributions from both phases, but we suppress this sum in the interests of brevity.
[^6]: The constant underlying vacuum energy gets sequestered. We will deal wth vacuum energy phase transitions in the next section.
[^7]: Later, when we Wick rotate back to Euclidean signature, these will correspond to locally de Sitter, Minkowski and anti-de Sitter spacetimes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We prove that the Cauchy problem for the Schrödinger-Korteweg-de Vries system is locally well-posed for the initial data belonging to the Sovolev spaces $L^2({{\mathbb R}})\times H^{-{3/4}}({{\mathbb R}})$. The new ingredient is that we use the $\bar{F}^s$ type space, introduced by the first author in [@G], to deal with the KdV part of the system and the coupling terms. In order to overcome the difficulty caused by the lack of scaling invariance, we prove uniform estimates for the multiplier. This result improves the previous one by Corcho and Linares [@cl07].'
address: 'LMAM, School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China'
author:
- 'Zihua Guo, Yuzhao Wang'
title: 'On the Well-posedness of the Schrödinger-Korteweg-de Vries system'
---
\#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[|\#1|]{} \#1[|\#1|]{} \#1[(\#1)]{} \#1[{\#1}]{} \#1 \#1 \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1 \#1
\[subsection\][Theorem]{} \[subsection\][Proposition]{} \[subsection\][Lemma]{} \[subsection\][Corollary]{} \[subsection\][Conjecture]{} \[subsection\][Problem]{}
\[subsection\][Remark]{} \[subsection\][Remarks]{}
\[subsection\][Definition]{}
Introduction {#sect:intro_main}
============
In this paper, we consider the Cauchy problem for the Schrödinger-Korteweg-de Vries (NLS-KdV) system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S-KdV}
\begin{cases}
i\partial_tu +\partial^2_x u =\alpha uv+ \beta |u|^2u, \qquad t,x\in
{{\mathbb R}},\\
\partial_t v +\partial_{x}^{3}v+\frac{1}{2}\partial_x(v^2)=\gamma\partial_x(|u|^2),\\
u(x,0)=u_{0}(x), v(x,0)=v_{0}(x),
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $u(x,t)$ is a complex-valued function, $v(x,t)$ is a real-valued function and $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ are real constants, $(u_0,v_0)$ are given initial data belonging to $H^{s_1}\times H^{s_2}$. Our main motivation of this paper is inspired by the work of Corcho and Linares [@cl07], and the work of the first named author [@G].
The system is an important model in fluid mechanics and plasma physics that governs the interactions between short-wave and long wave. The case $\beta=0$ appears in the study of resonant interaction between short and long capillary-gravity waves on water of uniform finite depth, in plasma physics and in a diatomic lattice system (See [@cl07] and reference therein for more introduction).
Before we state our main results, we recall first the early results on this system. M. Tsutsumi [@t93] obtained global well-posedness (GWP) for data $(u_0, v_0) \in H^{s+1/2}({{\mathbb R}})\times
H^s({{\mathbb R}})$ with $s \in Z_+$. In the resonant case $(\beta = 0)$ Guo and Miao [@gm99] proved GWP in the natural energy space $H^{s}({{\mathbb R}})\times H^s({{\mathbb R}})$ with $s \in Z_+$. Bekiranov, Ogawa and Ponce [@bop97] proved local well-posedness (LWP) in $H^{s}({{\mathbb R}})\times H^{s-1/2}({{\mathbb R}})$ for $s\geq 0$, and this result was improved to $L^2\times H^{-3/4+}$ by Corcho and Linares [@cl07] which seems to be sharp except $L^2\times H^{-3/4}$ in view of the results for the two single equations in (See [@KPVDMJ01], [@cct03], [@KPVJAMS96]). Pecher [@p] obtained GWP in $H^s\times H^s$ for $s>3/5$ ($\beta=0$) and $s>2/3$ ($\beta\ne 0$) by using the ideas of I-method [@I-method]. Some generalized interaction equations were considered in [@bop98]. In this paper, we prove the following results:
\[thmlwp\] Assume $u_0\in L^2$, $v_0 \in H^{-3/4}$. Then
\(a) Existence. There exist $T=T(\norm{u_0}_{L^2},
\norm{v_0}_{H^{-3/4}})>0$ and a solution $u$ to the Cauchy problem satisfying $$u\in X^{0,1/2+}_{\tau=-\xi^2}(T)\subset C([-T,T]:L^2),\, v\in \bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}(T) \subset C([-T,T]:H^{-3/4}).$$
\(b) Uniqueness. The solution mapping $S_T:(u_0,v_0)\rightarrow
(u,v)$ is the unique extension of the classical solution $(H^\infty,H^\infty)\rightarrow C([-T,T]:H^\infty\times H^\infty)$.
\(c) Lipschitz continuity. For any $R>0$, the mapping $(u_0,v_0)\rightarrow (u,v)$ is Lipschitz continuous from $\{(u_0,v_0)\in L^2\times
H^{-3/4}:\norm{u_0}_{L^2}+\norm{u_0}_{H^{-3/4}}<R\}$ to $C([-T,T]:L^2\times H^{-3/4})$.
We describe briefly our ideas in proving Theorem \[thmlwp\]. We also use the scheme as in [@cl07] which is the same spirit as the one by Ginibre, Y. Tsutsumi and Velo [@gtv97] for the Zakharov system. The basic idea is that for the second equation in we use the $\bar{F}^s$ space that was used by the first named author [@G] for the KdV equation, but there is an essential difficulty. For the KdV equation, one can assume the initial data $v_0$ has a small norm by using the scaling transform. However, for the NLS-KdV system we don’t have such an invariant scaling transform. In order to deal with large initial data, we overcome this difficulty by the following way. We observe that the single nonlinear Schrödinger equation with cubic term ($|u|^2u$) $$i\partial_tu +\partial^2_x u =\beta |u|^2u$$ is $L^2$-subcritical. On the other-hand, we also see from [@cl07] that to control the coupling term $uv$ one need less regularity than $H^{-3/4}$ of $v$. Then we expect that the first equation can be handled without scaling. Thus we scale the system according to the second equation as following: if $(u,v)$ solve the system with initial data $(u_0,v_0)$, then we see $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scaling}
u_{\lambda}(t,x)&=\lambda^2 u(\lambda^3 t,\lambda x),\quad
\phi_1(x)=\lambda^2 u_0(\lambda x),\\
v_{\lambda}(t,x)&=\lambda^2 v(\lambda^3 t,\lambda x),\quad
\phi_2(x)=\lambda^2 v_0(\lambda x),\end{aligned}$$ satisfy the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S-KdV1}
\begin{cases}
i\partial_tu+\lambda\partial^2_x u =\lambda uv+ \lambda^{-1} |u|^2u,
\quad t,x\in {{\mathbb R}},
\\
\partial_t v +\partial_{x}^{3}v+\frac{1}{2}\partial_x(v^2)=
\partial_x(|u|^2),
\\
u(0,x)=\phi_1(x), v(0,x)=\phi_2(x).
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that by taking $0<\lambda\ll 1$, we have $\norm{\phi_1}_{L^2}=\norm{\lambda^2 u_0(\lambda
x)}_{L^2}=\lambda^{3/2}\norm{u_0}_2\leq R$ and $\norm{\phi_2}_{H^{-3/4}}=\norm{\lambda^2 v_0(\lambda
x)}_{H^{-3/4}}\leq 2\lambda^{3/4}\norm{v_0}_{H^{-3/4}}=\epsilon_0\ll
1$. Therefore, it reduces to study the system under condition that $0<\lambda \leq 1$ and the following condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{indata}
\norm{\phi_1}_{L^2}\leq R,\quad
\norm{\phi_2}_{H^{-3/4}}=\epsilon_0\ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_0$ is a absolutely constant will be defined later. We will prove well-posedness for - in $[0,T]$ for some $T=T(R, \lambda)>0$. By the scaling we obtain local well-posedness for the original system .
In our proof the condition $0<\lambda\leq 1$ in is crucial. Heuristically, the propagation speed for the first equation is $\lambda \xi$, and that for the second equation is $\xi^2$. Then we see that the two waves $u,v$ has a separate speed in high frequency $|\xi|{{\gtrsim}}1$ uniformly for $0<\lambda\leq 1$. Thus the resonance and coherence can not be simultaneously large (Also see [@cl07] for the case $\lambda=1$). This is key to control the coupled wave interactions. Technically, we will prove uniform estimates for the multiplier associated to the coupled terms for all $0<\lambda\leq 1$. Our proof for the coupled terms is different from those in [@cl07], but with basically the same ideas. We will use the ideas developed by Tao [@Taokz], Ionescu and Kenig [@In-Ke], and the first-named author [@dgGuo], but in this paper we need to deal with two different wave forms which has independent interest.
At the end of this section we introduce some notations. In Section 2, we prove some $L^2$ bilinear estimates which will be used to prove the bilinear estimates for the coupling terms in Section 3. In Section 4, we prove Theorem \[thmlwp\].
Notations {#notations .unnumbered}
---------
Throughout this paper we fix $0<\lambda\leq 1$. We will use $C$ and $c$ to denote constants which are independent of $\lambda$ and not necessarily the same at each occurrence. For $x, y\in {{\mathbb R}}$, $x\sim y$ means that there exist $C_1, C_2
> 0$ such that $C_1|x|\leq |y| \leq C_2|x|$. For $f\in {{\mathcal{S}}}'$ we denote by $\widehat{f}$ or ${{\mathcal{F}}}(f)$ the Fourier transform of $f$ for both spatial and time variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{f}(\xi, \tau)=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}e^{-ix \xi}e^{-it \tau}f(x,t)dxdt.\end{aligned}$$ We denote by ${{\mathcal{F}}}_x$ the Fourier transform on spatial variable and if there is no confusion, we still write ${{\mathcal{F}}}={{\mathcal{F}}}_x$. Let $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ be the sets of integers and natural numbers, respectively. ${{\mathbb Z}}_+={{\mathbb N}}\cup \{0\}$. For $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ let $${I}_k=\{\xi: |\xi|\in [2^{k-1}, 2^{k+1}]\}, \ k\geq 1; \quad I_0=\{\xi: |\xi|\leq 2\}.$$ Let $\eta_0: {{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow [0, 1]$ denote an even smooth function supported in $[-8/5, 8/5]$ and equal to $1$ in $[-5/4, 5/4]$. For $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ let $\eta_k(\xi)=\eta_0(\xi/2^k)-\eta_0(\xi/2^{k-1})$ if $k\geq 1$ and $\eta_k(\xi)\equiv 0$ if $k\leq -1$, and let $\chi_k(\xi)=\eta_0(\xi/2^k)-\eta_0(\xi/2^{k-1})$. For $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ let $P_k$ denote the operator on $L^2({{\mathbb R}})$ defined by $$\widehat{P_ku}(\xi)=\eta_k(\xi)\widehat{u}(\xi).$$ By a slight abuse of notation we also define the operator $P_k$ on $L^2({{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}})$ by the formula ${{\mathcal{F}}}(P_ku)(\xi,
\tau)=\eta_k(\xi){{\mathcal{F}}}(u)(\xi, \tau)$. For $l\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ let $$P_{\leq l}=\sum_{k\leq l}P_k, \quad P_{\geq l}=\sum_{k\geq l}P_k.$$ Thus we see that $P_{\leq 0}=P_0$.
For $\phi\in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}})$, we denote by $V(t)\phi=e^{-t\partial_x^3}\phi$ the free solution of linear Airy equation which is defined as $${{\mathcal{F}}}_x(V(t)\phi)(\xi)=\exp[i\xi^3t]\widehat{\phi}(\xi), \ \forall \
t\in {{\mathbb R}},$$ denote by $U_\lambda(t)\phi=e^{it\lambda\partial_x^2}\phi$ for $0<\lambda\leq 1$ the free solution of scaled linear Schrödinger equation which is defined as $${{\mathcal{F}}}_x(U_\lambda(t)\phi)(\xi)=\exp[-i\lambda\xi^2t]\widehat{\phi}(\xi),
\ \forall \ t\in {{\mathbb R}}.$$ We define the Lebesgue spaces $L_{t\in I}^qL_x^p$ and $L_x^pL_{t\in I}^q$ by the norms $$\norm{f}_{L_{t\in I}^qL_x^p}=\normo{\norm{f}_{L_x^p}}_{L_t^q(I)},
\quad \norm{f}_{L_x^pL_{t\in
I}^q}=\normo{\norm{f}_{L_t^q(I)}}_{L_x^p}.$$ If $I={{\mathbb R}}$ we simply write $L_{t}^qL_x^p$ and $L_x^pL_{t}^q$.
We will make use of the $X^{s,b}$-type space. Generally, let $h(\xi)$ be a continuous function, and we define $$\norm{v}_{X_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{s,b}}=\norm{\jb{\tau-h(\xi)}^b\jb{\xi}^s\widehat{v}(\xi,\tau)}_{L^2({{\mathbb R}}^2)}$$ where $\jb{\cdot}=(1+|\cdot|^2)^{1/2}$. This type of space was first systematically studied by Bourgain [@b93]. In applications we usually apply $X^{s,b}$ space for $b$ close to $1/2$. In the case $b=1/2$ one has a good substitute: Besov-type $X^{s,b}$ space which was first noted by Tataru [@Tataru]. For $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ we define the frequency dyadically localized $X^{s,b}$-type normed spaces $Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k$: $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k=\left\{f\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}^2):
\begin{array}{l}
f(\xi,\tau) \mbox{ is supported in } I_k\times{{\mathbb R}}\mbox{ and }\\
\norm{f}_{Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty
2^{j/2}\norm{\eta_j(\tau-h(\xi))\cdot f}_{L^2}.
\end{array}
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we define the $l^1$-analogue of $X^{s,b}$-type space $F_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{s}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{u}_{F_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{s}}^2=\sum_{k \geq
0}2^{2sk}\norm{\eta_k(\xi){{\mathcal{F}}}(u)}_{Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k}^2.\end{aligned}$$ In this paper we will use the space $X_{\tau=-\lambda \xi^2}^{s,b}$ and $F_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s}$. In order to avoid some logarithmic divergence, we use the following weaker norm for the low frequency of the KdV equation as in [@G], $$\begin{aligned}
&\norm{u}_{\bar{Y}^0}=\norm{u}_{L_x^2L_t^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ For $-3/4\leq s\leq 0$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
&\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s=\{u\in
{{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^2):\norm{u}_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s}^2=\sum_{k \geq
1}2^{2sk}\norm{\eta_k(\xi){{\mathcal{F}}}(u)}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^k}^2+\norm{P_{\leq
0}(u)}_{\bar{Y}^0}^2<\infty\}.\end{aligned}$$ For $T\geq 0$, we define the time-localized spaces $\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s(T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\norm{u}_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s(T)}=\inf_{w\in
\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s}\{\norm{P_{\leq 0}u}_{L_x^2L_{|t|\leq
T}^\infty}+\norm{P_{\geq 1}w}_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s}: \ w(t)=u(t)
\mbox{ on } [-T, T]\}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we define $X_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{s,b}(T)$.
$L^2$ bilinear estimates
========================
In this section we prove some $L^2$ bilinear estimates which will be used to prove bilinear estimates for the coupled terms. For $\xi_1,\xi_2 \in {{\mathbb R}}$ let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:reso}
\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2)=&-\lambda\xi_1^2+\xi_2^3+\lambda(\xi_1+\xi_2)^2,\\
\Omega_2(\xi_1,\xi_2)=&-\lambda\xi_1^2+\lambda\xi_2^2-(\xi_1+\xi_2)^3.\end{aligned}$$ $\Omega_1$ is the resonance function for the coupled term $uv$, and $\Omega_2$ is the one for $\partial_x(|u|^2)$. For compactly supported nonnegative functions $f,g,h\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}})$ we define for $m= 1,2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&J_m(f,g,h)=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^4}f(\xi_1,\mu_1)g(\xi_2,\mu_2)h(\xi_1+\xi_2,\mu_1+\mu_2+\Omega_m(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2d\mu_1d\mu_2.\end{aligned}$$
For $k,j\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ we define $${D}^\lambda_{k,j}=\{(\xi,\tau):\xi \in I_{k}, \tau+\lambda\xi^2\in
I_{j}\},$$ and for $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}, j\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ we define $${B}_{k,j}=\{(\xi,\tau):|\xi| \in [2^{k-1},2^{k+1}], \tau-\xi^3\in
I_{j}\}.$$
Let $a_1, a_2, a_3\in {{\mathbb R}}$. It will be convenient to define the quantities $a_{max}\geq a_{med}\geq a_{min}$ to be the maximum, median, and minimum of $a_1,a_2,a_3$ respectively. Usually we use $k_1,k_2,k_3$ and $j_1,j_2,j_3$ to denote integers, $N_i=2^{k_i}$ and $L_i=2^{j_i}$ for $i=1,2,3$ to denote dyadic numbers.
We prove the following lemma.
\[lemsymes\] Assume $k_i \in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $j_i\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, and $f_{k_i,j_i}\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}\times
{{\mathbb R}})$ are nonnegative functions supported in $[2^{k_i-1},2^{k_i+1}]\times I_{j_i}, \, i=1,\ 2,\ 3$. Then
\(a) For any $k_1, k_2, k_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and $j_1,j_2,j_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $m=1,2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemsymesra}
J_m(f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2},f_{k_3,j_3})&\leq C
2^{j_{min}/2}2^{k_{min}/2} \prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
\(b) If $ k_2\geq 3$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemsymesrb}
J_1(f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2},f_{k_3,j_3})&\leq C
2^{(j_{med}+j_{max})/2}2^{-k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
\(c) For any $k_1, k_2, k_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and $j_1,j_2,j_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemsymesrc}
J_2(f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2},f_{k_3,j_3})&\leq C\lambda^{-1/2}
2^{(j_{1}+j_{2})/2}2^{- k_{3}/2}
\prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $A_{k_i}(\xi)=[\int_{{\mathbb R}}|f_{k_i,j_i}(\xi,\mu)|^2d\mu]^{1/2}$, $i=1,2,3$. Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and the support properties of the functions $f_{k_i,j_i}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
J_m(f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2},f_{k_3,j_3}){{\lesssim}}& 2^{j_{min}/2}\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}A_{k_1}(\xi_1)A_{k_2}(\xi_2)A_{k_3}(\xi_1+\xi_2)d\xi_1d\xi_2\\
{{\lesssim}}&
2^{k_{min}/2}2^{j_{min}/2}\prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ which is part (a), as desired.
For part (b), in view of the support properties of the functions, it is easy to see that $J_1(f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2},f_{k_3,j_3})\equiv
0$ unless $$\label{eq:freeq}
|k_{max}-k_{med}|\leq 5, \, 2^{j_{max}}{{\gtrsim}}|\Omega_1|.$$ We define two sets $$A=\{(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in{{\mathbb R}}^2:
|2\lambda\xi_1-3\xi_2^2|\geq\frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^2\}$$ and $$B=\{(\xi_1,\xi_2):
|\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2)|\geq\frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^3\}=\{(\xi_1,\xi_2):
|\xi_2^2+2\lambda\xi_1+\lambda\xi_2|\geq\frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^2\},$$ since $|\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2)|=|\xi_2(\xi_2^2+2\lambda\xi_1+\lambda\xi_2)|$. We claim that $$[2^{k_1-1},2^{k_1+1}]\times
[2^{k_2-1},2^{k_2+1}]\subset A\cup B.$$ Indeed, if $(\xi_1,\xi_2)\notin A\cup B$, then $$|4\xi_2^2+\lambda\xi_2|\leq|3\xi_2^2-2\lambda\xi_1|+|\xi_2^2+2\lambda\xi_1+\lambda\xi_2|\leq
|\xi_2|^2,$$ which is a contradiction since $|\xi_2|\geq 2$ and $0<\lambda \leq
1$.
For simplicity of notations we set $f_i=f_{k_i,j_2}$, $i=1,2,3$. Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
&J_1(f_{1},f_{2},f_{3})\\
{{\lesssim}}&\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\int_Af_{1}(\xi_1,\mu_1)f_{2}(\xi_2,\mu_2)f_{3}(\xi_1+\xi_2,\mu_1+\mu_2+\Omega_m(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2d\mu_1d\mu_2\\
&+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\int_Bf_{1}(\xi_1,\mu_1)f_{2}(\xi_2,\mu_2)f_{3}(\xi_1+\xi_2,\mu_1+\mu_2+\Omega_m(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2d\mu_1d\mu_2\\
=&I+II.\end{aligned}$$ We consider first the contribution of the term $I$. Since for $(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in A$, then $$|\partial_{\xi_1}\Omega_1-\partial_{\xi_2}\Omega_1|=|2\lambda\xi_1-3\xi_2^2|\geq\frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^2.$$ We will prove that if $g_i:{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}_+$ are $L^2$ functions supported in $[2^{k_i-1},2^{k_i+1}]$, $i=1,2$, and $g:
{{\mathbb R}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}_+$ is an $L^2$ function supported in $[2^{k_3-1},2^{k_3+1}]\times I_{j_{max}}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemsymesb}
\int_{A}g_1(\xi_1)g_2(\xi_2)g(\xi_1+\xi_2,\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2{{\lesssim}}2^{-k_2}\norm{g_1}_{L^2}\norm{g_2}_{L^2}\norm{g}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ This suffices for by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. To prove we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{A}g_1(\xi_1)g_2(\xi_2)g(\xi_1+\xi_2,\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2\\
&{{\lesssim}}\norm{g_1}_{L^2}\norm{g_2}_{L^2}\norm{1_{A}(\xi_1,\xi_2)g(\xi_1+\xi_2,\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2))}_{L^2_{\xi_1\xi_2}}\\
&{{\lesssim}}2^{-k_2}\norm{g_1}_{L^2}\norm{g_2}_{L^2}\norm{g}_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used the change of the variables $x=\xi_1+\xi_2, y=\Omega_1(\xi_1,\xi_2)$, since the Jacobi is $|\partial_{\xi_1}\Omega_1-\partial_{\xi_2}\Omega_1|\geq\frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^2{{\gtrsim}}2^{2k_2}$ in $A$.
Now we consider the term $II$. When $(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in B$, we have that $|\Omega_1|\geq \frac{1}{2}|\xi_2|^3$, so from the support properties we get $j_{max}\geq 3k_2-20$. Then from (a) we have in this case $$II{{\lesssim}}2^{j_{min}/2}2^{k_{2}/2}
\prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}2^{j_{min}/2}2^{j_{max}/2}2^{-k_2}
\prod_{i=1}^3\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2},$$ which completes the proof of (b).
Now we prove part (c). We will prove that if $g_i:{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow
{{\mathbb R}}_+$ are $L^2$ functions supported in $[2^{k_i-1},2^{k_i+1}]$, $i=1,2$, and $g: {{\mathbb R}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}_+$ is an $L^2$ function supported in $[2^{k_3-1},2^{k_3+1}]\times I_{j_{max}}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemsymesb2}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}g_1(\xi_1)g_2(\xi_2)g(\xi_1+\xi_2,\Omega_2(\xi_1,\xi_2))d\xi_1d\xi_2{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}2^{-k_3/2}\norm{g_1}_{L^2}\norm{g_2}_{L^2}\norm{g}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ This suffices for by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. To prove , we notice that $$|\partial_{\xi_1}\Omega_2-\partial_{\xi_2}\Omega_2|=2\lambda|\xi_1+\xi_2|\thicksim
2\lambda2^{k_3},$$ thus by change of variable $\mu_1=\xi_1+\xi_2$, $\mu_2=\Omega_2(\xi_1,\xi_2)$ we get $$\|g(\xi_1+\xi_2,\Omega_2(\xi_1,\xi_2))\|_{L^2_{\xi_1\xi_2}}{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}2^{-k_3/2}\norm{g}_2,$$which is sufficient for by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
\[rm:symest\] It is easy to see from the proof that Part (a) and Part (b) of Lemma \[lemsymes\] also hold if we assume instead $f_{k_i,j_i}$ is supported in $I_{k_i}\times I_{j_i}$ for $k_1,k_2,k_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Part (c) of Lemma \[lemsymes\] also holds if we assume instead $f_{k_1,j_1}$, $f_{k_2,j_2}$ are supported in $I_{k_1}\times
I_{j_1}$, $I_{k_2}\times I_{j_2}$ respectively, for $k_1,k_2\in
{{\mathbb Z}}_+$.
We restate now Lemma \[lemsymes\] in a form that is suitable for the bilinear estimates in the next section.
\[cor42\]
\(a) Let $k_1,k_2,k_3,j_1,j_2,j_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Assume $f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2}\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}})$ are nonnegative functions that are supported in $\{(\xi,\tau):\xi \in I_{k_1},
\tau+\lambda\xi^2\in I_{j_1}\}$ and $\{(\xi,\tau):\xi \in I_{k_2},
\tau-\xi^3\in I_{j_2}\}$ respectively, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aa}
\norm{1_{{D}^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)(f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2})}_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}2^{k_{min}/2}2^{j_{min}/2}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $k_2>2$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k2}
\norm{1_{{D}^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)(f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2})}_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}2^{(j_{med}+j_{max})/2}2^{-
k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
\(b) Let $k_1,k_2, j_1,j_2,j_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ and $k_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. Assume $f_{k_1,j_1},f_{k_2,j_2}\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}})$ are nonnegative functions that are supported in $\{(\xi,\tau):\xi \in {I}_{k_1},
\tau+\lambda\xi^2\in I_{j_1}\}$ and $\{(\xi,\tau):\xi \in I_{k_2},
\tau-\lambda\xi^2\in I_{j_2}\}$ respectively, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bb}
\norm{1_{{B}_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)(f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2})}_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}2^{k_{min}/2}2^{j_{min}/2}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ and also $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b2}
\norm{1_{{B}_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)(f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2})}_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}
2^{j_{1}/2}2^{j_{2}/2}2^{-k_{3}/2}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
We just prove (a), the proof for (b) is similar. Clearly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\norm{1_{{D}^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)(f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2})(\xi,\tau)}_{L^2}=\sup_{\norm{f}_{L^2}=1}\aabs{\int_{D^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}
f\cdot f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2} d\xi d\tau}.\end{aligned}$$ We denote $f_{k_3,j_3}=1_{D^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}(\xi,\tau)\cdot
f(\xi,\tau)$. Define $f_{k_1,j_1}^\sharp(\xi,\mu)=f_{k_1,j_1}(\xi,\mu-\lambda\xi^2)$, $f_{k_2,j_2}^\sharp(\xi,\mu)=f_{k_2,j_2}(\xi,\mu+\xi^3)$, $f_{k_3,j_3}^\sharp(\xi,\mu)=f_{k_3,j_3}(\xi,\mu-\lambda\xi^2)$. Then for $i=1,2,3$ the functions $f_{k_i,j_i}^\sharp$ are supported in $I_{k_i}\times I_{j_i}$ and $\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}^\sharp}_{L^2}=\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}$. Using simple changes of variables, we get that $$\int_{D^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}} f\cdot
f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2} d\xi d\tau =
J_1(f_{k_1,j_1}^\sharp,f_{k_2,j_2}^\sharp,f_{k_3,j_3}^\sharp).$$ Then (a) follows from Lemma \[lemsymes\] (a), (b) and Remark \[rm:symest\].
Bilinear estimates for the coupling terms
=========================================
This section is devoted to prove the bilinear estimates for the coupling terms in the $F^s$-type space. We first recall an abstract extension lemma. For a continuous function $h(\xi)$, define group $W_h(t)$ by $$W_h(t)f={{\mathcal{F}}}_x e^{ith(\xi)}{{\mathcal{F}}}_x{f}.$$ Then $W_h(t)f$ is the solution to the following equation $$\partial_t u-ih(-i\partial_x)u=0,\quad u(x,0)=f(x).$$
\[lemmaextension\] Assume $h$ is a continuous function. Let $Z$ be any space-time Banach space which obeys the time modulation estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{g(t)F(t,x)}_{Z}\leq \norm{g}_{L_t^\infty} \norm{F(t,x)}_Z\end{aligned}$$ for any $F\in Z$ and $g\in L_t^\infty$. Moreover, if for all $u_{0}\in L_x^2$ $$\norm{W_h(t)u_{0}}_{Z}{{\lesssim}}\norm{u_{0}}_{L_x^2}.$$ Then one also has the estimate that for all $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ and $u\in
{F}^0$ $$\norm{P_{k}(u)}_{Z}{{\lesssim}}\norm{\wh{P_{k}(u)}}_{{Y}_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{k}}.$$
We refer the readers to Lemma 3.2 in [@G].
\[propXkembedding\] Let $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $j\in {{\mathbb N}}$. Assume $u\in {{\mathcal{S}}}({{\mathbb R}}^2)$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{P_k(u)}_{L_t^qL_x^r}{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/q}\norm{P_k(u)}_{{Y}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k}},\label{str}\\
\norm{P_j(u)}_{L_x^\infty L_{t}^2}{{\lesssim}}&
\lambda^{-1/2}2^{-j/2}\norm{{{\mathcal{F}}}[P_j(u)]}_{{Y}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k}},\end{aligned}$$ where $(q,r)$ satisfies $2\leq q,r \leq \infty$ and 2/q=1/2-1/r. As a consequence, we get from the definition that for $u\in
F_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{s}$ $$\norm{u}_{L_t^\infty H^s}{{\lesssim}}\norm{u}_{F_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{s}}.$$
From Lemma \[lemmaextension\], it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{U_\lambda(t)f}_{L_t^qL_x^r}{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/q}\norm{f}_{L_x^2},\label{str}\\
\norm{U_\lambda(t)f}_{L_x^\infty
L_{t}^2}{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/2}\norm{f}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_x},\end{aligned}$$ which are well-known, for example see [@KeelTao] and [@KPVIUMJ91].
\[propYkembedding\] Let $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $j\in {{\mathbb N}}$. Assume $u\in F^{0}$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\norm{P_k(u)}_{L_t^qL_x^r}{{\lesssim}}\norm{P_k(u)}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^k},\\
&&\norm{P_k(u)}_{L_x^2L_{t\in I}^\infty}{{\lesssim}}2^{3k/4}
\norm{{{\mathcal{F}}}[P_k(u)]}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^k},\\
&&\norm{P_j(u)}_{L_x^\infty L_{t}^2}{{\lesssim}}2^{-j}\norm{{{\mathcal{F}}}[P_j(u)]}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^j},\end{aligned}$$ where $(q,r)$ satisfies $2\leq q,r \leq \infty$ and 3/q=1/2-1/r. As a consequence, we get from the definition that for $u\in
\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s$, then $$\norm{u}_{L_t^\infty H^s}{{\lesssim}}\norm{u}_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^s}.$$
We refer the readers to proposition 3.3 in [@G].
The main result of this section is the following lemma.
\[biline\] (a) If $s_1\geq 0$, $s_2\in (-1,-1/2)$, $s_1-s_2<1$, $0<\theta\ll
1$, and $u\in X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}$, $v\in
\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2}$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemcouplea}
\norm{\psi(t)uv}_{X^{s_1,-1/2+2\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/2}
\norm{u}_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\norm{v}_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2}}.\end{aligned}$$
(b)If $s_1\geq 0$, $s_2-s_1<-1/2$, and $u, w\in
X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemcoupleb}
\norm{\psi(t)\partial_x(u\bar{w})}_{{X}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2,-1/2+2\theta}}{{\lesssim}}&
\lambda^{-1/2}\norm{u}_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\norm{w}_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We first prove (a). From the definition, we get that the left-hand side of is dominated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa1}
\Big\|2^{s_1 k_3}\sum_{j_3=0}^{\infty}2^{-1/2j_3+2\theta
j_3}\|1_{D^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}\cdot\widehat{\psi(t)uv}\|_{L_{\xi,\tau}^{2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we begin to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa1}
\sum_{j_3}^{\infty}2^{-1/2j_3+2\theta
j_3}\|1_{D^\lambda_{k_3,j_3}}\cdot\widehat{\psi(t)uv}\|_{L_{\xi,\tau}^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Decomposing $u, v$, for $k_1,j_1\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ set $$\begin{aligned}
f_{k_1,j_1}(\xi_1,\tau_1)&=\eta_{k_1}(\xi_1)\eta_{j_1}(\tau_1+\lambda\xi_1^2)\widehat{\psi(t/2)u}(\xi_1,\tau_1),\\
f_{k_2,j_2}(\xi_2,\tau_2)&=\eta_{k_2}(\xi_2)\eta_{j_2}(\tau_2-\xi_2^3)\widehat{\psi(t/2)v}(\xi_2,\tau_2),\end{aligned}$$ then we get for fixed $k_3$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa2}
\eqref{pa1}{{\lesssim}}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K } \sum_{j_3\geq
0}2^{-j_3/2+2\theta j_3} \sum_{j_1, j_2\geq
0}\|1_{D_{k_3,j_3}^\lambda}\cdot
f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2}\|_{L^2_{\xi_3\tau_3}}.\end{aligned}$$ where $K=\{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+^3: |k_{med}-k_{max}|<5\}$, since it is easy to see that $1_{D_{k_3,j_3}^\lambda}\cdot
f_{k_1,j_1}*f_{k_2,j_2}\equiv 0$ unless $$|k_{med}-k_{max}|<5.$$ We may also assume that $k_{max} \geq 20$, since for $k_{max} \leq
20$ we can get from Plancherel’s equality that $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{pa1}{{\lesssim}}&\sum_{j_3\geq
0}2^{-j_3/2+2\theta j_3}\|1_{D_{k_3,j_3}^\lambda}\cdot\wh{P_{\leq 20}u}*\wh{\psi(t)P_{\leq 20}v}\|_{L^2_{\xi_3\tau_3}}\\
{{\lesssim}}&\|{P_{\leq 20}u}{\psi(t)P_{\leq 20}v}\|_{L^2_{x,t}}\\
{{\lesssim}}& \norm{P_{\leq 20}u}_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}\norm{\psi(t)P_{\leq
20}v}_{ L_x^2L_t^\infty}\end{aligned}$$ which suffices to give the bound for this case by Proposition \[propXkembedding\], \[propYkembedding\].
Now we assume $k_{max}\geq 20$ and prove . First we assume that $k_2\geq 2$. Clearly we may also assume that $j_{max}\leq 10 k_2$, otherwise, we can apply , then we have a $2^{-5k_2}$ to spare. After these assumptions, we can make use of to bound by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa3}
\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2} \sum_{j_3\geq
0}2^{-j_3/2+2\theta j_2} \sum_{j_1, j_2\geq
0}2^{j_{max}/2}2^{j_{med}/2}2^{-k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ when $j_3=j_{min}$, then is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa31}
&\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2} \sum_{j_1, j_2\geq
0}2^{j_{1}/2}2^{j_{2}/2}2^{-k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\nonumber\\
&{{\lesssim}}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2}
2^{-k_{2}}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}},\end{aligned}$$ when $j_1=j_{min}$, then is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa32}
&\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2}\sum_{j_3\geq 0}2^{2\theta j_3}
\sum_{j_1, j_2\geq
0}2^{j_{2}/2}2^{-k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\nonumber\\
&{{\lesssim}}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2}2^{20\theta k_2} \sum_{j_1,
j_2\geq
0}2^{j_{1}/2}2^{j_{2}/2}2^{-k_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^2\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\nonumber\\
&{{\lesssim}}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_2\geq 2} 2^{-k_{2}+20\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}},\end{aligned}$$ where we use $j_{max}\leq 10k_2$ in the last step. The case $j_2=j_{min}$ is the same as $j_1=j_{min}$, so we omit the details.
Dividing the summation on $k_1,k_2$ in the right-hand side of into several parts, we get from , $$\begin{aligned}
&\eqref{pa3}{{\lesssim}}\sum_{i=1}^5 \sum_{{A_i(k_3)}}2^{-k_{2}+20\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
A_1(k_3)=&\{|k_2-k_3|\leq 5, k_1\leq k_2-10, \mbox{ and } k_2\geq
30\};\\
A_2(k_3)=&\{|k_1-k_3|\leq 5, 2\leq k_2\leq k_1-10, \mbox{ and }
k_1\geq
30\};\\
A_3(k_3)=&\{|k_1-k_2|\leq 5, k_3\leq k_2-10, \mbox{ and } k_1 \geq
30\};\\
A_4(k_3)=&\{|k_2-k_3|\leq 10, |k_1-k_2|\leq 10, \mbox{ and } k_2\geq
30 \};\\
A_5(k_3)=&\{k_1,k_2,k_3\leq 200\}.\end{aligned}$$ So we can bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa11}
\sum_{i=1}^5 \Big\|2^{s_1 k_3}\sum_{{A_i(k_3)}}2^{-k_{2}+20\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we begin to estimate case by case. For case $A_1$, by Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pa1a1}
&\Big\|2^{s_1 k_3}\sum_{{A_1(k_3)}}2^{-k_{2}+20\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\nonumber\\
=&\Big\|2^{s_1 k_3}\sum_{|k_2-k_3|\leq 5, k_2\geq 20}\sum_{k_1\leq
k_2-10}2^{-k_{2}+20\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\nonumber\\
{{\lesssim}}&\Big\|2^{s_1 k_3}\sum_{|k_2-k_3|\leq 5, k_2\geq
20}2^{-k_{2}+21\theta
k_2}\norm{P_{k_2}v}_{Y_{\tau=\xi^3}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\Big(\sum_{k_1\geq
0
}2^{2s_1k_{1}}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\Big)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ since $s_1-s_2<1$, $s_1\geq0$, $s_2>-1$ and $0<\theta\ll 1$, we can bound by $\|v\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2}}\|u\|_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=\lambda\xi^2}}$. The proof for $A_2-A_5$ are similar, we omit here.
Now we assume that $k_2\leq 2$, by the assumption $k_{max}\geq 20$, we have $|k_1-k_3|\leq 5$, and $k_1, k_2 \geq 10$. For simplicity of notations we assume $k_1=k_3=k$, then the left hand side of can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k\geq 0} 2^{s_1k} \|\widehat{P_k(u)}*\widehat{\psi(t)P_{\leq
2}(v)}\|_{L^2}{{\lesssim}}\sum_{k\geq 0} 2^{s_1k} \|P_k(u)\|_{L_x^\infty
L_t^2}\|\psi(t)P_{\leq 2}(v)\|_{L_x^2 L_t^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ This is enough in view of the definition, Proposition \[propXkembedding\] and Proposition \[propYkembedding\].
Now we begin to prove (b), form the definition, we only need to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb}
\norm{\partial_x(u\bar{w})}_{{X}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2,-1/2+2\theta}}{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}
\norm{u}_{F^{s_1}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\norm{w}_{F^{s_1}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ By the definition and $\theta \ll 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb1}
\norm{\partial_x(u\bar{w})}_{{X}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{s_2,-1/2+2\theta}}{{\lesssim}}&\Big(\sum_{k
\geq 1}2^{2s_2k}\Big(\sum_{j\geq
0}2^{-j/4}\norm{1_{B_{k,j}}(\xi,\tau)i\xi{{\mathcal{F}}}(u\bar{w})}_{L^2_{\xi,\tau}}\Big)^{2}\Big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&+\Big(\sum_{k \leq 0}\Big(\sum_{j\geq
0}2^{-j/4}\norm{1_{B_{k,j}}(\xi,\tau)i\xi{{\mathcal{F}}}(u\bar{w})}_{L^2_{\xi,\tau}}\Big)^{2}\Big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
:=&I+II.\end{aligned}$$ Now let $$f_{k_1,j_1}(\xi_1,\tau_1)=\eta_{k_1}(\xi_1)\eta_{j_1}(\tau_1+\lambda\xi_1^2)\hat{u}(\xi_1,\tau_1),$$ $$\overline{g_{k_2,j_2}(\xi_2,\tau_2)}=\eta_{k_1}(\xi_2)\eta_{j_1}(\tau_2-\lambda\xi_2^2)\widetilde{\hat{w}}(\xi_2,\tau_2),$$ then we have $$\|u\|_{F_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{s}} = \Big\|2^{sk_1}\sum_{j_1\geq
0}2^{j_1/2}\|f_{k_1,j_1}\|_{L^2}\Big\|_{l^2_{k_1}},$$ $$\|w\|_{F_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{s}}= \Big\|2^{sk_2}\sum_{j_2\geq
0}2^{j_2/2}\|g_{k_2,j_2}\|_{L^2}\Big\|_{l^2_{k_2}}.$$ Then from the definition, $I$ and $II$ in can be bounded as following $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb2}
I{{\lesssim}}\Big\|2^{(s_2+1)k_3}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K} \sum_{j_3\geq
0}2^{-j_3/4} \sum_{j_1, j_2\geq 0}\|1_{B_{k_3,j_3}}
f_{k_1,j_1}*g_{k_2,j_2}\|_{L^2_{\xi_3\tau_3}}\Big\|_{l_{k_3\geq
1}^2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb3}
II{{\lesssim}}\Big\|2^{k_3}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K} \sum_{j_3\geq
0}2^{-j_3/4} \sum_{j_1, j_2\geq 0}\|1_{B_{k_3,j_3}}
f_{k_1,j_1}*g_{k_2,j_2}\|_{L^2_{\xi_3\tau_3}}\Big\|_{l^2_{ k_3\leq
0}}.\end{aligned}$$ We first estimate term $I$ in . By we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb5}
&\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K}\sum_{j_3\geq 0}2^{-j_3/4} \sum_{j_1,
j_2\geq 0}\|1_{B_{k_3,j_3}}
f_{k_1,j_1}*g_{k_2,j_2}\|_{L^2_{\xi_3\tau_3}}\nonumber\\
{{\lesssim}}& \sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_3\geq 1} 2^{-k_3/2}\sum_{j_1,
j_2\geq 0}\lambda^{-1/2}
2^{j_{1}/2}2^{j_{2}/2}\norm{f_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\norm{g_{k_i,j_i}}_{L^2}\nonumber\\
{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/2}\sum_{(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in K, k_3\geq 1}2^{-k_3/2}
\norm{\wh{P_{k_1}u}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{\wh{P_{k_2}w}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Dividing the summation on $k_1,k_2$ in the right-hand side of into several parts, $$\begin{aligned}
&\eqref{pb5}{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^5
\sum_{{B_i(k_3)}}\norm{P_{k_1}u}_{F_{\tau=\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{P_{k_2}w}_{F_{\tau=\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
B_1(k_3)=&\{|k_2-k_3|\leq 5, k_1\leq k_2-10, \mbox{ and } k_2\geq
30\};\\
B_2(k_3)=&\{|k_1-k_3|\leq 5, k_2\leq k_1-10, \mbox{ and } k_1\geq
30\};\\
B_3(k_3)=&\{|k_1-k_2|\leq 5, 1\leq k_3\leq k_2-10, \mbox{ and } k_1
\geq
30\};\\
B_4(k_3)=&\{|k_2-k_3|\leq 10, |k_1-k_2|\leq 10, \mbox{ and } k_2\geq
30 \};\\
B_5(k_3)=&\{k_1,k_2,k_3\leq 200, k_3\geq 1\}.\end{aligned}$$ So we can bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb11}
I{{\lesssim}}\lambda^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^5
\Big\|2^{(s_2+1/2)k_3}\sum_{{B_i(k_3)}}\norm{\wh{P_{k_1}u}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{\wh{P_{k_2}w}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we begin to estimate case by case. For case $B_1$, by Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pb1a1}
&\lambda^{-1/2}\Big\|2^{(s_2+1/2)k_3}\sum_{{B_1(k_3)}}\norm{\wh{P_{k_1}u}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\norm{\wh{P_{k_2}w}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\nonumber\\
=&\lambda^{-1/2}\Big\|2^{(s_2+1/2)k_3}\sum_{|k_2-k_3|\leq 5, k_2\geq
20}\norm{\wh{P_{k_2}w}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}\sum_{k_1\leq k_2-10}\norm{\wh{P_{k_1}u}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_1}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\nonumber\\
{{\lesssim}}&\lambda^{-1/2}\Big\|2^{(s_2+1/2+\theta)k_3}\sum_{|k_2-k_3|\leq
5, k_2\geq
20}\norm{\wh{P_{k_2}w}}_{Y_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{k_2}}\Big\|_{l^{2}_{k_3}}\|u\|_{F_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{s_1}}.\end{aligned}$$ since $s_2-s_1<-1/2$, $s_1\geq0$ and $0<\theta\ll 1$, so we can bounded by $\|u\|_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\|w\|_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}$. The proof for $B_2-B_5$ are similar, we omit here.
Use the same argument as above, under the restriction $s_2-s_1<-1/2$, $s_1\geq0$ and $0<\theta\ll 1$, we can bound the part $II$ in by $\|u\|_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\|w\|_{X^{s_1,1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}$. Thus we finish the proof.
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thmlwp\]. We first recall some linear estimates in $X_{\tau=h(\xi)}^{s,b}$ and $\bar{F}_{\tau=h(\xi)}^s$. Let $W_h(t)f={{\mathcal{F}}}_x^{-1}e^{ith(\xi)}{{\mathcal{F}}}_x
f$. The following lemma has been proved by Kenig, Ponce and Vega in [@kpvd93], and then improved by Ginibre, Y. Tsutsumi and Velo in [@gtv97].
\[line\] Let $s\in {{\mathbb R}}$, $-1/2<b'\leq 0\leq b\leq b'+1$ and $T\in [0,1]$. Then for $u_0\in H^s$ and $F\in X^{s,b}_{\tau=h(\xi)}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_1(t)W_h(t)u_0\|_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=h(\xi)}}{{\lesssim}}&
\|u_0\|_{H^s},\\
\normo{\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}W_h(t-t')F(t',\cdot)dt'}_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=h(\xi)}}{{\lesssim}}&
T^{1-b+b'}\|F\|_{X^{s,b'}_{\tau=h(\xi)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Next we prove the linear estimates in $\bar{F}^s$. The proof was essentially given in [@In-Ke] for the Benjamin-Ono equation.
\(a) Assume $s\in {{\mathbb R}}$ and $\phi \in H^s$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{\psi(t)W_h(t)\phi}_{{F}_{\tau=h(\xi)}^s}\leq
C\norm{\phi}_{H^{s}}.\end{aligned}$$
\(b) Assume $s\in {{\mathbb R}}, k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ and $u$ satisfies $(i+\tau-\xi^3)^{-1}{{\mathcal{F}}}(u)\in Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\normo{{{\mathcal{F}}}\left[\psi(t)\int_0^t
W_h(t-s)(u(s))ds\right]}_{Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k}\leq
C\norm{(i+\tau-\xi^3)^{-1}{{\mathcal{F}}}(u)}_{Y_{\tau=h(\xi)}^k}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we give the estimates for the cubic nonlinear term.
\[nonS\] Let $u,u'\in X^{s,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}$ with $1/2<b<1$ and $s\geq
0$. Then for all $a\geq 0$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\||u|^2u\|_{X^{s,-a}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}{{\lesssim}}& \lambda
^{-1/2}\|u\|^3_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}},\\
\||u|^2u-|u'|^2u'\|_{X^{s,-a}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}{{\lesssim}}&
\lambda^{-1/2}(\|u\|^2_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}+\|u'\|^2_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}})\|u-u'\|_{X^{s,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We just proof the first one when $s=0$ for example. By Hölder inequality and , we have $$\||u|^2u\|_{X^{0,-a}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\leq \||u|^2u\|_{L^2}=
\|u\|^3_{L^6_{t,x}}\leq C
\lambda^{-1/2}\|u\|^3_{X^{0,b}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}$$ Thus we finish the proof.
We also need a bilinear estimates. For $u,v\in \bar{F}^s$ we define the bilinear operator $$\begin{aligned}
&B(u,v)=\psi({t/4})\int_0^tW(t-\tau)\partial_x\big(\psi^2(\tau)u(\tau)\cdot
v(\tau)\big)d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is due to the first author [@G], which is the key to get the global well-posedness for KdV in $H^{-3/4}$.
\[nonK\] Assume $-3/4\leq s\leq 0$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bilinearbd}
\norm{B(u,v)}_{\bar{F}^s}\leq
C(\norm{u}_{\bar{F}^s}\norm{v}_{\bar{F}^{-3/4}}+\norm{u}_{\bar{F}^{-3/4}}\norm{v}_{\bar{F}^s})\end{aligned}$$ hold for any $u,v\in \bar{F}^s$.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thmlwp\]. We consider first under the condition . We may assume $\alpha= \beta= \gamma=1$. From Duhamel’s principle, the Cauchy problem is equivalent to the following integral equation system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inteS-KdV}
\begin{array}{l}
u(t)=U_{\lambda}(t)\phi_1(x)-i\int_{0}^{t}U_\lambda(t-t')[\lambda(uv)(t')+\lambda^{-1}(|u|^2u)(t')]dt'\\
v(t)=V(t)\phi_2(x)+\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\Big[-\frac{1}{2}\partial_x(v^2)(t')+\partial_x(|u|^2)(t')\Big]dt'.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ To study the local existence, it suffices to study the following time localized system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CIe}
\begin{array}{l}
u(t)=\psi_1(t)U_{\lambda}(t)\phi_1(x)-i\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}U_\lambda(t-t')[\lambda(uv)(t')+\lambda^{-1}(|u|^2u)(t')]dt'\\
v(t)=\psi_1(t)V(t)\phi_2(x)-\frac{1}{2}\psi_4(t)\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(v^2)(t')dt'\\
\quad \quad \quad
+\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(|u|^2)(t')dt'.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that if $(u,v)$ solve the system for all $t\in {{\mathbb R}}$, then $(u,v)$ also solve the system for $|t|\leq
T$.
We follow the similar argument as the one given in [@cl07] to construct our solution spaces. We consider the following function space where we seek our solution: $$\Sigma_{\theta}:=\Big\{(u,v)\in X^{0,
1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}\times \bar{F}^{-3/4}_{\tau=\xi^3};
\quad\|u\|_{X^{0, 1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}\leq M \text{ and
} \|v\|_{\bar{F}^{-3/4}_{\tau=\xi^3}}\leq \epsilon_0\Big\},$$ where $0<\theta, \epsilon_0 \ll 1$ and $M>0$, will be chosen later. Furthermore, $\Sigma_\theta$ is a complete metric space with norm $$\|(u,v)\|_{\Sigma_\theta}=\|u\|_{X^{0,
1/2+\theta}_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}}+\|v\|_{\bar{F}^{-3/4}_{\tau=\xi^3}}.$$ For $(u,v)\in \Sigma_\theta$, we define the maps $\Phi=\Phi_1\times\Phi_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi_1(u,v)=\psi_1(t)U_{\lambda}(t)\phi_1(x)-i\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}U_\lambda(t-t')[\lambda(uv)(t')+\lambda^{-1}(|u|^2u)(t')]dt'\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(u,v)=&\psi_1(t)V(t)\phi_2(x)-\frac{1}{2}\psi_4(t)\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(v^2)(t')dt'\\
&+\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(|u|^2)(t')dt'.\end{aligned}$$ Then from Lemma \[line\]-\[nonK\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi_1(u,v)\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}\leq&c_0\|\phi_1\|_{L^2}+c_1T^\theta\Big[\lambda\|uv\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,-1/2+2\theta}}
+\lambda^{-1}\||u|^2u\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,-1/2+2\theta}}\Big]
\\
\leq&c_0\|\phi_1\|_{L^2}+c_1T^\theta\Big[\lambda\|u\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}\|v\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}
+\lambda^{-3/2}\|u\|^3_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}\Big]
\\
\leq&c_0\|\phi_1\|_{L^2}+c_1T^\theta\big[\lambda M\epsilon_0
+\lambda^{-2}M^3\big],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi_2(u,v)\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}\leq&c_0\|\phi_2\|_{H^{-3/4}}+\frac{1}{2}
\Big\|\psi(\frac{t}{4})\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(v^2)(t')dt'\Big\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}\\
&+\Big\|\psi_T(t)\int_{0}^{t}V(t-t')\partial_x(|u|^2)(t')dt'\Big\|_{X_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4,
1/2+\theta}}
\\\leq&c_0\|\phi_2\|_{H^{-3/4}}+c_2\|v\|^2_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}
+c_2T^\theta\|\partial_x|u|^2\|_{X_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4, -1/2+2\theta}}
\\
\leq&c_0\|\phi_2\|_{H^{-3/4}}+c_2\|v\|^2_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}
+c_2\lambda^{-1/2}T^\theta\|u\|^2_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}
\\
\leq&c_0\|\phi_2\|_{H^{-3/4}}+c_2\epsilon_0^2
+c_2\lambda^{-1/2}T^\theta M^2.\end{aligned}$$ Now taking $M=2c_0 \|\phi_1\|_{L^2}$ and $\epsilon_0\ll 1$ satisfy $c_2\epsilon_0=1/8$, then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi_1(u,v)\|_{X_\lambda^{0,1/2+\theta}}\leq&
\frac{M}{2}+c_1T^\theta\big[\lambda M\epsilon_0+\lambda^{-3/2}M^3\big],\\
\|\Phi_2(u,v)\|_{\bar{F}^{-3/4}} \leq&
\frac{\epsilon_0}{2}+c_2\epsilon_0^2
+c_2\lambda^{-1/2}T^\theta M^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we choose $T>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exist1}
T^\theta\ll \frac{\lambda^{1/2}}{M^2}\min(\epsilon_0,\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ then $(\Phi_1(u,v),\Phi_2(u,v))\in \Sigma_\theta$. Similarly we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi_1(u,v)-\Phi_1(u',v')\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}\leq&
c_3\lambda^{-3/2}T^\theta\big(M+\epsilon_0+M^2\big)\\
&\cdot[\|u-u'\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}+\|v-v'\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}],\\
\|\Phi_2(u,v)-\Phi_2(u',v')\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}\leq&
c_3(\lambda^{-1/2}T^\theta M+\epsilon_0)\\
&\cdot[\|u-u'\|_{X_{\tau=-\lambda\xi^2}^{0,1/2+\theta}}+\|v-v'\|_{\bar{F}_{\tau=\xi^3}^{-3/4}}].\end{aligned}$$ Thus for $T$ in we get $$\|(\Phi_1(u,v),\Phi_2(u,v))-(\Phi_1(u',v'),\Phi_2(u',v'))\|_{\Sigma_\theta}\leq
\frac{1}{2}\|(u,v)-(u',v')\|_{\Sigma_\theta}$$ Therefore the map $\Phi_1\times\Phi_2:\Sigma_\theta\longrightarrow
\Sigma_{\theta}$ is a contraction mapping, and we obtain a unique fixed point in $\Sigma_\theta$ which solves the equation .
Now we prove Theorem \[thmlwp\]. Using the scaling by taking $$\lambda=\Big(\frac{\epsilon_0}{2(\norm{v_0}_{H^{-3/4}}+1)}\Big)^{4/3},$$ then we see $$M=2c_0 \|\phi_1\|_{L^2}=2c_0 \lambda^{3/2}\|u_0\|_{L^2}, \quad \norm{\phi_2}\leq \epsilon_0.$$ Thus we get local existence of the solution to on $[0,T_1]$ for $$T_1\sim \brk{\frac{\lambda^{3/2}}{M^2}}^{1/\theta}=\brk{\frac{1}{\lambda^{3/2}\|u_0\|_{L^2}^2}}^{1/\theta}.$$ Therefore, for the original system , we get the local existence of the solution on $[0,T]$ for $$T=\lambda^3T_1\sim T(\norm{u_0}_{L^2},\norm{v_0}_{H^{-3/4}}).$$ Therefore, we obtain existence. By standard arguments, we can prove the rest parts of Theorem \[thmlwp\].
[99]{}
D. Bekiranov, T. Ogawa and G. Ponce, Weak solvability and well-posedness of a coupled Schrödinger-Korteweg de Vries equation for capillary-gravity wave interactions, Proceedings of the AMS., 125 (10), (1997), 2907-2919.
D. Bekiranov, T. Ogawa and G. Ponce, Interaction equations for short and long dispersive waves, J. Funct. Anal., 158, (1998), 357-388.
B. Guo, Ch. Miao, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the coupled system of the Schrödinger-KdV equations, Acta Math. Sinica, Engl. Series, 15 (1999), 215-224.
M. Tsutsumi, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for a coupled Schrödinger-KdV equation, Math. Sciences Appl., 2 (1993), 513-528.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In contrast to the recent prediction of high $p_T$ hadron suppression within the parton saturation model, it is shown that multiple parton scattering suffered by the projectile will enhance high $p_T$ hadron spectra in $d+A$ collisions relative to a superposition of binary $p+p$ collisions at RHIC. A stronger enhancement in the forward rapidity region of the projectile is also predicted, resulting in a unique rapidity asymmetry of the hadron spectra at high $p_T$. The shape of the rapidity asymmetry should be reversed for low $p_T$ hadrons that are dominated by soft and coherent interactions which suppress hadron spectra in the projectile rapidity region. The phenomenon at the LHC energies is shown to be qualitatively different because of parton shadowing.'
address: |
Nuclear Science Division, Mailstop 70R0319\
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
author:
- 'Xin-Nian Wang'
date: 'March 1, 2003'
title: 'Rapidity Asymmetry in High-energy $d+A$ Collisions'
---
=6.0in =0.35in =0.5in
Introduction
============
Recent experiments [@phenix; @star] at the Relativistic Heavy-ion Collider (RHIC) have shown a significant suppression of high $p_T$ hadron spectra in central $Au+Au$ collisions that was predicted [@gp90; @wg92] as a consequence of parton energy loss or jet quenching in dense matter. In addition, the same mechanism is predicted to produce azimuthal anisotropy in high $p_T$ hadron spectra [@v2] that was also observed in experiments at RHIC [@starv2]. This is a dramatic departure from the heavy-ion collisions at the SPS energies where no significant suppression of high $p_T$ spectra is observed [@wa98; @wangsps]. Since theoretical studies [@gw1; @bdms; @zhak; @glv; @wied] of parton propagation in a dense medium all show that the parton energy loss induced by multiple scattering is proportional to the gluon density, RHIC data thus indicate an initial gluon density in central $Au+Au$ collisions at the RHIC energies that is much higher than that in a large cold nucleus [@ww02].
More precise extraction of the parton energy loss from the final hadron suppression in $A+A$ collisions, however, requires the understanding of normal nuclear effects in $p+A$ collisions. As pointed out by many early [@Lev; @Ochiai; @Wang98] and recent [@Zhang; @Kopel; @vg02] studies, the high $p_T$ hadron spectra can also be modified by initial multiple scatterings in $p+A$ and $A+A$ collisions giving rise to the observed Cronin effect. Within a multiple scattering model, the high $p_T$ hadron spectra are normally enhanced relative to $p+p$ collisions, except in the kinematic region where the EMC effect [@emc] is important (The EMC effect is the depletion of parton distributions in $x\sim 0.2-0.8$ in nuclei caused by the nuclear binding effect). Such a normal nuclear enhancement will not affect the interpretation of the hadron suppression in central $A+A$ collisions as a consequence of jet quenching, though inclusion of it is important for more precise extraction of parton energy loss and the initial gluon density.
A very different mechanism was recently proposed for the observed high $p_T$ hadron suppression based on the parton saturation model [@klm] which also predicts a similar suppression in $p+A$ collisions at RHIC, in contrast to the predicted enhancement by the multiple parton scattering model. While such a model is not yet checked against the existing $p+A$ collisions for energies up to $\sqrt{s}=40$ GeV where enhancement of hadron spectra for $p_T>2$ GeV/$c$ has been successfully explained by the multiple scattering model, the up-coming data of $d+A$ collisions at RHIC will attest the relevance of parton saturation at the RHIC energies.
In this letter, we will point out an additional feature in the rapidity dependence of the Cronin enhancement due to multiple parton scattering in $d+A$ collisions. Such a rapidity dependence was also studied recently by Vitev [@Vitev:2003xu]. However, we predict here a unique rapidity asymmetry of high $p_T$ hadron spectra due to stronger Cronin enhancement in the forward (projectile) region as a result of the transverse momentum broadening of the initial partons inside the projectile. The shape of the rapidity asymmetry will also depend on the nuclear modification of the parton distributions inside a nucleus, in particular at small $x$. As one decreases $p_T$, the parton shadowing will reduce the hadron spectra in the forward region, thus changing the rapidity asymmetry. When soft and coherent interactions become dominant at very low $p_T<1$ GeV/$c$, the shape of the rapidity asymmetry will be reversed because of the strong suppression of hadron production in the projectile region relative to a superposition of binary $p+p$ collisions. We will calculate the rapidity asymmetry within a perturbative QCD (pQCD) parton model and study the effect of nuclear modification of parton distributions.
In a Glauber multiple parton scattering model, large $p_T$ spectra are generally enhanced relative to the binary model of hard scattering. It can be shown [@ww01] that a combination of absorptive corrections and the power-law behavior of perturbative parton cross section leads to a nuclear enhancement at high $p_T$ that decreases as $1/p_T^2$. The same absorptive processes suppress the spectra relative to the binary model at low $p_T$, where soft processes dominate and the $p_T$ spectra deviate from a power-law behavior. Since the pQCD model cannot be applied to soft processes, one has to resort to phenomenological models like the string model in which coherent particle production is modeled by a string excitation for each participant nucleon. Shown in Fig. \[fig:hijing\] is the rapidity distribution (integrated over transverse momentum) of charged hadrons in minimum-biased $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV from the HIJING Monte Carlo model [@hijing], which employs the string model for soft and coherent interactions. Because most of the soft particles are produced through string fragmentation, their number should then be proportional to the number of participants. The rapidity distributions of hadrons from the string should also follow their parent nucleons. Since there are more target nucleon participants than projectile nucleons in $d+A$ collisions, the hadron rapidity distribution is thus asymmetrical with respect to $\eta=0$. For high $p_T$ hadrons, the underlying processes are hard parton scatterings. The multiplicity should be approximately proportional to the number of binary scatterings and the rapidity distributions should be approximately symmetric with respect to $\eta=0$. This is roughly the case for high $p_T$ hadrons in HIJING model as shown in Fig. \[fig:hijing\]. One, however, can notice some asymmetric effect in the rapidity distribution of large $p_T$ hadrons. This is partially due to the coherence between transverse jets and the beam remnants, which is responsible for the asymmetric pedestal effect underlying a jet event in $p+A$ collisions. In addition, energy and quark number conservation will also cause some asymmetric effects. These effects are most important in the large rapidity region. It is expected that they are small in the central rapidity region.
Though the HIJING model has incorporated hard processes, it has not included transverse momentum broadening of initial partons. For this purpose, we use the pQCD model as employed in Ref. [@Wang98]. We will use a lowest order (LO) pQCD-inspired parton model in which the inclusive particle production cross section in $pp$ collisions is given by [@Owens] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma^h_{pp}}{dyd^2p_T}&=&K\sum_{abcd}
\int dx_a dx_b d^2k_{aT} d^2k_{bT} g_p(k_{aT},Q^2) g_p(k_{bT},Q^2)
\nonumber \\ & & f_{a/p}(x_a,Q^2)f_{b/p}(x_b,Q^2)
\frac{D^0_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)}{\pi z_c}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\hat{t}}(ab\rightarrow cd), \label{eq:nch_pp}\end{aligned}$$ where $D^0_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)$ is the fragmentation function of parton $c$ into hadron $h$ as parameterized in Ref. [@bkk] from $e^+e^-$ data, and $z_c$ is the momentum fraction of a parton jet carried by a produced hadron. The $K\approx 1.5$ (at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV) factor is used to account for higher order QCD corrections to the jet production cross section. The parton distributions $f_{a/N}(x,Q^2)$ in a nucleon are given by the MRS D$-^{\prime}$ parameterization [@mrs]. The initial transverse momentum distribution $g_N(k_T,Q^2)$ is assumed to have a Gaussian form, $$g_N(k_T,Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi \langle k^2_T\rangle_N}
e^{-k^2_T/\langle k^2_T\rangle_N}.$$ Following [@Owens2], we choose a $Q$-dependent average initial transverse momentum, $$\langle k^2_T\rangle_N(Q^2)= 1.2 ({\rm GeV}^2) + 0.2\alpha_s(Q^2) Q^2,
\label{kperp}$$ which should include both the intrinsic and pQCD radiation-generated transverse momentum in this LO calculation. The form of the $Q$-dependence and the parameters are chosen to reproduce the experimental data [@Wang98], especially at low energies. Following the same approach as in Refs. [@Owens2; @Feynman], we choose $Q^2$ to be $Q^2=2\hat{s}\hat{t}\hat{u}/(\hat{s}^2+\hat{t}^2+\hat{u}^2)$.
To take account of multiple initial-state scattering, we assume that the inclusive differential cross section for large $p_T$ particle production is still given by a single hard parton-parton scattering. However, due to multiple parton scattering prior to the hard processes, we consider the initial transverse momentum $k_T$ of the beam partons to be broadened. Assuming that each scattering provide a $k_T$ kick which also has a Gaussian distribution, we can effectively change the width of the initial $k_T$ distribution. Then the single inclusive particle cross section in minimum-biased $p+A$ collisions is, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma^h_{pA}}{dyd^2p_T}&=&K\sum_{abcd} \int d^2b t_A(b)
\int dx_a dx_b d^2k_{aT} d^2k_{bT} g_A(k_{aT},Q^2,b) g_p(k_{bT},Q^2)
\nonumber \\ & &
f_{a/p}(x_a,Q^2)f_{b/A}(x_b,Q^2,b)
\frac{D^0_{h/c}(z_c,Q^2)}{\pi z_c}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\hat{t}}(ab\rightarrow cd), \label{eq:nch_pA}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_A(b)$ is the nuclear thickness function normalized to $\int d^2b t_A(b)=A$. We will use the Woods-Saxon form of nuclear distribution for $t_A(b)$ throughout this paper unless specified otherwise. The parton distribution per nucleon inside the nucleus (with atomic mass number $A$ and charge number $Z$) at an impact parameter $b$, $$f_{a/A}(x,Q^2,b)=S_{a/A}(x,b)\left[ \frac{Z}{A}f_{a/p}(x,Q^2)
+(1-\frac{Z}{A}) f_{a/n}(x,Q^2)\right], \label{eq:shd}$$ is assumed to be factorizable into the parton distribution in a nucleon $f_{a/N}(x,Q^2)$ and the nuclear modification factor $S_{a/A}(x,b)$, for which we take both the new HIJING [@LW] and EKS [@eks] parameterizations. The initial parton transverse momentum distribution inside a projectile nucleon going through the target nucleus at an impact parameter $b$ is still a Gaussian with a broadened width $$\langle k^2_T\rangle_A(Q^2)=\langle k^2_T\rangle_N(Q^2)
+\delta^2(Q^2)(\nu_A(b) -1).$$ The broadening is assumed to be proportional to the number of scattering $\nu_A(b)$ the projectile suffers inside the nucleus, which is assumed to given by $$\nu_A(b)=\sigma_{NN} t_A(b)=
\sigma_{NN} \frac{3 A}{2\pi R_A^2}\sqrt{1-b^2/R_A^2}$$ in a hard sphere nuclear distribution, where $R_A=1.12 A^{1/3}$ fm and $\sigma_{NN}$ is the inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross section. We also assume that $k_T$ broadening during each nucleon-nucleon collision $\delta^2$ also depends on the hard momentum scale $Q=P^{\rm jet}_T$ in the parameterized form, $$\delta^2(Q^2)=0.225\frac{\ln^2(Q/{\rm GeV})}{1+\ln(Q/{\rm GeV})}
\;\;\;{\rm GeV^2}/c^2,$$ which is chosen to best fit the existing experimental data in $p+A$ collisions [@Wang98] up to $\sqrt{s}=40$ GeV. The predictive power of this model lies in the energy and flavor dependence of the hadron spectra. It is straightforward to also calculate hadron spectra in $d+A$ collisions, incorporating the initial $k_T$ broadening and parton shadowing. We have tried different forms of nuclear distribution for deuteron and find little difference in the final results. So we will still use the Woods-Saxon distribution for $t_d(b)$. In heavy nuclear $A+A$ collisions, one can incorporate parton energy loss induced by the dense medium through modified fragmentation functions [@wh].
The pQCD model described above has been compared to experimental data for $pp$, $p\bar{p}$ and $pA$ collisions at various energies [@Wang98]. One found that both the intrinsic $k_T$ and the nuclear broadening are very important to describe the existing data in $pp$ and $pA$ collisions, especially at around SPS energies. One can find some more detailed description of this pQCD-inspired model in Ref. [@Wang98]. We will restrict ourselves to the study of the rapidity dependence of the nuclear modification in $d+A$ collisions at RHIC and LHC energies in this paper.
Neglecting initial transverse momentum, the initial momentum fractions are related to the transverse momentum and rapidities of the final jets by $x_1=x_T(e^{y_1}+e^{y_2})/2$, $x_2=xT(e^{-y_1}+e^{-y_2})/2$, $x_T=2E_T/\sqrt{s}$, where $E_T$, $y_1$ and $y_2$ are the transverse momentum and rapidities of the produced jets, respectively. Large positive rapidities, therefore, correspond to large parton fractional momentum $x_1$ from the projectile and small momentum fraction $x_2$ from the target. Conversely, negative rapidities correspond to small $x_1$ and large $x_2$. In our parton model calculation, we assume the final hadron rapidity to be the same as that of the fragmenting jets. Shown in Fig. \[fig:dy200\] are the rapidity distributions of the charged hadron spectra for four different values of $p_T$. Without nuclear modification of the parton distributions (shown as dotted lines), the $k_T$ broadening of the projectile partons enhances the particle spectra. The enhancement is the strongest in the forward (projectile) region, thus giving rise to a rapidity asymmetry. The EKS [@eks] parameterization has a strong anti-shadowing at $x_2\sim 0.1-0.2$ for partons from the nuclear target. Such strong anti-shadowing further enhances the rapidity asymmetry (shown as solid lines). However, the HIJING [@LW] parameterization has mostly shadowing in this region and thus reduces the rapidity asymmetry in the spectra (dot-dashed line) which is still visible for $p_T>3$ GeV/$c$. At $p_T>10$ GeV/$c$, the target parton distribution at $x_2\sim 0.2 - 0.8$ is suppressed due to the nuclear binding, which is known as the EMC effect [@emc]. This reduces the hadron spectra in the backward (target) rapidity region and thus further enhances the rapidity asymmetry.
As one decreases the transverse momentum so that parton shadowing in the target becomes significant, the hadron spectra in the forward region are strongly suppressed. It can even overcome the enhancement caused by transverse momentum broadening. In this case the rapidity asymmetry is reversed, as shown in Fig. \[fig:dy200\] for $p_T=1.5$ GeV/$c$. This is much like the asymmetric rapidity distribution of soft particles produced via soft and coherent interactions as shown in Fig. \[fig:hijing\]. The validity of the parton model at $p_T=1.5$ GeV/$c$ may be questionable. However, it clearly shows the trend of the rapidity asymmetry as one changes the value of $p_T$.
We also show in Fig. \[fig:dy5500\] similar rapidity distributions for $d+Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=5.5$ TeV where one has access to much larger values of transverse momentum. At such high energies and transverse momenta, the parton scattering cross is much flatter in $p_T$ than at lower energies. Therefore, the final hadron spectra are less sensitive to the transverse momentum broadening due to initial multiple scatterings. The rapidity asymmetry caused by the $k_T$ broadening is thus very weak, as shown by the dotted lines. The nuclear modification of the parton distributions in the target is causing most of the rapidity asymmetry in the spectra at these energies. Here we used only EKS [@eks] parameterization of nuclear modification of the parton distributions. The HIJING [@LW] parameterization does not have any scale dependence, which is very important at LHC energies since the shadowing still has significant effects on jet production with large transverse momentum.
To demonstrate the $p_T$ dependence of the effect of parton shadowing and $k_T$ broadening, we show in Fig. \[fig:r200\] and \[fig:r5500\] the nuclear modification factors defined as the ratio of charged hadron spectra in $d+A$ over that in $p+p$ normalized to the averaged number of binary nucleon collisions, $$R_{dA}(p_T,y)\equiv \frac{d\sigma^h_{AB}/dyd^2p_T}
{2A d\sigma^h_{pp}/dyd^2p_T}. \label{eq:ratio}$$ At the RHIC energy, the transverse momentum broadening enhances the hadron spectra for $p_T=2-8$ GeV/$c$ in both forward and backward rapidity regions. The exact enhancement in this $p_T$ region depends on the parton shadowing and anti-shadowing. The enhancement in the forward rapidity is larger than in the backward region as demonstrated by the rapidity asymmetry in Fig. \[fig:dy200\]. For $p_T>8$ GeV/$c$, the EMC effect of the nuclear modification of parton distribution starts to suppress the hadron spectra. Such a suppression is stronger in the target rapidity region than in the projectile region. We also find that the suppression due to the EMC effect is stronger for kaons than pions. For $p_T<2$ GeV/$c$, parton shadowing suppresses the hadron spectra in the case of HIJING parameterization. However, the pQCD model might not be valid anymore in this small $p_T$ region for a quantitative calculation. The nuclear modification factor for $d+Pb$ collisions at the LHC energy shown in Fig. \[fig:r5500\] has much smaller variation and the Cronin enhancement is also smaller.
In summary, we have studied the rapidity distribution of hadron spectra in high-energy $d+A$ collisions, in particular the rapidity asymmetry caused by multiple parton scatterings. The effects of initial multiple parton scatterings are incorporated via an impact-parameter dependent nuclear shadowing of parton distributions and the broadening of the initial $k_T$ carried by partons before they collide and produce high $p_T$ hadrons. At low $p_T$ parton shadowing suppresses the hadron spectra in the projectile rapidity region, giving rise to a rapidity asymmetry much like the soft particle production via soft and coherent interactions in a string model. However, as one increases $p_T$, hadron production is dominated by hard parton scatterings and the rapidity distribution is becoming more symmetric. Within a pQCD model, transverse momentum broadening via initial multiple scattering enhances the hadron spectra in the projectile region at moderate $p_T=3-8$ GeV/$c$, causing a rapidity asymmetry opposite to that of soft hadrons. This is in sharp contrast to the prediction of the parton saturation model [@klm]. The coming data of $d+Au$ collisions from RHIC can easily distinguish those two models and will be important to verify whether jet quenching due to parton energy loss is truly the underlying mechanism for the observed hadron suppression in central $A+A$ collisions.
We should also caution that our pQCD model cannot take into account the non-perturbative effects that can cause some rapidity asymmetry at very large rapidities. Such non-perturbative effect is responsible for the asymmetric pedestal effect underlying a jet event in $p+A$ collisions. Our conclusions are more robust within the central rapidity region where such non-perturbative effect and constraints by total energy conservation are not yet important.
This work was supported by the the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, and by the Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Nuclear Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.
[99]{} K. Adcox [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 022301 (2002) \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003\]. C. Adler [*et al.*]{}, \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 202301 (2002) \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0206011\]. M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, Phys. Lett. B [**243**]{}, 432 (1990). X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1480 (1992). X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 054902 (2001) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0009019\]; M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2537 (2001) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0012092\]. C. Adler [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 032301 (2003) \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0206006\].
M. M. Aggarwal [*et al.*]{} \[WA98 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4087 (1998) \[Erratum-ibid. [**84**]{}, 578 (1998)\] \[arXiv:nucl-ex/9806004\]. X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2655 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9804384\]. M. Gyulassy and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{}420, 583 (1994) \[arXiv:nucl-th/9306003\]; X. N. Wang, M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 3436 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9408344\]. R. Baier [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B484**]{}, 265 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9608322\]; Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 1706 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9803473\]. B. G. Zhakharov, JETP letters [**63**]{}, 952 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9607440\]. M. Gyulassy, P. Lévai and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. [**B594**]{}, 371 (2001) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0006010\]; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5535 (2000) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0005032\]. U. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. [**B588**]{}, 303 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005129\]. E. Wang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 162301 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0202105\]. M. Lev and B. Petersson, Z. Phys. C [**21**]{}, 155 (1983). T. Ochiai, S. Date and H. Sumiyoshi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**75**]{}, 288 (1986).
X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C [**61**]{}, 064910 (2000) \[arXiv:nucl-th/9812021\]. Y. Zhang, G. Fai, G. Papp, G. G. Barnafoldi and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 034903 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0109233\].
B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, A. Schafer and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 232303 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0201010\]. I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 252301 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0209161\]. J. Ashman [*et al.*]{} \[European Muon Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**202**]{}, 603 (1988).
D. Kharzeev, E. Levin and L. McLerran, arXiv:hep-ph/0210332. I. Vitev, arXiv:nucl-th/0302002. X. N. Wang, Phys. Rept. [**280**]{}, 287 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9605214\]; E. Wang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 034901 (2001) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0104031\]. X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3501 (1991); M. Gyulassy and X. N. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**83**]{}, 307 (1994) \[arXiv:nucl-th/9502021\]. J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{} (1987) 465.
J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C [**65**]{}, 471 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9407347\]; J. Binnewies, B. A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 3573 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9506437\]. A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C [**4**]{}, 463 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9803445\]. J. F. Owens and J. D. Kimel, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 3313 (1978). R. P. Feynman, R. D. Field and G. C. Fox, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 3320 (1978). S. Y. Li and X. N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B [**527**]{}, 85 (2002) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0110075\]. K. J. Eskola, V. J. Kolhinen and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C [**9**]{}, 61 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9807297\].
X. N. Wang, Z. Huang and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 231 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9605213\]; X. N. Wang and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 3047 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9701227\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Spectral triples (of compact type) are constructed on arbitrary separable quasidiagonal $C^*$-algebras. On the other hand an example of a spectral triple on a non-quasidiagonal algebra is presented.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YF'
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD'
author:
- Adam Skalski
- Joachim Zacharias
title: '**A note on spectral triples and quasidiagonality**'
---
[^1]
The concept of a spectral triple (unbounded Fredholm module) due to A.Connes ([@book]) is a natural noncommutative generalisation of a notion of a compact manifold, with certain summability properties corresponding in the classical case to the dimension of the manifold. Recently E.Christensen and C.Ivan established the existence of spectral triples on arbitrary AF algebras ([@ci]). In this note we generalise their result to arbitrary quasidiagonal (representations of) $C^*$-algebras. Contrary to the AF situation our triples might in general have bad summability properties and it is not clear whether they satisfy Rieffel’s condition (i.e. whether the topology they induce on the state space coincides with the weak$^*$-topology). Although the connections between properties related to quasi-diagonality and the existence of unbounded Fredholm modules seem to have been known for a long time (see for example [@Voold]), explicit constructions have been until now given only in presence of a filtration of the $C^*$-algebra in question consisting of finite-dimensional subspaces ([@Voold], [@ci]).
We also show that the existence of spectral triples of compact type does not imply quasidiagonality by exhibiting a simple example of such a triple (with bad summability properties) on the natural, non-quasidiagonal, representation of the Toeplitz algebra.
Basics on quasidiagonality and spectral triples
===============================================
Throughout $A$ denotes a separable unital $C^*$-algebra. Representations of $A$ are assumed to act on separable Hilbert spaces.
[([@book])]{} A spectral triple or unbounded Fredholm module $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ on $A$ consists of a faithful representation $\pi: A \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ together with a dense $^*$-subalgebra ${\mathcal{A}}\subset A$ and an unbounded self-adjoint operator $D$ on ${\mathsf{H}}$ such that
$[D,a]$ is densely defined and extends to a bounded operator on ${\mathsf{H}}$ for all $a \in {\mathcal{A}}$;
$(I+D^2)^{-1}$ is compact.
If $p>0$ then $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ is $p$-summable if $(I+D^2)^{-p/2}$ is trace class. (Other summability conditions require $(I+D^2)^{-1/2}$ to lie in various trace ideals.) Finally the triple $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ is *of compact type* if $[D,a]$ defines a compact operator for all $a \in {\mathcal{A}}$.
It is known that the existence of spectral triples on $C^*$-algebras imposes restrictions on the algebra in question. For instance the existence of a $p$-summable triple implies that $A$ is nuclear and has a tracial state ([@co]). Notice that the Dirac operator on a compact spin manifold $M$ of dimension $d$ defines a spectral triple on $C(M)$ which is $p$-summable for all $p>d$ but not $p\leq d$ (see for example Chapter 7 in [@Roe]) .
[([@bo])]{} A $C^*$-algebra $A$ is said to be quasidiagonal if there exists a sequence of completely positive and contractive maps $\varphi_n:A \to M_{k_n}$ such that $\| \varphi_n(ab)- \varphi_n(a) \varphi_n(b) \| \to 0$ and $\| \varphi_n(a)\| \to \|a\|$ as $n \to \infty$ for all $a,b \in A$.
Every abelian $C^*$-algebra is quasidiagonal (use point evaluations on the spectrum); it is also easy to see that $AF$ algebras are quasidiagonal. A representation $\pi: A \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ of a $C^*$-algebra is said to be quasidiagonal if there exists an increasing sequence of finite rank projections $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ on ${\mathsf{H}}$ such that $P_n$ converges strongly to $I$ and $[\pi(a), P_n] \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for every fixed $a \in A$. D.Voiculescu showed in [@Voic] that a (separable) $C^*$-algebra $A$ is quasidiagonal if and only if it admits a faithful quasidiagonal representation. Note that quasidiagonality also implies the existence of tracial states ([@bo], Proposition 7.1.16), if only $A$ is unital.
A quasidiagonal representation gives rise to the following setting. Given an increasing sequence $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of projections on ${\mathsf{H}}$ converging strongly to $I$ for each $k \in {\Bbb N}$ let $Q_k=P_k-P_{k-1}$, ($P_{0}:=0$). For $a \in B({\mathsf{H}})$ define the operator matrix $(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{\infty}$ by $a_{ij}=Q_i a Q_j$. Let moreover $(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of real numbers. Then we can define an essentially self-adjoint operator $D$ by $D=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \alpha_i Q_i$ (with the sum understood strongly - we simply fix all eigenspaces and corresponding eigenvalues of $D$). If the projections $P_n$ have finite rank and $ |\alpha_i| \to \infty$ then $(I+D^2)^{-1}$ is compact. As $D$ is a diagonal operator with $\alpha_n$’s on the diagonal it is clear that the matrix of $[D,a]$ is given by $((\alpha_i-\alpha_j)a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{\infty}$: $$[D,a]=
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_1 a_{11} &\alpha_1 a_{12} & \alpha_1 a_{13} & \dots & \\
\alpha_2 a_{21} &\alpha_2 a_{22} & \alpha_2 a_{23} & \dots &\\
\alpha_3 a_{31} &\alpha_3 a_{32} & \alpha_3 a_{33} & \dots &\\
\ldots &&&& \\
&&&& \\
\end{pmatrix}
-
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_1 a_{11} &\alpha_2 a_{12} & \alpha_3 a_{13} & \dots & \\
\alpha_1 a_{21} &\alpha_2 a_{22} & \alpha_3 a_{23} & \dots &\\
\alpha_1 a_{31} &\alpha_2 a_{32} & \alpha_3 a_{33} & \dots &\\
\ldots &&&& \\
&&&& \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In particular, if $[D,a]$ defines a bounded operator of norm $C$ then for all $i \neq j$ we must have $\|a_{ij}\| \leq
C|\alpha_i-\alpha_j|^{-1}$.
Spectral triples on quasidiagonal $C^*$-algebras
================================================
The following theorem implies in particular the existence of spectral triples on AF algebras, as proved in [@ci]. Contrary to the AF situation we cannot expect in this generality any good summability properties.
Let $A$ be a (separable) quasidiagonal $C^*$-algebra with quasidiagonal faithful representation $\pi: A \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ and let $(b_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be any sequence in $A$. Then there exists a spectral triple of compact type $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ on $A$, with ${\mathcal{A}}$ containing all $b_i$.
By mixing our sequence $(b_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ with a dense sequence we obtain a dense sequence $(a_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$; by taking adjoints and finite products and putting them all in one sequence we may assume that $(a_i)$ is moreover closed under taking adjoints and products. This implies that $\text{span}(\{a_i : i \in {\Bbb N}\})$ is a dense $^*$-subalgebra of $A$.
Now let $\pi: A \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ be a faithful quasidiagonal representation with a sequence of finite rank projections $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ as before. Let $(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be an arbitrary sequence of real numbers such that $|\alpha_i|
\nearrow \infty$. Then writing $a$ for $\pi(a)$, where $a \in A$ we have (the sum is understood formally) $$\|[D,a]\| = \|\sum_k \alpha_k [Q_k,a] \| \leq \sum_k |\alpha_k|( \|[P_k, a]\|+\|[P_{k-1},a]\|)$$ so that $[D, a]= \sum_k \alpha_k [Q_k,a]$ converges in norm to a compact operator provided the right hand side converges. (Note that $ [Q_k,a]$ is finite rank for all $k$.) All that remains to prove is the following statement:
[**Claim:**]{} There exists a subsequence of $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ such that $$\sum_k |\alpha_k|
(\|[a_i,P_{n_k}]\|+\|[a_i,P_{n_{k-1}}]\|)< \infty$$ for all $i \in {\Bbb N}$.
*Proof of Claim:* Since $\|[a,P_k]\| \to 0$ for all $a \in A$ we can chose a subsequence $(P_{1,k})$ of $(P_n)$ such that $$\sum_k |\alpha_k| (\|[a_1,P_{1,k}]\|+\|[a_1,P_{1,k-1}]\|)< \infty.$$ Now chose a subsequence $(P_{2,k})$ of $(P_{1,k})$ such that $$\sum_k |\alpha_k| (\|[a_2,P_{2,k}]\|+\|[a_2,P_{2,k-1}]\|)< \infty.$$ Since $|\alpha_k| \nearrow \infty$ we have $$\sum_k |\alpha_k| (\|[a_1,P_{2,k}]\|+\|[a_1,P_{2,k-1}]\|) \leq
\sum_k |\alpha_k| (\|[a_1,P_{1,k}]\|+\|[a_1,P_{1,k-1}]\|)<\infty.$$ By induction we find a sequence of successive subsequences $(P_{l,k})$ such that $$\sum_k |\alpha_k| (\|[a_i,P_{l,k}]\|+\|[a_i,P_{l,k-1}]\|)< \infty$$ for $1\leq i \leq l$ and it is easy to see that the diagonal sequence $(P_{k,k})$ provides a required subsequence.
Note that although we can choose the sequence $(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ in an arbitrary way (as long as $|\alpha_i| \nearrow \infty$), the inductive construction above may entail that each $\alpha_i$ has very fast growing multiplicity in the list of eigenvalues of the operator $D$. This means that unless we know some strong estimates on the rate of vanishing of the off-diagonal elements of elements of $A$ with respect to the decomposition given by the original sequence $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ we cannot expect the resulting triple to have any good summability properties. When $A$ is an AF algebra then for any given $a \in A$ the off-diagonal elements with respect to the natural sequence $(P_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ are simply $0$ from some point on, which explains why the triples constructed in [@ci] can be arbitrarily well summable. For similar reasons we also cannot expect that the metric on the state space $\mathcal{S}(A)$ given by the spectral triples constructed above induces the weak$^*$-topology on $\mathcal{S}(A)$ (in the spirit of Rieffel’s theory of compact quantum metric spaces, [@Rieffel]).
One might expect that the existence of a spectral triple $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ of compact type on a $C^*$-algebra $A$ should imply that the representation $\pi:A \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ is quasidiagonal. This, however, is not true, as the next example shows:
Let $\pi:\mathcal{T} \to B({\mathsf{H}})$ be the standard (faithful) representation of the Toeplitz algebra $\mathcal{T}$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ denote the $^*$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{T}$ generated by the unilateral shift. As $\mathcal{T}$ is not quasidiagonal, also the representation $\pi$ is not quasidiagonal, but there exists a (non-finitely summable) spectral triple $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathsf{H}}, D)$ of compact type on $\mathcal{T}$.
Consider the shift representation $\mathcal{T} = C^*(s) \to B(\ell^2({\Bbb N}))$, where $s$ is the unilateral shift and let $\mathcal{P}(s)$ be the the $^*$-algebra generated by $s$. Then it is easy to check that $\mathcal{P}(s)=\text{span}\{1,
s^i,(s^*)^j, e_{i,j} : i, j \in {\Bbb N}\}$ where $e_{i,j}$ denote the standard matrix units in $B(\ell^2({\Bbb N}))$. Let $(\alpha_i)$ be a sequence of positive real numbers such that $\alpha_i \nearrow \infty$ and $\alpha_{i+1}- \alpha_i \to 0$ as $i \to \infty$. Then $[D,s]$ has the matrix representation $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & \dots & & & \\
\alpha_{2}- \alpha_1 & 0 & \dots & && \\
0 &\alpha_{3}- \alpha_2 & 0 & \dots &&\\
0 &0 &\alpha_{4}- \alpha_3 & 0 &&\\
\ldots &&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&&
\end{pmatrix}$$ which gives a compact operator and it is easy to see that $[D,a]$ is compact for every $a \in \mathcal{P}(s)$. However, $s$ and $\mathcal{T}$ are clearly not quasidiagonal since $s$ has Fredholm index $-1$.
The triple constructed above will generally not be finitely summable, as can be seen for instance by putting $\alpha_n=
\sum_{k=1}^n k^{-1}$.
We would like to finish the note with one more comment. If a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is residually finite dimensional (i.e. faithfully embeddable into a direct product of the form $\Pi_{i\in I} M_{k_i}$, see [@bo]) then one can trivially construct spectral triples of arbitrarily good summability properties and such that $$\label{triv} [D,a]=0, \;\;\; a \in A.$$ Such triples induce the discrete topology on the state space of $A$ and thus do not characterise in the correct sense ‘topological dimension’ of $A$ (note that any commutative algebra $C(X)$ is residually finite dimensional, independently on the topological dimension of $X$). It is also clear that the existence of a spectral triple on $A$ satisfying implies that $A$ is residually finite dimensional.
[bo]{}
N.Brown and N.Ozawa, “$C^*$-Algebras and finite dimensional approximations”, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 88. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008.
E.Christensen and C.Ivan, Spectral triples for AF $C\sp *$-algebras and metrics on the Cantor set, *J.Operator Theory* **56** (2006), no. 1, 17–46.
A.Connes, “Noncommutative geometry”, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994.
A.Connes, Compact metric spaces, Fredholm modules and hyperfiniteness, *Ergodic Th.Dyn.Systems* **9**(1989), 207–220.
M.A.Rieffel, Gromov-Hausdorff distance for quantum metric spaces, *Mem.Amer.Math.Soc.* **168** (2004), no. 796, 1–65.
J.Roe, “Elliptic operators, topology and asymptotic methods”, Second edition. Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, 395. Longman, Harlow, 1998.
D.Voiculescu, On the existence of quasicentral approximate units relative to normed ideals. I, *J.Funct.Anal.* **91** (1990), no. 1, 1–36.
D.Voiculescu, A note on quasi-diagonal $C\sp *$-algebras and homotopy, *Duke Math.J.* **62** (1991), no. 2, 267–271.
[^1]: *Permanent address of the first named author:* Department of Mathematics, University of Łódź, ul. Banacha 22, 90-238 Łódź, Poland.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Indirect excitons (IXs) are bound pairs of electrons and holes confined in spatially separated layers. We present wide single quantum well (WSQW) heterostructures with high IX mobility, spectrally narrow IX emission, voltage-controllable IX energy, and long and voltage-controllable IX lifetime. This set of properties shows that WSQW heterostructures provide an advanced platform both for studying basic properties of IXs in low-disorder environments and for the development of high-mobility excitonic devices.'
author:
- 'C. J. Dorow'
- 'M. W. Hasling'
- 'D. J. Choksy'
- 'J. R. Leonard'
- 'L. V. Butov'
- 'K. W. West'
- 'L. N. Pfeiffer'
title: 'High-mobility indirect excitons in wide single quantum well'
---
Spatially indirect excitons (IXs) are formed by electrons and holes confined in separated layers. The spatial separation between the electron and hole layers allows one to control the overlap of electron and hole wave functions and achieve long IX lifetimes that are orders of magnitude longer than those of direct excitons [@Lozovik1976]. Due to their long lifetimes, IXs can cool below the temperature of quantum degeneracy [@Butov2001]. The realization of cold IXs in coupled quantum well (CQW) heterostructures led to the observation of spontaneous coherence and condensation of IXs [@High2012] and perfect Coulomb drag [@Nandi2012]. A set of phenomena was found in the IX condensate, including the spatially modulated exciton state [@Butov2002; @Alloing2014], commensurability effect of exciton density wave [@Yang2015], spin textures [@High2013], and Pancharatnam-Berry phase and long-range coherent spin transport [@Leonard2018].
The long IX lifetimes also allow IXs to travel over large distances before recombination [@Hagn1995; @Butov1998; @Larionov2000; @Butov2002; @Voros2005; @Ivanov2006; @Gartner2006; @Hammack2009; @Leonard2009; @Lasic2010; @Alloing2012; @Lasic2014; @Finkelstein2017]. A set of exciton transport phenomena was observed, including the inner ring in exciton emission patterns [@Butov2002; @Ivanov2006; @Hammack2009; @Alloing2012], exciton localization-delocalization transition in random [@Butov2002; @Ivanov2006; @Hammack2009], periodic [@Remeika2012; @Remeika2015], and moving [@Winbow2011] potentials, coherent exciton transport with suppressed scattering [@High2012], and transistor effect for excitons [@High2008; @Andreakou2014].
IXs have a built-in dipole moment $ed$, where $d$ is the separation between the electron and hole layers. Gate voltage $V_{\rm g}$ changes the IX energy by $edF_z$ ($F_z \propto V_{\rm g}$ is electric field perpendicular to the QW plane created by voltage) [@Miller1985; @Polland1985]. This allows creating tailored in-plane potential landscapes for IXs $E(x,y) = - edF_z(x,y)$ and controlling them in situ by voltage $V_{\rm g}(x,y)$. A variety of electrostatic potential landscapes, including traps [@Huber1998; @Gorbunov2004; @Hammack2006; @Chen2006; @High2009nl; @High2012nl; @Schinner2013; @Shilo2013; @Mazuz-Harpaz2017], static [@Remeika2012; @Remeika2015; @Zimmermann1997; @Zimmermann1998] and moving [@Winbow2011] lattices, ramps [@Hagn1995; @Gartner2006; @Dorow2016], narrow channels [@Vogele2009; @Cohen2011], and split gate devices [@Dorow2018], was created for studying basic exciton properties.
IX devices are also explored for applications in signal processing based on novel computational state variables beyond magnetism or charge. Excitonic devices possess potential advantages over electronic devices: (i) Excitons are bosons and can form a coherent condensate with vanishing resistance for exciton currents and low switching voltage for excitonic transistors due to suppressed thermal tails. This gives the opportunity to develop energy-efficient computation based on excitons. (ii) Excitons can directly transform to photons providing the possibility for efficient coupling of excitonic signal processing to optical communication. (iii) The sizes of excitonic devices scale by the exciton radius and de Broglie wavelength, which are much smaller than the photon wavelength, so excitonic circuits may be created at sub-photon-wavelength scales. Experimental proof-of-principle demonstrations have been performed for excitonic ramps (excitonic diodes) [@Hagn1995; @Gartner2006; @Dorow2016], excitonic conveyers (excitonic CCD) [@Winbow2011], and excitonic transistors [@High2008; @Andreakou2014].
The realization of the excitonic devices relies on meeting the following requirements: (1) IX energy is controlled by voltage, (2) IX recombination rate is controlled by voltage and long IX lifetimes are achieved, (3) long-range IX transport over lengths exceeding the in-plane dimensions of excitonic devices is achieved. All these requirement were met with IXs in GaAs CQWs where electrons were confined in one QW and holes in the other QW and the studies outlined above used the CQW platform.
The crucial issue both for studying basic properties of IXs and for the development of excitonic devices is in-plane disorder. Since the energy of a particle in a QW scales with the QW width $L$ roughly as $1/L^2$ random QW width fluctuations generally cause a smaller disorder in a wider QW. Therefore, wide QWs may offer advantages for creating low-disorder IX devices. Although GaAs wide single quantum wells (WSQWs) were probed since the pioneering studies of IXs [@Miller1985; @Polland1985], no long-range IX transport was demonstrated in the WSQW devices. In this paper, we report on the studies of WSQW heterostructures which meet all the above requirements and demonstrate high IX mobility, spectrally narrow IX emission, voltage-controllable IX energy, and long and voltage-controllable IX lifetime.
{width="8cm"}
The studied WSQW heterostructures are grown by molecular beam epitaxy (Fig. 1a). An $n^+$-GaAs layer with n$_{\rm Si} = 10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ serves as a bottom electrode. Single 35 nm GaAs QW is positioned 0.2 $\mu$m above the $n^+$-GaAs layer within an undoped 1 $\mu$m thick Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As layer. The WSQW is positioned closer to the homogeneous bottom electrode to suppress the fringing in-plane electric field $F_r$ in excitonic devices [@Hammack2006]. Otherwise, a high $F_r$ could lead to IX dissociation [@Zimmermann1997]. The top semitransparent electrode is fabricated by applying 2 nm Ti and 7 nm Pt.
In cw experiments, excitons are generated by a 633 nm HeNe laser focused to a spot with a half width at half maximum (HWHM) $\sim 7$ $\mu$m. Photoluminescence (PL) is measured by a spectrometer and a liquid-nitrogen-cooled charge coupled device camera (CCD).
Time-resolved optical imaging is performed using a pulsed laser excitation. IXs are generated by a 640-nm laser with a pulse duration of $\tau_{\rm width} = 2000$ ns and a pulse period of $\tau_{\rm pulse} = 6000$ ns with an edge sharpness of $\sim 1$ ns (Fig. 3a). The rectangular-shaped pulses are realized by a pulse generator driving a semiconductor laser. The pulse duration and period are optimized to allow the IX PL image to reach equilibrium during the laser excitation and decay between laser pulses. The laser is focused to a $R_0 = 5$ $\mu$m HWHM spot. Emission images are integrated over $5$-ns windows ($\delta t = 5$ ns) and taken for delay times $t$ after the onset of the laser pulse, defined such that a delay time $t$ corresponds to an image taken during time $t - \delta t$ to $t$. The PL images are captured using a PicoStar HR TauTec time-gated intensifier. The PL passes through a spectrometer with a resolution of 0.18 meV before entering the intensifier couplead to a liquid-nitgoren-cooled CCD in order to obtain spectral resolution. The spectrally and time-resolved imaging enables the direct measurement of the evolution of the IX PL as a function of delay time $t$. The measurements are performed at $T_{\rm bath} = 1.7$ K.
A narrow IX PL line is observed on a background of spectrally wide emission of $n^+$-GaAs layer (Fig. 1b). The IX energy is effectively controlled by applied voltage $V_{\rm g}$ (Fig. 1b,c). The IX energy shift with voltage in WSQW in this experiment $\sim 70$ meV is comparable to the IX energy shift in CQW heterostructures used in earlier excitonic devices [@High2008], indicating that tailored in-plane potential landscapes and, in turn, excitonic devices can be created by voltage for IXs in WSQW as efficiently as for IXs in CQW. In a wide range of $V_{\rm g}$, the IX energy shift with voltage $edF_z$ is close to linear and corresponds to the IX dipole with $d \approx 19$ nm (Fig. 1c).
The IX energy increases with the density, which is controlled by the excitation power (Fig. 1d). This energy enhancement $\Delta E$ corresponds to the repulsive interaction between the dipolar IXs [@Remeika2015]. $\Delta E$ can be used for estimating the IX density $n$. For instance, for $\Delta E = 1$ meV and $d = 19$ nm, a rough estimate for $n$ using the plate capacitor formula $\Delta E = 4\pi e^2 d n / \varepsilon$ gives $n \sim 4 \times 10^{9}$ cm$^{-2}$, this estimate can be improved taking into account IX correlations [@Remeika2015]. The IX linewidth increases with increasing density due to interaction-induced broadening [@High2009nl]. For spatially integrated spectra, the IX energy variation with the distance from the origin (discussed below) also contributes to the linewidth.
{width="7.5cm"}
We probed the IX transport both by cw (Fig. 2) and time-resolved (Fig. 3) PL imaging. Figure 2a shows a cw $x$-energy emission image. A spectrally wide emission at the origin $x = 0$ corresponds to the $n^+$-GaAs layer, its spatial profile is close to the profile of laser excitation spot with HWHM $\sim 7$ $\mu$m. IXs expand well beyond the laser excitation spot indicating long-range IX transport (Fig. 2a).
The spatial dependence of IX emission spectrum, spectrally integrated IX emission intensity, IX emission energy and linewidth are shown in Figs. 2b, 2d, 2e, and 2f, respectively. The IX emission shows a ring around the excitation spot (Fig. 2a,b,d). This ring is similar to the inner ring in the emission pattern of IXs in CQW [@Butov2002; @Ivanov2006; @Hammack2009; @Alloing2012]. The enhancement of IX emission intensity with increasing distance from the center originates from IX transport and energy relaxation as follows. IXs cool toward the lattice temperature when they travel away from the laser excitation spot, thus forming a ring of cold IXs. The cooling increases the occupation of the low-energy optically active IX states, producing the IX emission ring. The IX energy reduces with $x$ (Fig. 2e) indicating reducing IX density.
The IX linewidth nonmonotonically varies with $x$ (Fig. 2f). This dependence is in a qualitative agreement with a model [@High2009nl] considering the effects of interaction and disorder on the IX linewidth. Closer to the origin, the IX density is higher and the IX linewidth is larger due to higher interaction-induced broadening [@High2009nl]. Higher IX temperatures at the origin also contribute to the line broadening. Further away from the origin, the IX density is lower and the IX linewidth is larger due to less efficient screening of in-plane QW disorder by IXs and, in turn, higher disorder-induced broadening [@High2009nl]. The narrowest IX emission is observed at some distance away from the excitation spot (around $x \sim 30$ $\mu$m for the data in Fig. 2f). In this area, the IX linewidth lowers to 0.57 meV (Fig. 2c,f). This IX linewidth in WSQW is about 2 times narrower than the IX linewidth in similar experiments in CQW [@Butov2002; @Ivanov2006]. The narrow IX linewidth in WSQW indicates a low in-plane disorder, showing the advantages of WSQWs for creating low-disorder IX devices.
{width="\textwidth"}
IX transport is also measured by time-resolved PL imaging (Fig. 3). The $x$-energy images in Fig. 3c show the expansion of the IX cloud with time due to IX transport. The time-resolved imaging of the IX cloud expansion enables estimating IX transport characteristics. For a comparison between IX transport in WSQW and IX transport in CQW, which was measured earlier in a similar experiment [@Dorow2017], the IX transport distance is characterized by the HWHM of the spectrally integrated IX emission, $R$, as in Ref. [@Dorow2017]. Figure 3d shows that at the initial delay times, $R^2$ grows nearly linearly with time $t$. Fitting to the slope by $R^2 = R_0^2 + D^*t$ (solid lines in Fig. 3d) gives an estimate of the IX diffusion $D^* \sim 350$ cm$^2$/s for IXs in WSQW for $V_{\rm g} = - 4$ V and $\sim 300$ cm$^2$/s for IXs in WSQW for $V_{\rm g} = - 3$ V. A similar estimate for IXs in CQW is $\sim 90$ cm$^2$/s [@Dorow2017] (the similar data for IXs in CQW from Ref. [@Dorow2017] are also presented in Fig. 3d for comparison). The IX diffusion coefficient in WSQW is roughly three times higher than in CQW studied earlier. A high diffusion coefficient $D$ corresponds to a high IX mobility $\mu$, which can be estimated using the Einstein relation $\mu = D/(k_{\rm B}T)$, $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant.
The IX transport experiment is briefly discussed below. Both IX drift and diffusion contribute to the experimentally measured expansion of the IX PL cloud. With increasing distance from the origin, the IX density and, in turn, energy decreases. This creates the IX energy gradient causing the IX drift away from the origin. The IX energy reduction with $x$ is observed in the $x$-energy images (Fig. 3c). Fitting the IX cloud expansion by $R^2 = R_0^2 + D^*t$ probes an effective IX diffusion coefficient $D^* \sim D + \mu n u_0$, which encapsulates both drift and diffusion [@Dorow2017]. $u_0$ originates from the repulsive dipolar interactions causing the IX energy shift $\Delta E = u_0 n$ [@Dorow2017].
The IX cloud expansion can be approximated by $R^2 \sim R_0^2 + D^{*}t$ at delay times $t$ considerably smaller than the IX lifetimes $\tau$. At $t \sim \tau$ the IX cloud expansion saturates at $R_{\rm sat}^2 \sim R_0^2 + D^{*} \tau$.
The repulsively interacting IXs screen the in-plane QW disorder, which appears due to the heterostructure imperfactions such as the QW width and composition fluctuations. Since the IX density drops with increasing distance from the origin the IX screening ability and, in turn, $D$ reduces with $x$.
$R$ characterizes the width of the IX PL intensity profile. However the PL intensity profile differs from the IX density profile, in particular due to the IX temperature variation with $x$ leading to the inner ring in IX PL pattern noted above [@Butov2002; @Ivanov2006; @Hammack2009].
Taking these effects into account can improve an estimate of IX diffusion. This is the subject of future work. The similar analysis of IX transport in WSQW and IX transport in CQW probed in the similar experiments (Fig. 3) shows that the IX mobility in WSQW is significantly higher. A high IX mobility in WSQW (Fig. 3) and a narrow IX PL line (Fig. 2c) indicate a low in-plane disorder in WSQW.
Figure 3b shows that the IXs in WSQW have long and voltage-controllable lifetimes. The IX lifetime 1000 ns at $V_{\rm g} = - 4$ V and 260 ns at $V_{\rm g} = - 3$ V (Fig. 3b) is long enough both for the IX cooling below the temperature of quantum degeneracy [@Butov2001] and for the achievement of long-range IX transport (Figs. 2 and 3) over lengths exceeding the in-plane dimensions of excitonic devices outlined in the introduction.
In this work, GaAs heterostructures are considered. IXs can be realized also in other materials including ZnO, GaN, and van der Waals heterostructures [@Lefebre2004; @Morhain2005; @Fedichkin2015; @Kuznetsova2015; @Fedichkin2016; @Wang2018]. In these materials, IXs have high binding energies and can be observed up to high temperatures. The possibility to extend a WSQW platform to excitonic devices in different materials is the subject of future work.
In summary, we presented WSQW heterostructures with high IX mobility, spectrally narrow IX emission, voltage-controllable IX energy, and long and voltage-controllable IX lifetime. This set of properties shows that WSQW heterostructures provide an advanced platform both for studying basic properties of IXs in low-disorder environments and for the development of high-mobility excitonic devices.
We thank Michael Fogler for discussions. This work was supported by NSF Grant No. 1640173 and NERC, a subsidiary of SRC, through the SRC-NRI Center for Excitonic Devices. Kinetics measurements were supported by DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences under award DE-FG02-07ER46449. C. J. D. was supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1144086. The work at Princeton University was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through the EPiQS initiative Grant GBMF4420, and by the National Science Foundation MRSEC Grant DMR 1420541.
[99]{}
Y.E. Lozovik, V.I. Yudson, [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**44**]{}, 389 (1976).
L.V. Butov, A.L. Ivanov, A. Imamoglu, P.B. Littlewood, A.A. Shashkin, V.T. Dolgopolov, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 5608 (2001).
A.A. High, J.R. Leonard, A.T. Hammack, M.M. Fogler, L.V. Butov, A.V. Kavokin, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Nature*]{} [**483**]{}, 584 (2012).
D. Nandi, A.D.K. Finck, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer, K.W. West, [*Nature*]{} [**488**]{}, 481 (2012).
L.V. Butov, A.C. Gossard, D.S. Chemla, [*Nature*]{} [**418**]{}, 751 (2002).
M. Alloing, M. Beian, M. Lewenstein, D. Fuster, Y. Gonz[á]{}lez, L. Gonz[á]{}lez, R. Combescot, M. Combescot, F. Dubin, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} 10012 (2014).
Sen Yang, L.V. Butov, B.D. Simons, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**91**]{}, 245302 (2015).
A.A. High, A.T. Hammack, J.R. Leonard, Sen Yang, L.V. Butov, T. Ostatnick[ý]{}, M. Vladimirova, A.V. Kavokin, T.C.H. Liew, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**110**]{}, 246403 (2013).
J.R. Leonard, A.A. High, A.T. Hammack, M.M. Fogler, L.V. Butov, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Nature Commun.*]{} [**9**]{}, 2158 (2018).
M. Hagn, A. Zrenner, G. B[" o]{}hm, G. Weimann, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**67**]{}, 232 (1995).
L.V. Butov, A.I. Filin, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**58**]{}, 1980 (1998).
A.V. Larionov, V.B. Timofeev, J. Hvam, K. Soerensen, [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**90**]{}, 1093 (2000).
Z. V[ö]{}r[ö]{}s, R. Balili, D.W. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer, K. West, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 226401 (2005).
A. G[ä]{}rtner, A.W. Holleitner, J.P. Kotthaus, D. Schuh, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 052108 (2006).
A.L. Ivanov, L.E. Smallwood, A.T. Hammack, Sen Yang, L.V. Butov, A.C. Gossard, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 920 (2006).
A.T. Hammack, L.V. Butov, J. Wilkes, L. Mouchliadis, E.A. Muljarov, A.L. Ivanov, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**80**]{}, 155331 (2009).
J.R. Leonard, Y.Y. Kuznetsova, Sen Yang, L.V. Butov, T. Ostatnick[ý]{}, A. Kavokin, A.C. Gossard, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**9**]{}, 4204 (2009).
S. Lazi[ć]{}, P.V. Santos, R. Hey, [*Phys. E*]{} [**42**]{}, 2640 (2010).
M. Alloing, A. Lema[î]{}tre, E. Galopin, F. Dubin, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**85**]{}, 245106 (2012).
S. Lazi[ć]{}, A. Violante, K. Cohen, R. Hey, R. Rapaport, P.V. Santos, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**89**]{}, 085313 (2014).
R. Finkelstein, K. Cohen, B. Jouault, K. West, L.N. Pfeiffer, M. Vladimirova, R. Rapaport, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**96**]{}, 085404 (2017).
M. Remeika, M.M. Fogler, L.V. Butov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 061103 (2012).
M. Remeika, J.R. Leonard, C.J. Dorow, M.M. Fogler, L.V. Butov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**92**]{}, 115311 (2015).
A.G. Winbow, J.R. Leonard, M. Remeika, Y.Y. Kuznetsova, A.A. High, A.T. Hammack, L.V. Butov, J. Wilkes, A.A. Guenther, A.L. Ivanov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{}, 196806 (2011).
A.A. High, E.E. Novitskaya, L.V. Butov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, Control of exciton fluxes in an excitonic integrated circuit, [*Science*]{} [**321**]{}, 229 (2008).
P. Andreakou, S.V. Poltavtsev, J.R. Leonard, E.V. Calman, M. Remeika, Y.Y. Kuznetsova, L.V. Butov, J. Wilkes, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{}, 091101 (2014).
D.A.B. Miller, D.S. Chemla, T.C. Damen, A.C. Gossard, W. Wiegmann, T.H. Wood, C.A. Burrus [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**32**]{}, 1043 (1985).
H.-J. Polland, L. Schultheis, J. Kuhl, E.O. G[ö]{}bel, C.W. Tu, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 2610 (1985).
T. Huber, A. Zrenner, W. Wegscheider, M. Bichler, [*Phys. Status Solidi A*]{} [**166**]{}, R5 (1998).
A.V. Gorbunov, V.B. Timofeev, [*JETP Letters*]{} [**80**]{}, 185 (2004).
A.T. Hammack, N.A. Gippius, Sen Yang, G.O. Andreev, L.V. Butov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**99**]{}, 066104 (2006).
G. Chen, R. Rapaport, L.N. Pffeifer, K. West, P.M. Platzman, S. Simon, Z. V[ö]{}r[ö]{}s, D. Snoke [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**74**]{}, 045309 (2006).
A.A. High, A.T. Hammack, L.V. Butov, L. Mouchliadis, A.L. Ivanov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**9**]{}, 2094 (2009).
A.A. High, J.R. Leonard, M. Remeika, L.V. Butov, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**12**]{}, 2605 (2012).
G.J. Schinner, J. Repp, E. Schubert, A.K. Rai, D. Reuter, A.D. Wieck, A.O. Govorov, A.W. Holleitner, J.P. Kotthaus, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**110**]{}, 127403 (2013).
Y. Shilo, K. Cohen, B. Laikhtman, K. West, L. Pfeiffer, R. Rapaport, [*Nat. Comm.*]{} [**4**]{}, 2335 (2013).
Y. Mazuz-Harpaz, K. Cohen, B. Laikhtman, R. Rapaport, K. West, L.N. Pfeiffer, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**95**]{}, 155302 (2017).
S. Zimmermann, A.O. Govorov, W. Hansen, J.P. Kotthaus, M. Bichler, W. Wegscheider, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**56**]{}, 13414 (1997).
S. Zimmermann, G. Schedelbeck, A.O. Govorov, A. Wixforth, J.P. Kotthaus, M. Bichler, W. Wegscheider, G. Abstreiter, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{} 154 (1998) .
C.J. Dorow, Y.Y. Kuznetsova, J.R. Leonard, M.K. Chu, L.V. Butov, J. Wilkes, M. Hanson, A.C. Gossard, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 073502 (2016).
X.P. V[ö]{}gele, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, J.P. Kotthaus, A.W. Holleitner, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{}, 126402 (2009).
K. Cohen, R. Rapaport, P.V. Santos, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{}, 126402 (2011).
C.J. Dorow, J.R. Leonard, M.M. Fogler, L.V. Butov, K.W. West, L.N. Pfeiffer, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**112**]{}, 183501 (2018).
C.J. Dorow, M.W. Hasling, E.V. Calman, L.V. Butov, J. Wilkes, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**95**]{}, 235308 (2017).
P. Lefebvre, S. Kalliakos, T. Bretagnon, P. Valvin, T. Taliercio, B. Gil, N. Grandjean, J. Massies [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**69**]{}, 035307 (2004).
C. Morhain, T. Bretagnon, P. Lefebvre, X. Tang, P. Valvin, T. Guillet, B. Gil, T. Taliercio, M. Teisseire-Doninelli, B. Vinter, C. Deparis, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**72**]{}, 241305(R) (2005).
F. Fedichkin, P. Andreakou, B. Jouault, M. Vladimirova, T. Guillet, C. Brimont, P. Valvin, T. Bretagnon, A. Dussaigne, N. Grandjean, P. Lefebvre, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**91**]{}, 205424 (2015).
Y.Y. Kuznetsova, F. Fedichkin, P. Andreakou, E.V. Calman, L.V. Butov, P. Lefebvre, T. Bretagnon, T. Guillet, M. Vladimirova, C. Morhain, J.-M. Chauveau, [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**40**]{}, 3667 (2015).
F. Fedichkin, T. Guillet, P. Valvin, B. Jouault, C. Brimont, T. Bretagnon, L. Lahourcade, N. Grandjean, P. Lefebvre, M. Vladimirova, [*Phys. Rev. Appl.*]{} [**6**]{}, 014011 (2016).
Zefang Wang, Yi-Hsin Chiu, Kevin Honz, Kin Fai Mak, Jie Shan, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**18**]{}, 137 (2018).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Adding edges between layers of interconnected networks is an important way to optimize the spreading dynamics. While previous studies mostly focus on the case of adding a single edge, the theoretical optimal strategy for adding multiple edges still need to be studied. In this study, based on the susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model, we investigate the problem of maximizing the stationary spreading prevalence in interconnected networks. For two isolated networks, we maximize the spreading prevalence near the critical point by choosing multiple interconnecting edges. We present a theoretical analysis based on the discrete-time Markov chain approach to derive the approximate optimal strategy. The optimal inter-layer structure predicted by the strategy maximizes the spreading prevalence, meanwhile minimizes the spreading outbreak threshold for the interconnected network simultaneously. Numerical simulations on synthetic and real-world networks show that near the critical point, the proposed strategy gives better performance than connecting large degree nodes and randomly connecting.'
author:
- Liming Pan
- Wei Wang
- Shimin Cai
- Tao Zhou
title: Optimizing spreading dynamics in interconnected networks
---
**Spreading dynamics in interconnected networks relay on the inter-layer structure apart from the structure within each layer. For two given networks, how to design the interconnecting structure to optimize the spreading dynamics is a very appealing topic. Previous studies obtained the optimal strategy when considering adding a single edge in two-layer interconnected networks, while the optimal strategy of adding multiple edges lacks theoretical studies. Therefore in this study, a novel strategy is proposed to promote the spreading dynamics by adding multiple interconnecting edges for two isolated networks. Near the critical point, the spreading prevalence can be written in terms of the leading eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector of the adjacency matrix. Basing on an approximation scheme for the leading eigenvalue and eigenvector of the interconnected network, we optimize the spreading prevalence among all candidate edges. The optimal inter-layer structure is achieved by selecting edge candidates that are top-ranked by the product of eigenvector centrality of nodes in its two ends. Meanwhile, the optimal strategy also minimizes the outbreak threshold of the interconnected network. Numerical simulations on three pairs of synthetic networks and two pairs of real-world networks show that the strategy gives better performance than the heuristic strategies of connecting large degree nodes and of randomly connecting, especially near the critical point.**
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In real-world social systems, individuals might communicate with others via multiple possible channels (such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn). The communication relations with a specific channel can be represented by a network, where the nodes correspond to individuals, and the edges correspond to the communication relations. Therefore all the communication relations combined can be described by a multilayer network [@boccaletti2014structure; @gao2012networks; @kivela2014multilayer; @de2016physics], where each layer corresponds to one of the communications channels. Multilayer networks and the dynamics on them have attracted attentions from diverse areas. It has been observed that multilayer networks display distinct collective behaviors compared to that of single-layer networks [@cai2018multiplex; @sole2016congestion; @buono2015immunization; @buldyrev2010catastrophic; @cozzo2013contact; @kim2013coevolution; @lee2012correlated; @wang2015evolutionary; @zhang2015explosive]. As an example, percolation processes on multilayer networks display first-order phase transitions [@buldyrev2010catastrophic; @valdez2013triple; @di2016recovery; @di2016cascading; @valdez2016failure], which is intrinsically different from the second-order phase transitions on single-layer networks [@cohen2002percolation; @serrano2006percolation; @goltsev2008percolation]. For evolutionary games, multilayer networks promote cooperation better than single-layer networks [@perc2017statistical; @wang2013interdependent; @wang2015evolutionary]. For synchronization processes, explosive synchronization and hysteresis loop are observed on multilayer networks [@zhang2015explosive].
Spreading dynamics on multilayer networks have attracted considerable attention in recent studies [@de2016physics; @wang2019coevolution; @brummitt2012multiplexity; @lee2014threshold; @Yagan2012; @wang2018social; @wang2018social2; @shu2018social; @chen2018optimal]. Saumell-Mendiola, Serrano and Bogun[á]{} [@saumell2012epidemic] have studied susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model [@pastor2001epidemic] on multilayer networks. They found that adding a small fraction of edges between layers can lead to the outbreak of epidemics while without these edges the epidemic extinct. The epidemic threshold depends on the structure of multilayer networks [@cozzo2013contact; @wang2013effect], and it is possible to observe localization phenomenons [@de2017disease]. For susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model, Dickison, Havlin and Stanley [@dickison2012epidemics] found that the system might exhibit a mixed phase, i.e., the epidemic outbreaks in one layer but not others. Refs. [@wang2014asymmetrically; @wang2016suppressing; @liu2016impacts] studied a model with the spreading of information and epidemics simultaneously. The studies found that the diffusion of information can inhibit the spreading of epidemics.
The inter-layer structure in multilayer networks has significant impacts on the dynamics. Parshani et al. [@parshani2011inter] found that a positive inter-layer degree correlation will inhibit large scale cascading failures. Ref. [@saumell2012epidemic] found that those degree correlations will make the epidemic outbreak more easily, while Ref. [@wang2014asymmetrically] found that the positive inter-layer degree correlations can also inhibit the outbreak of the epidemic. Understanding what kind of interconnecting structure will lead to better performance for specific dynamics is an essential task for understanding dynamics on multilayer network and for designing better network structures. For spreading dynamics, when considering adding a single edge between layers, the optimal solution was given in Ref. [@aguirre2013successful] analytically. Based on matrix perturbation theory, Ref. [@aguirre2013successful] derive that connecting the two nodes with the largest eigenvector centralities in each layer minimizes the epidemic threshold while maximizes the spreading prevalence. For better synchronizability, Aguirre et al. [@aguirre2014synchronization] studied the optimal strategy when adding one single edge between layers analytically. Based on matrix perturbation theory, they found that connecting large degree nodes will give better synchronizability. Li et al. [@li2016synchronizability] further generalized the optimal strategy when adding two edges. When consider adding multiple interconnecting edges, current results are mostly based on numerical methods. Wei et al. [@wei2018synchronizability] studied the interconnecting strategy numerically when adding a small number of edges for two-layer networks with random regular networks in each layer. Their studies suggest that adding inter-layer connections gives a more significant contribution to synchronizability compared to inner-layer connections. Wei et al. [@wei2018maximizing] also did numerical simulations for the optimal strategy for general multilayer networks.
In this study, we investigate the problem of optimizing the spreading prevalence in two-layer networks by adding multiple inter-layer edges. For two isolated networks, we try to understand how to add a small number of edges to maximize the stationary spreading prevalence in the interconnected network. We mainly focus on the SIS model near the critical point. With a known formula given in [@Goltsev2012], the epidemic prevalence near the critical point can be written in terms of the leading eigenvalue and eigenvector. We first develop a scheme for approximating the new leading eigenvalue and eigenvector for the interconnected network after adding those interconnecting edges. With this approximation scheme, we obtain a formula that predicts the stationary epidemic prevalence in the two-layer interconnected network. Then this approximated prevalence can be optimized among all possible inter-layer structures. The optimal inter-layer structure that maximizes the spreading prevalence will found to minimizes the spreading outbreak threshold for the interconnected network simultaneously. Numerical simulations are performed to compare the strategy with some other heuristic strategies. The proposed strategy gives a better performance at least near the critical point when adding a small number of interconnecting edges.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:model\], we introduce the basic setups of the model and some notations. In Sec. \[sec:theory\], the theoretical derivations of the strategy is given. Then in Sec. \[sec:results\], the strategy is tested and compared to some other heuristic strategies and finally in Sec. \[sec:dis\] we give some conclusions and discussions.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Starting with two isolated networks $a$ and $b$, we add a fixed number of edges to interconnect the two networks. The way of adding the edges will affect the dynamical behaviors on the interconnected network. We focus on the way of adding these edges that maximizing the spreading prevalence.
Let the adjacency matrices of the networks $a,b$ be $G_a$ and $G_b$ respectively. The number of nodes in $a (b)$ is $N_a (N_b)$ and the number of edges is $M_a (M_b)$. The total number of nodes is denoted by $N=N_a+N_b$ and the total number of edges by $M=M_a+M_b$. The adjacency matrix of the combined network then is $$G^0=\left(
{\begin{array}{cc}
G_a & 0 \\
0 & G_b
\end{array}}
\right).$$
A set of edges with fixed cardinality $\delta M$ will be added between the two networks. After the operation the new network combining $a,b$ and interconnecting edges will have adjacency matrix $G=G^0+\delta G$, where $$\delta G=\left(
{\begin{array}{cc}
0 & C \\
C^{\mathrm{T}} & 0
\end{array}}
\right).$$ Here $C$ is an $N_a\times N_b$ matrix which indicates how the inter layer connections are added. Its elements take values $C_{ij}\in \{0,1\}$, where $C_{ij}=1$ if and edge is added between the $i$-th node of network $a$ and $j$-th node of network $b$ and $C_{ij}=0$ otherwise. The matrix satisfies the constraint on total number of added edges as $$\left\langle\mathbf{1}_{N_a}, C\mathbf{1}_{N_b}\right\rangle=\delta M,$$ where $\mathbf{1}_{N_a}=\left[1,\cdots,1\right]^T$ is all-one vector of length $N_a$ and $\langle\cdot \rangle$ is the inner product of two vectors.
By choosing among all possible assignment of $C$, the epidemic prevalence can be maximized. In this paper, we consider the SIS model. For the SIS model, each node is in either the susceptible or infected state. In a discrete-time setting, at time step $t$, infected nodes have a probability $\lambda$ to infect their susceptible neighbors independently. Then the infected nodes (not including nodes get infected at the current time step) become susceptible again with probability $\mu$. In large time limit, the density of infected nodes will converge to its stationary value. The target of the paper is to maximize the stationary spreading prevalence.
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
We employ the discrete time Markov chain approach [@gomez2010discrete] to describe SIS model on general networks. For the discrete time Markov chain approach, the status of a node $i$ is characterized by $\rho_i(t)$, which is the probability that $i$ is infected at time step $t$. Then $\rho_i(t)$ evolves according to the following discrete time equations $$\label{eq:mfEquation}
\rho_i(t+1)=(1-\mu)\rho_i(t)+\left(1-\rho_i(t)\right)\left(1-q_i(t)\right)$$ for $i\in \{1,\cdots,N\}$ and $$\label{eq:q}
q_i(t)=\prod_{j=1}^N\left(1-\lambda G_{ij}\rho_j(t)\right).$$ The first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) corresponds to the probability that node $i$ is infected at $t$ and not recovered in $t+1$, and second term is the probability that $i$ is susceptible at $t$ and get infected by at least one infected neighbor. $q_i(t)$ in Eq. (\[eq:q\]) is the probability that $i$ is not get infected by any of its neighbors at $t$.
The stationary solution is given by the limit in $t$ $$\rho_i=\lim_{t\to\infty}\rho_i(t).$$ Let $\rho$ and $q$ be the vector with elements $\rho_i$ and $q_i$ for $i\in\{1,\cdots,N\}$. Near the critical point $\rho$ is expected to be small and the equation can be linearized as $q\approx 1-\lambda G \rho$, the stationary equation reads $$G\rho=(\mu/\lambda)\rho.$$ The spreading outbreaks only when $\lambda/\mu >1/\omega_1$ where $\omega_1$ is the leading eigenvalue of $G$. It has been shown in [@Goltsev2012] the stationary prevalence of epidemic is approximately $$\label{eq:rhoAprro}
\left\langle\rho\right\rangle\approx \left(\lambda^*\omega_1-1\right)\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N u_i }{N \sum_{i=1}^N u^3_i}$$ where $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^N\rho_i$, $\lambda^*=\lambda/\mu$ is the effective infection probability and $u$ is the eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $\omega_1$. It can be seen that $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ is determined by the leading eigenvalue and eigenvector approximately near the critical point. Since $G$ is obtained by adding a small number of edges to $G^0$, its spectra should be closely related to that of $G^0$. Next we develop a scheme to approximate the spectra of $G$ from that of $G^0$.
First consider the spectra of matrix $G^0$. Let the $\omega^a_k$ for $k\in \{1,\cdots,N_a\}$ be the $k$-th eigenvalue of $G_a$ and $v^a_k$ the corresponding eigenvector. Similarly $\omega^b_l$, $v^b_l$ with $l\in \{1,\cdots,N_b\}$ are eigenvalues and eigenvectors for $G_b$. The adjacency matrix of networks $a$ and $b$ combined $G^0$ is a diagonal block matrix by putting $G_a$ and $G_b$ in the diagonal, thus with eigenvalues $$\{\omega^a_k:k=1,\cdots,N_a\}\cup \{\omega^b_l:l=1,\cdots,N_b\}.$$ Clearly the leading eigenvalue of $G^0$ is $\max\{\omega^a_1,\omega^b_1\}$. Without losing of generality we assume $\omega^a_1\geq \omega^b_1$. The corresponding eigenvector for an eigenvalue $\omega^a_k$ is $$\hat{v}^a_k=\left(v_k^a, 0 \right)^\mathrm{T},$$ which is by combining $v^a_1$ and all-zero vector of length $N_b$. Similarly, for eigenvalue $\omega^b_l$, the corresponding eigenvector of $G^0$ is $$\hat{v}^b_l=\left(0, v_l^b\right)^\mathrm{T}$$ with zero vector of length $N_a$.
Now we consider adding a small number of interconnecting edges. By assuming these edges won’t shift the spectra of the two isolated networks too much, a first approximation of $u$ would be proportional to $v_1^a$ in the first $N_a$ elements, and to $v_1^b$ in the last $N_b$ elements, thus written as $$u^0=\beta^a\hat{v}^a_1+\beta^b\hat{v}^b_1$$ where $\beta^a,\beta^b\in \mathbb{R}$ are coefficients to be determined. The eigenvector $u$ is given by the following limit $$u= c \lim_{n\to \infty} \left(\omega_1^a\right)^{-n} G^n u^0$$ for some constant $c$ and $G^n$ denotes self matrix multiplication of $G$ for $n$ times. Since the number of interconnecting edges is small, it can be assumed that $u^0$ is already close to $u$ by choosing $\beta^a$ and $\beta^b$ properly. The limit thus approximated by setting $n=1$ and this gives $$u\approx\frac{c}{\omega^a_1} \left(\beta^a\omega^a_1\hat{v}^a_1+\beta^b\omega^b_1\hat{v}^b_1+\beta^a\delta G\hat{v}^a_1+\beta^b\delta G\hat{v}^b_1\right).$$ Rescale the parameters by $$c\beta^a \to \beta^a, \frac{c}{\omega^a_1}\beta^b\omega^b_1\to \beta^b,$$ the eigenvector $u$ is approximated by the form $$u\approx u^0+\delta u,$$ where $$\delta u=\frac{\beta^a}{\omega^a_1} \delta G \hat{v}^a_1+\frac{\beta^b}{\omega^b_1} \delta G \hat{v}^b_1.$$ For scale-free networks which we mainly consider in the paper, it has been shown that the leading eigenvalue diverges in the thermodynamic limit [@Goh2001]. Thus $\delta u$ can be ignored for large enough networks and $u$ is approximated as $u\approx u^0$.
Denote the gap by $g=\omega^a_1-\omega^b_1$. The leading eigenvalue $\omega_1$ of $G$ can be written as $\omega_1=\omega^a_1+\delta \omega_1$, which is $\omega^a_1$ plus a correction term $\delta \omega_1$. With these approximations we arrive at the following eigenvalue equation $$\label{eq:eigenApprox}
\left(G^0+\delta G\right)u^0=\left(\omega_1^a+\delta \omega_1 \right) u^0.$$ By definition $$G^0u^0=\beta^a\omega^a_1\hat{v}^a_1+\beta^b\omega^b_1\hat{v}^b_1,$$ and after some algebra Eq. (\[eq:eigenApprox\]) becomes $$\left(\delta G-\delta\omega_1 \mathbb{I}\right)u^0=\beta^b g \hat{v}^b_1,$$ where $\mathbb{I}$ is the $N$ by $N$ identity matrix. Multiplying $\hat{v}^a_1$ and $\hat{v}^b_1$ from the left separately gives the following equations $$\begin{split}
&\beta^b \left\langle v_1^a, C v_1^b \right\rangle=\delta \omega_1 \beta^a,\\
&\beta^a \left\langle v_1^a, C v_1^b \right\rangle-g \beta^b =\delta \omega_1 \beta^b.
\end{split}$$ The equations can be written in the form of an eigenvalue equation $$\left(
{\begin{array}{cc}
0 & E(C) \\
E(C) & -g
\end{array}}
\right)
\left(
{\begin{array}{c}
\beta^a \\
\beta^b
\end{array}}
\right)
=\delta \omega_1 \left(
{\begin{array}{c}
\beta^a \\
\beta^b
\end{array}}
\right)$$ where we have denoted by $E(C)=\left\langle v_1^a, C v_1^b \right\rangle$. The equation gives two eigenvalues and pick the larger one which is $$\label{eq:domega}
\delta \omega_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{4E^2(C)+g^2}-g\right).$$ The corresponding eigenvectors gives $$\label{eq:betas}
\begin{split}
&\beta^a=\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{g}{2E(C)}\right)^2}+\frac{g}{2E(C)},\\
&\beta^b=1.
\end{split}$$ In summary, the leading eigenvalue and eigenvector of the interconnected network are approximated as $$\label{eq:appro}
\begin{split}
&\omega_1=\omega^a_1+\delta \omega_1,\\
&u=\beta^a \hat{v}^a_1+\beta^b \hat{v}_1^b,
\end{split}$$ where $\delta\omega_1$, $\beta^a$ and $\beta^b$ are given in Eq. (\[eq:domega\]) and Eq. (\[eq:betas\]). Clearly when $g/E(C) \to 0$, $\beta^a\to 1$ and the two networks play equal role. Meanwhile if $g/E(C) \gg 0$, network $a$ dominates $b$. Normalizing $u$ to unity and substituting back into (\[eq:rhoAprro\]) gives $$\begin{split}
\left\langle\rho\right\rangle= &\left(\lambda^*\omega^a_1+\lambda^* \delta \omega_1-1\right) \\
&\times\frac{\left(\left(\beta^a\right)^3+\beta^a\right)\theta^a_1+\left(\left(\beta^a\right)^2+1\right) \theta^b_1}{N\left(\left(\beta^a\right)^3 \theta^a_3+\theta^b_3\right)}
\end{split}$$ where $$\theta^a_1=\left\langle \mathbf{1}_{N_a},v_1^a\right\rangle,\
\theta^a_3=\left\langle \mathbf{1}_{N_a},v_1^a\cdot v_1^a\cdot v_1^a\right\rangle$$ and similarly for $\theta^b_1$, $\theta^b_3$.
With this approximation scheme, we can optimize $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ over $C$. Since $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ depends on the interconnecting matrix $C$ only in the form of $E(C)$, it is sufficient optimize $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ as a function of $E(C)$. After determining the optimal $E(C)$, we choose the matrix $C$ such that $E(C)$ is closest to its optimal value. Empirically, for all the networks considered in this study (see Sec. \[sec:results\]), $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ is an increasing function of $E(C)$ for small $E(C)$. Thus it is sufficient to choose $C$ such that $E(C)$ is maximized, or in other words, to choose the top $\delta M$ edges ranked by $v^a_1(i)\times v^b_1(j)$ for $i\in\{1,\cdots,N_a\},\ j\in \{1,\cdots,N_b\}$. Here $v^a_1(i)$ denotes the $i$th element of $v^a_1$ and similarly for $v^b_1(j)$. Note that a node can be connected to multiple nodes in the other layer. After determine $C$ in this way, we perform the check to ensure that $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$ is non-decreasing in the region $(0,E(C)]$. From Eq. (\[eq:domega\]), $\delta \omega_1$ is also an increasing function of $E(C)$. Therefore, the optimal strategy also maximizes $\delta \omega_1$ as well as $\left\langle\rho\right\rangle$. Since the outbreak threshold for the interconnected network is given by $1/\left(\omega^a_1+\delta \omega_1\right)$, as a consequence, the optimal inter-layer structure also minimizes the outbreak threshold. In the rest of the paper, the proposed strategy is called large eigenvector connecting (LEC), since it is by connecting inter-layer node pairs with larger product of the two nodes’ eigenvector centrality.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section we test the strategy proposed in Sec. \[sec:theory\] both for synthetic and real-world networks. For synthetic networks, we consider scale-free networks generated by uncorrelated configuration model (UCM). Denote by ‘SF $\alpha$’ for scale-free network with degree distribution $p(k)\sim k^{-\alpha}$ and degree exponent $\alpha$, we consider the following three pairs of networks: (1) SF $3.0$-SF $3.0$, (2) SF $3.0$-SF $2.3$, (3) SF $3.0$-SF $4.0$ and two pairs of real world networks: (4) Advogato-Facebook, (5) HepPh-HepTh. Here Advogato [@Massa2009] and Facebook [@Leskovec2012] are two online social networks, and HepPh and HepTh [@Leskovec2007] are citation networks of papers from the high energy physics-theory and high energy physics-phenomenology sections of the e-print arXiv. The networks are downloaded from [@Konect]. TABLE \[table1\] shows some basic statistics of the four real-world networks. When performing Monte-Carlo simulations on these networks, we first choose $\lceil 0.02N\rceil$ nodes as infected seeds. Then the spreading runs at discrete time steps. At each time step, all the infected nodes infect each of their susceptible neighbors with probability $\lambda$ independently and then returns to susceptible state with probability $\mu$. The steps are then repeated until the density of infected nodes in the network reaches the stationary value.
$N$ $M$ $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ $\langle k \rangle$ $c$ $\lambda^*_c$ $Q$
---------- ------- -------- -------------------- --------------------- -------- --------------- -------
Advogato 5042 39227 803 15.56 0.092 0.014 0.337
Facebook 2888 2981 769 2.0644 0.0004 0.036 0.809
HepPh 34401 420784 846 24.463 0.280 0.013 0.408
HepTh 27400 352021 2468 25.695 0.269 0.009 0.328
: Some basic statistics of four real-world networks. The statistics includes the number of nodes ($N$), the number of edges ($M$), the maximal degree ($k_{\mathrm{max}}$), the first moment of the degree distribution ($\langle k \rangle$), the clustering coefficient ($c$), the theoretical epidemic threshold predicted by $\lambda_c^*=1/\omega_1$ and the modularity ($Q$) [@newman2006modularity].
\[table1\]
First, we verify the accuracy of epidemic prevalence predicted by Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]). Define the ratio $p=\delta M/M$. For the five network pairs considered, $\lceil pM \rceil$ of edges are added uniformly random between the two networks. Starting with random initial conditions, we iterate Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) until reaching a tolerated error. We perform Monte-Carlo simulations on the networks generated to compare with the theoretical predictions. Fig. \[fig1\] shows how $\langle\rho\rangle$ changes as a function of $\lambda$. The recovery rate is fixed to $\mu=0.5$ and as well in the rest of the paper. The density of interconnecting edges is $p=0.01$. In the insets of Fig. \[fig1\], the theoretical epidemic threshold $\lambda_c^*=1/\omega_1$ is compared to the simulation results. The variability measure $\Delta$ [@Shu2015; @Shu2016] is applied to determine the spreading threshold in simulations. In particular $$\Delta=\sqrt{\overline{\langle \rho\rangle^2} /\overline{\langle \rho \rangle}^2-1},$$ where the overline $\overline{\bullet}$ denotes the average over independent runs of the simulations. As a convention $\Delta=0$ when $\overline{\langle \rho \rangle}=0$. The simulated outbreak threshold is given by where the variability measure reaches its maximal. We mark the two thresholds by vertical lines both in Fig. \[fig1\] and the insets. From Fig. \[fig1\], for all the network pairs considered expect Advogato-Facebook (Fig. \[fig1\](d)), $\langle\rho\rangle$ and the epidemic threshold predicted by Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) agree with simulations in good accuracy. Meanwhile, for the network pair Advogato-Facebook, predictions of Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) are less accurate. Since mean-field theory ignores dynamical correlations [@wang2017unification], i.e., ignores dependencies among the states of each node and its neighbors, it has been shown that mean-field theory could be less accurate for real-world networks with high clustering coefficient [@radicchi2016beyond], high modularity [@wang2016predicting] and low average degree [@gleeson2012accuracy]. As shown in TABLE \[table1\], the network Facebook has high modularity and low average degree, therefore, this could be the possible origins that Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) are less accurate for Advogato-Facebook. In general, quenched mean-field theory still predicts well the simulations, therefore can provide a necessary guarantee for the accuracy of the theory developed in Sec. \[sec:theory\].
Next we test the accuracy of predictions for the leading eigenvalue $\omega_1$ and eigenvector $u$ of the interconnected network. We consecutively add interconnecting edges between the two networks according to the LEC strategy and compare the eigenvalue and eigenvector predicted by Eqs. (\[eq:appro\]) to the true values $\omega_1^*$ and $u^*$. Start with two isolated networks, we consecutively add the edges and do the comparison after each adding. To quantify the accuracy, for the leading eigenvalue we consider the relative error $\left(\omega_1^*-\omega_1\right)/\omega_1^*$, where $\omega_1^*$ is the true eigenvalue and $\omega_1$ is that predicted by Eqs. (\[eq:appro\]). For leading eigenvector the accuracy is measured by the cosine similarity between the true one $u^*$ and predicted one $u$. Let $\theta$ be the angle between $u^*$ and $u$, $$\cos \theta = \left\langle u^*, u \right\rangle.$$ Note that we have assumed both $u$ and $u^*$ are normalized to unity.
Still denote the fraction of edges added by $p=\delta M/M$. $\left(\omega_1^*-\omega_1\right)/\omega_1^*$ and $\cos \theta$ versus $p$ are shown in Figs. \[fig2\](a) and (c) respectively, while $\omega_1^*$ and $\omega_1$ versus $p$ are shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). From Figs. \[fig2\], the theoretical predictions gives close approximations to it’s true value. As can observed in Figs. \[fig2\](a) and (b), errors in the eigenvalue $\omega_1^*-\omega_1$ have a small magnitude compared to the value of $\omega_1^*$, at least for small values of $p$. Also $\cos \theta$ is close to $1$ which indicates $u$ and $u^*$ are closely aligned. After tested the accuracy of Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) and Eqs. (\[eq:appro\]), the interconnecting strategy proposed in Sec. \[sec:theory\] is expected to be reliable.
Next we test the performance of the strategy of optimizing spreading. For comparison, the two following heuristic strategies are considered. (1) Large degree connecting (LDC). This is by choosing top candidate edges that ranked by the total degree of its two ends $k_i+k_j$. (2) Random connecting (RC). The edges are chosen uniformly random among all node pairs. Remind that the strategy proposed in Sec. \[sec:theory\] is called largest eigenvector connecting (LEC).
As the model depends on the parameter $p$, we first consider comparing the three strategies with fixed $p=0.005$. The results for different small values of $p$ are similar as will be shown in the next. After choosing $C$ according to the strategies, Eqs. (\[eq:mfEquation\]) are iterated to stationary. For the convenience of visualization, the performance is evaluated by $\delta \langle \rho \rangle$, which is the difference of stationary $\langle \rho \rangle$ after and before adding the interconnecting edges in $C$. $\delta \langle \rho \rangle$ versus the infect rate $\lambda$ are shown in Fig. \[fig3\] for the five pairs of networks. Still, the recovery rate is fixed to $\mu=0.5$. The threshold value of $\lambda_c=\mu/\omega^a_1$ for the isolated network $G^0$ is denoted by a black vertical line. For $\lambda$ near the critical point, LEC strategy gives highest $\delta \langle \rho \rangle$ for all the five pairs of networks. For the three model network pairs in Figs. \[fig3\](a)-(c), LDC gives a very close performance to LEC. This is because that LEC and LDC predict similar $C$ for these three network pairs, as the degree centrality and eigenvalue centrality are strongly correlated in ranking for the UCM [@lu2016vital]. For real-world networks, the structure becomes complex; therefore, degree and eigenvector centrality are less correlated. Thus a better performance of LEC is observed near the critical point for the two real-world network pairs.
As $\lambda$ becomes large and deviates the critical value, those nodes with large eigenvalue centrality have a high probability of to be infected. Thus interconnecting these nodes becomes unnecessary. Meanwhile, high degree nodes still play a central role in maintaining the epidemic. Thus gradually, better performance of the LDC strategy is observed. Eventually, when $\lambda$ become very large, the infected state is prevalent; therefore, all central nodes have a high probability to be infected. Meanwhile, the RC strategy more likely picks low degree nodes due to the power-law degree distribution. Thus in this region of $\lambda$, RC is expected to give the best performance among the three.
To get a more comprehensive picture, we study how the performance of the three strategies depend on $p$ and $\lambda$. For each point in the parameter space of $p$ and $\lambda$, we compute $\langle \rho \rangle$ for the three strategies and find the differences of LEC minus LDC and LEC minus RC. In other words, a positive difference indicates that LEC performs better than the other one compared. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. The first row in Fig. \[fig4\], i.e. Fig. \[fig4\](a1)-(e1), corresponds to LEC minus LDC for the five network pairs, and the second row (Figs. \[fig4\](a2)-(e2)) correspond to LEC minus RC. The contours of $\epsilon=1\mathrm{e}{-6}$ are shown in the plots to indicate the region when LEC performs better. Here $\epsilon$ is not set to be $\epsilon=0$ to eliminate possible numeric errors. In Fig. \[fig4\], the position of $\lambda_c=\mu/\omega^a_1$ for the unconnected network is marked by a vertical black dashed line. For all the cases in Fig. \[fig4\], there is a vertical band in the parameter space where LEC gives better performance. The vertical band locates in where $\lambda$ is close to the critical value. Thus we can conclude that LEC is better than the other two near the critical point when the number of added edges is small.
Discussion {#sec:dis}
==========
In the study, we investigated the optimal strategy for interconnecting two isolated networks in order to maximize the spreading prevalence of SIS model. We develop a scheme to approximate the leading eigenvalue and eigenvector for the interconnected network. This approximation gives a formula that predicts the epidemic prevalence for the interconnected network. By maximizing the spreading prevalence over the interconnecting matrix, we obtain the optimal inter-layer structure. By numerically iterating the discrete-time Markov equations, we find the strategy gives better performance than some other heuristic strategies.
By maximizing the spreading prevalence $\langle \rho \rangle$ among all interconnecting matrices, it turns out that the strategy is equivalent to select edge candidates that are top-ranked by the product of eigenvector centrality of nodes in its two ends. Actually, for the networks considered in this study, $\langle \rho \rangle$ is not always an increasing function of $E(C)$ for large $E(C)$ and large $\lambda$. Nevertheless, in this region, the number of edges added must be very large, and the infection probability is far from critical; as a consequence, the eigenvalue approximation scheme becomes inaccurate. What is a better strategy when adding a large number of edges cannot be answered by the current approach.
Besides, the current method mainly focuses on the region near the epidemic threshold. In summary, we mainly work in regions where linear approximations are reliable. For larger effective spreading rates and larger numbers of added edges, the problem might become nonlinear and more complex. If it is possible to get a more comprehensive theory in all parameter regions requires further studies.
This work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61673150, 11622538 and 61673086), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2018M631073) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
[59]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{}, @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. in @noop [**]{} () pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'L. Haemmerlé, G. Meynet'
bibliography:
- 'bibliotheque.bib'
date: 'Received ; accepted '
title: Magnetic braking of supermassive stars through winds
---
[Supermassive stars (SMSs) are candidates for being progenitors of supermassive quasars at high redshifts. However, their formation process requires strong mechanisms that would be able to extract the angular momentum of the gas that the SMSs accrete.]{} [We investigate under which conditions the magnetic coupling between an accreting SMS and its winds can remove enough angular momentum for accretion to proceed from a Keplerian disc.]{} [We numerically computed the rotational properties of accreting SMSs that rotate at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}and estimated the magnetic field that is required to maintain the rotation velocity at this limit using prescriptions from magnetohydrodynamical simulations of stellar winds.]{} [We find that a magnetic field of 10 kG at the stellar surface is required to satisfy the constraints on stellar rotation from the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}.]{} [Magnetic coupling between the envelope of SMSs and their winds could allow for SMS formation by accretion from a Keplerian disc, provided the magnetic field is at the upper end of present-day observed stellar fields. Such fields are consistent with primordial origins. ]{}
Introduction {#sec-intro}
============
Supermassive stars (SMSs) of $10^4-10^5$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{} are candidates for being progenitors of the supermassive black holes that power the quasars that have recently been discovered at redshift $z\sim7$ [@mortlock2011; @wu2015; @banados2018; @wang2018; @woods2018]. The black-hole masses inferred by the observations are as high as $10^9-10^{10}$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}, which implies mass-accretion rates of 0.1 – 10 [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} by a simple timescale argument. Accretion at such high rates is thought to occur in primordial haloes where H$_2$ molecules have been destroyed, for instance by an external Lyman-Werner flux from a nearby starburst [@latif2013e; @becerra2015; @regan2017; @becerra2018; @smidt2018].
The properties of Population III SMSs that accrete at the rates of atomically cooled haloes have been studied by several authors [@hosokawa2013; @sakurai2015; @umeda2016; @nakauchi2017; @woods2017; @haemmerle2018a; @haemmerle2018b; @surace2018]. They are found to evolve as ‘red supergiant protostars’ [@hosokawa2013], following the Hayashi limit upwards as their mass grows by accretion. Their effective temperature remains locked on $\sim5000$ K while their luminosity, which is nearly at the Eddington value, increases linearly with their mass. During their main accretion phase, their structure is made of a convective core ($\sim10\%$ in mass) that is initially triggered by H-burning, a convective envelope ($\sim1\%$ in mass) due to the low temperatures on the Hayashi limit, and a large intermediate radiative region ($\sim90\%$ in mass) in between (Fig. \[fig-sys\]). Without metal lines, the radiative mass-losses of Pop III SMSs are inefficient because the corresponding winds do not reach the escape velocity [@nakauchi2017]. On the other hand, these objects are pulsationally unstable, and the estimates of the mechanical mass-losses through pulsations give $10^{-3}$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} [@hosokawa2013]. These rates are several orders of magnitude lower than the accretion rate, so that pulsation instability does not prevent SMSs from forming by accretion, but it indicates that they could have winds on large scales. SMSs eventually collapse to a black hole through the general relativistic (GR) instability [@chandrasekhar1964] when their mass reaches $2-3\times10^5$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{} [@umeda2016; @woods2017; @haemmerle2018a]. Accretion continues after the collapse until the black-hole mass reaches $10^9-10^{10}$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{} at $z\sim7$.
The SMSs that form by accretion must be slow rotators, with surface velocities lower than about 10% of their Keplerian velocity [@haemmerle2018b]. This is a consequence of the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} [@maeder2000], which is relevant for stars that are close to the Eddington limit. It requires the accreted angular momentum to be about 1% Keplerian, meaning that the 99% of the angular momentum from a Keplerian accretion disc must be extracted from the accreted gas. This is a particular case of the angular momentum problem that is general to star formation. The commonly invoked mechanisms are magnetic fields, gravitational torques from spiral arms, or viscosity originating from other causes [@hosokawa2016; @takahashi2017; @pandey2019].
The aim of the present work is to investigate the role of a magnetic coupling between the star and its mechanical winds in extracting the excess of angular momentum accreted from a Keplerian disc. The magnetic properties of SMSs are not known. Here, we estimate the intensity of the magnetic field that is required at the stellar surface for the star to be maintained under the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} during the accretion process. [@haemmerle2018b] computed models of SMSs that accreted angular momentum at a constant fraction of the Keplerian angular momentum. We do not constrain the angular momentum accretion rate here but instead assume a configuration that rotates at a maximum rate at each time step by directly constraining the surface velocity. This allows us to quantify more precisely the constraint on the accretion of angular momentum at the various evolutionary stages. The method is described in Sect. \[sec-method\]. The results are given in Sect. \[sec-result\] and are discussed in Sect. \[sec-discuss\]. We conclude in Sect. \[sec-out\].
Method {#sec-method}
======
Description of the system {#sec-sys}
-------------------------
{width="55.00000%"}
A schematic picture of the system is shown in Fig. \[fig-sys\]. The star consists of a convective core and a convective envelope (shown in blue), with a radiative region in between (shown in light grey). It accretes through a Keplerian disc at $\sim1$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} and looses mass through pulsation instability at $\sim0.001$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{}. The convective envelope and the winds co-rotate as a solid body at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} (Eq. \[eq-omgam\]) up to the Alfvén radius. The photospheric radius increases with time. In the stellar interior, the layers contract from the convective envelope to the convective core. They maintain their specific angular momentum while crossing the radiative zone, and eventually deliver it to the core, which rotates as a solid body. In the next two subsections, we describe the properties of the star and the magnetic coupling in more detail.
Stellar model {#sec-star1}
-------------
The internal structure of SMSs that form by accretion is not affected by rotation because their velocities are slow [@haemmerle2018b]. Moreover, their short lifetime ($\sim10^5$ yr) means that mixing processes other than convection are inefficient in transporting angular momentum. We can therefore assume local angular momentum conservation in radiative regions, and convective regions are expected to rotate as solid bodies. This allows us to post-process rotation on the non-rotating models described in [@haemmerle2018a], which are computed with the [[genec]{}]{} stellar evolution code that includes accretion [@eggenberger2008; @haemmerle2014; @haemmerle2016a].
We proceeded in the following way. We assumed that the stellar surface rotates at the angular velocity given by the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} [@maeder2000; @haemmerle2018b], $$\Omega_*^2={3\over2}\Omega_K^2(R)(1-\Gamma),
\label{eq-omgam}$$ where $\Omega_K(R)=\sqrt{GM/R^3}$ is the Keplerian velocity at the stellar surface ($M$ is the stellar mass and $R$ its photospheric radius) and $\Gamma$ is the Eddington factor. This expression is only relevant for $\Gamma\gtrsim0.6.$ For lower $\Gamma$, the Keplerian limit still holds, and we assumed $\Omega_*=\Omega_K(R)$ in this case. Knowing the surface velocity, we computed the rotational structure of the star with two assumptions: solid rotation in convective regions, and local angular momentum conservation in radiative regions. The rotational properties of the convective envelope in solid rotation are fully determined by the surface velocity. Rotation in the radiative region is computed by assuming that the layers enter in the upper part of the radiative zone with the angular velocity of the surface and contract with constant specific angular momentum until they are incorporated in the convective core. We used this specific angular momentum to compute the increase in the angular momentum of the convective core, which determines its rotational properties because we assumed solid rotation. Knowing the rotation profile of the star, we computed the effective rate of the increase [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} in its total angular momentum.
We assumed that accretion proceeds at a rate [$\dot M_+$]{} through a Keplerian disc in the equatorial plan (Fig. \[fig-sys\]). Thus the angular momentum advected inside the star by accretion is given by $${\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm acc}}}={\ensuremath{\dot J_K}}={\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}R^2\Omega_K(R)={\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}\sqrt{GMR}.
\label{eq-jac}$$ From the effective increase [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} of the angular momentum of the star given by the stellar model, we estimated the angular momentum excess that must be extracted for the star to rotate at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}: $${\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm ext}}}={\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm acc}}}-{\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm eff}}}={\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}\sqrt{GMR}-{\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm eff}}}.
\label{eq-jdif}$$
Magnetic coupling with winds {#sec-mag1}
----------------------------
The next step was to estimate the magnetic field that is required for loosing the angular momentum excess through coupling with wind. We followed the prescriptions of [@uddoula2008; @uddoula2009], which are based on two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamical simulations of stellar winds. According to these prescriptions, the magnetic coupling with the winds relies on the magnetic confinement parameter $$\eta_*:={B_*^2R^2\over{\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}{{\ensuremath{\rm v_\infty}}}},
\label{eq-eta}$$ where $B_*$ is the magnetic field at the stellar surface (at the equator), [$\dot M_-$]{} is the mass-loss rate (absolute value), and [[$\rm v_\infty$]{}]{} is the terminal wind velocity. The terminal velocity is related empirically to the escape velocity [[$\rm v_{esc}$]{}]{} at the stellar surface, with a ratio that depends on the spectral type [@lamers1995]. For stars at the Hayashi limit, $${{\ensuremath{\rm v_\infty}}}=0.72\,{{\ensuremath{\rm v_{esc}}}}.
\label{eq-vinf}$$ The distance on which the coupling acts is given by the Alfvén radius, which is related to the confinement parameter by [@uddoula2009] $${r_A\over R}=0.29+(\eta_*+0.25)^{1/4}.
\label{eq-alf}$$ The loss of angular momentum due to the wind magnetic braking process is then given by $${\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm ext}}}={2\over3}{\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}r_A^2\Omega_*.
\label{eq-jmag}$$ From [$\dot J_{\rm ext}$]{} of Eq. (\[eq-jdif\]), we can derive the Alfvén radius and magnetic field that are required for the SMS to rotate at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}using Eq. (\[eq-eta\] – \[eq-jmag\]).
Results {#sec-result}
=======
![Properties of the stellar model with ${\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}=1$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} rotating at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}as a function of the stellar mass (time coordinate in case of constant accretion). The upper panel shows the stellar structure and the Alfvén radius. Blue areas are convective regions, and the grey area is the radiative zone. The black dotted lines are Lagrangian layers (iso-mass) of $\log M_r/{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}}=$1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The second panel shows the Eddington factor in $\log(1-\Gamma)$. Grey dotted lines indicate $\Gamma=0.9$ and 0.99. The third panel shows the constraint we impose on the angular velocity at the surface ([[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}, Eq. \[eq-omgam\]), as a ratio to the Keplerian velocity. The fourth panel shows the angular velocity of the envelope (in blue) and of the core (in grey). The fifth panel shows the angular momentum accretion rate [$\dot J_{\rm acc}$]{} (Keplerian, in grey), the time derivative of the stellar angular momentum [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} (in blue), and the required angular momentum-loss rate [$\dot J_{\rm ext}$]{} (red dashed line) computed with Eq. (\[eq-jdif\]). The last panel shows the magnetic field that is required at the stellar surface according to Eq. (\[eq-eta\] – \[eq-jmag\]).[]{data-label="fig-ud"}](fig-ud.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Rotational properties of the star {#sec-star2}
---------------------------------
We considered as a fiducial case the rates ${\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}=1$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} and ${\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}=0.001$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} (see Sect. \[sec-intro\] or @hosokawa2013). The results obtained with the method of Sect. \[sec-method\] are shown in Fig. \[fig-ud\]. The top panel shows the internal structure of the star from the non-rotating models of [@haemmerle2018a]. In order to avoid transitions between convective and radiative transfer in the early phase, which reflect the arbitrary choice of the initial model, we assumed that the initial 10 [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{} seed remains fully convective. After the fully convective phase, we are left with a simple structure made of a convective core, a convective envelope, and a radiative region in between. There are two convective cores that originate from two different causes. The first core ($M<4000$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}) reflects the choice of the structure of the initial seed that contracts. This feature is present in the models of [@haemmerle2018a], but is simplified here. The second core is driven by H-burning, which starts at $M\simeq4000$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}. The evolution stops at $\sim2\times10^5$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}, when the star reaches the GR instability. The Eddington factor is shown in the second panel. After convergence at the Hayashi limit, it almost follows a power law in $M$, with values 0.9 – 0.99 for $M>10^4$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}.
The third panel of Fig. \[fig-ud\] shows the constraint we imposed on the surface velocity, that is, the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} given by Eq. (\[eq-omgam\]). The angular velocities of the core and the envelope resulting from this constraint are shown in the fourth panel. The initial model being fully convective, both velocities are initially identical, about $\Omega\simeq10^{-6}$ s$^{-1}$. When the radiative region forms ($M\simeq20$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}), the curves start to diverge. The photosphere moves to the Hayashi limit at $M\simeq30$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}, and the surface velocity drops to $10^{-7}-10^{-8}$ s$^{-1}$ as a consequence of the increase in radius. At the same time, the contraction of the convective core causes it to spin up to $10^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. H-burning starts at this point, which stops the contraction. The slow expansion of the H-burning layers translates into a slow decrease in the angular velocity of the core, towards $10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$. At that point, the envelope still only rotates at $\Omega\simeq10^{-8}-10^{-9}$ s$^{-1}$ , so that the rotation frequency in the core is four orders of magnitude higher than the frequency in the envelope. This is in agreement with the rotating model of [@haemmerle2018b]. This surface velocity is so low that the rotation period is of the order of a century. Because the lifetime of the star is about $10^5{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}}/{\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}=10^5$ yr, the surface only accomplishes some thousands of rotations during the entire stellar life.
The rate [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} of increase in the angular momentum content of the star is shown in the fifth panel of Fig. \[fig-ud\] as the blue line. We compare it with the angular momentum accretion rate [$\dot J_{\rm acc}$]{}, assumed Keplerian (Eq. \[eq-jac\]), shown as the grey line. We deduce the required angular momentum loss [$\dot J_{\rm ext}$]{} with Eq. (\[eq-jdif\]), and plot it as the red dashed line. By comparing the curves, we see that the stellar angular momentum can only increase by a few percent or less of the Keplerian angular momentum, in agreement with [@haemmerle2018b]. Thus most of the accreted angular momentum must be removed by the magnetic field, and the curve of [$\dot J_{\rm ext}$]{} nearly matches that of [$\dot J_{\rm acc}$]{}. Through the expansion of the stellar envelope, the Keplerian angular momentum grows much faster with time than that of the star, and thus a larger portion of the accreted angular momentum must be removed as the star grows in mass.
Magnetic coupling {#sec-mag2}
-----------------
We estimated the Alfvén radius and the magnetic field at the stellar surface according to the method described in Sect. \[sec-mag1\] (Eq. \[eq-eta\] – \[eq-jmag\]). The two quantities are plotted in Fig. \[fig-ud\].
The Alfvén radius (upper panel, red dashed line) evolves with the photospheric radius, keeping $r_A\sim100\,R$, that is, $r_A\sim10^6\ {{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\odot}}}}\simeq5000$ AU. This can be understood with the results of Sect. \[sec-star2\]: the magnetic field must remove essentially all the Keplerian angular momentum, meaning that ${\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm ext}}}\simeq{\ensuremath{\dot J_K}}$. This implies that (Eq. \[eq-jac\] and \[eq-jmag\]) $${2\over3}{\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}r_A^2\Omega_*={\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}\sqrt{GMR}.$$ Using Eq. (\[eq-omgam\]), we can express $r_A$ as a function of the Eddington factor: $$\left({r_A\over R}\right)^2={1\over1-\Gamma}{{\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}\over{\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}}.$$ With ${\ensuremath{\dot M_+}}=1$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{}, ${\ensuremath{\dot M_-}}=0.001$ [[[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}[yr]{}[$^{-1}$]{}]{} (Sect. \[sec-star1\]), and $\Gamma=0.9-0.99$ (Fig. \[fig-ud\], second panel), we obtain $$\left({r_A\over R}\right)^2\sim10^4-10^5 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad r_A\sim100-300\,R,$$ in agreement with Fig. \[fig-ud\].
The magnetic field required at the stellar surface is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig-ud\]. During most of the evolution, the field must be $B_*\sim10^4$ G. Stronger fields are required during the early phase (by about an order of magnitude), but this reflects the choice of the initial model and its convergence towards the Hayashi limit. This phase is extremely short (about a century), and the stellar mass remains $<100$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}. Here we focus on the supermassive range. For $\sim10^5$ [[$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$]{}]{}, the required magnetic field starts to increase, but it remains weaker than $\sim3\times10^4$ G until the final collapse to the black hole.
Discussion {#sec-discuss}
==========
Angular momentum problem
------------------------
The model of this study was assumed to rotate at the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{} at each step of its evolution and therefore corresponds to maximum rotation. This is in contrast with the model previously published [@haemmerle2018b], which accreted at a constant fraction of 1% of the Keplerian angular momentum. This allows us to quantify more precisely the constraints on the angular momentum accretion rate given by the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}. The fourth panel of Fig. \[fig-ud\] shows that the star can never accrete at the Keplerian limit. In the early phase, the limit on [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} is about 30% of the Keplerian angular momentum, but when the surface has converged to the Hayashi limit, the angular momentum cannot grow at more than 10% of the Keplerian angular momentum. For the rest of the evolution, [$\dot J_{\rm eff}$]{} is locked on a nearly constant value by the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}, while the Keplerian angular momentum increases. In the supermassive range, we need ${\ensuremath{\dot J_{\rm eff}}}<1\%$ [$\dot J_K$]{}, in agreement with [@haemmerle2018b].
The accretion disc might be sub-Keplerian, for instance in the presence of a pressure support. In this case, the excess of angular momentum to be removed would be smaller than in the present case, and thus weaker fields would be sufficient. Our assumption of Keplerian accretion is the most conservative assumption.
The angular momentum problem is general to star formation [@spitzer1978; @bodenheimer1995]. While magnetic coupling with disc and winds provides a solution for low-mass stars, additional mechanisms for extracting angular momentum, such as gravitational torques or viscosity, are required for massive stars. All these mechanisms could play a role in the formation of SMSs [@hosokawa2016; @takahashi2017; @pandey2019]. The mechanism addressed here can only maintain the star under the [[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}. Additional mechanisms are required to allow for accretion through a Keplerian disc. Gravitational torques or viscosity are promising candidates because their efficiency increases with mass density: if at a given stage an excess of angular momentum prevents accretion, mass will accumulate in the disc until these processes are efficient enough for accretion to restart, in a dynamical time. This implies fragmentation in the disc and episodic accretion [@sakurai2015; @sakurai2016a]. We note that the mechanism studied here does not rely on the accretion process and is not affected by accretion variability.
Magnetic field
--------------
The results of Sect. \[sec-mag2\] show that a magnetic field of $\sim10$ kG is required at the surface of the SMS. This value is at the upper end of the observed range of stellar magnetic fields. Magnetic fields of some kiloGauss are observed on $\sigma$ Ori E [@townsend2005], HR 7355 [@rivinius2010], or HR 5907 [@grunhut2012a]. For the last star in particular, the inferred magnetic field is 10 – 15 kG.
The magnetic properties of SMSs are not known. We can estimate the surface magnetic field with the prescriptions derived from red giants. The magnetic field is related to the Rossby number, which is defined as the ratio of the rotation period of the stellar envelope to the turnover time: $${{\ensuremath{{\rm Ro}}}}:={\tau_{\rm rot}\over\tau_{\rm tov}}.$$ The relation is [@vidotto2014; @auriere2015; @privitera2016b] $$\log B_*=-0.85\log{{\ensuremath{{\rm Ro}}}}+0.51,$$ where $B_*$ is in Gauss. For $\Omega_*\sim10^{-8}$ s$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[fig-ud\]), the rotation period is about 10 – 100 yr. The turnover time can be estimated with the formula [@rasio1996] $$\tau_{\rm tov}^3={M_{\rm env}R_{\rm env}(R-R_{\rm env})\over3L},$$ where $M_{\rm env}$ is the mass of the convective envelope, $R_{\rm env}$ is the radius at the base of the convective envelope, and $L$ is the luminosity of the star. For our models, this gives a turnover time of about a year. Thus the Rossby number is ${{\ensuremath{{\rm Ro}}}}\sim10-100$ and the magnetic field is weaker than one Gauss (0.1 – 1 G). This is four orders of magnitude lower than the required values. It shows that a convective dynamo cannot drive the required magnetic fields.
Highly magnetised stars such as $\sigma$ Ori E or HR 5907 do not have an extended convective envelope, and their magnetic field is thought to originate from fossil fields. Observations of intergalactic magnetic fields, which are thought to have primordial origins, indicate a lower limit of $\sim10^{-16}$ G on megaparsec scales [@neronov2010]. By flux conservation [@mouschovias1979], the resulting field at the stellar surface ($\sim10^4$ [[$\mathrm{R}_{\odot}$]{}]{}, Fig. \[fig-ud\]) can be estimated by $$B_*\gtrsim10^{-16}\rm\,G\,\left({1\,Mpc\over10^4\,{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{R}_{\odot}}}}}\right)^2\simeq2\,kG.$$ Taken as a lower limit, this indicates that fossil fields from a primordial origin could easily reach the required 10 kG.
Summary and conclusions {#sec-out}
=======================
We have numerically derived the properties of Pop III SMSs at maximum rotation ([[$\Omega\Gamma$]{}-limit]{}) that accrete at the rates of atomically cooled haloes. We also analytically estimated the magnetic coupling with the winds that is required for the star to rotate at such velocities while accreting from a Keplerian disc.
The derived stellar properties are consistent with those derived in previous studies and refine the constraints on the angular momentum accretion rate. We confirmed that the angular momentum of accreting SMSs cannot grow by more than $\sim1\%$ of the angular momentum from a Keplerian disc during most of their accretion phase. This in turn confirms that SMS formation by accretion requires mechanisms that are efficient enough to remove more than 99% of the Keplerian angular momentum.
We found that magnetic coupling between the stellar envelope and its mechanical winds is efficient enough to remove this angular momentum excess when the magnetic field at the stellar surface is of the order of 10 kG. This value corresponds to the upper end of the observed range of stellar magnetic fields and is consistent with fossil fields from a primordial origin. For a sub-Keplerian accretion disc, weaker fields would be sufficient. We obtained that the coupling holds up to a radial distance (Alfvén radius) of about 100 times the photospheric radius, that is, $\sim5000$ AU.
We emphasize that this mechanism can only remove the angular momentum from the gas as it is accreted by the star. Thus it cannot account for the angular momentum losses that are required for the gas to spiral in the Keplerian disc. Additional mechanisms are necessary for this, such as viscosity [@takahashi2017], gravitational torques [@hosokawa2016], or large-scale magnetic fields [@pandey2019]. The results of our study show that a magnetic field at the upper end of the observed stellar magnetic fields, consistent with a primordial origin, is able to remove the angular momentum excess that is accreted by the star, even if the disc remains Keplerian up to the stellar surface.
This work was sponsored by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project number 200020-172505).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $\nu$ be a valuation of arbitrary rank on the polynomial ring $\kx$ with coefficients in a field $K$. We prove comparison theorems between MacLane-Vaquié key polynomials for valuations $\mu\le\nu$ and abstract key polynomials for $\nu$. Also, some results on invariants attached to limit key polynomials are obtained. In particular, if $\chr(K)=0$ we show that all limit key polynomials of unbounded continuous MacLane chains have numerical character equal to one.'
address:
- 'Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal 647, Barcelona 0828, Catalonia, Spain'
- 'Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Dept Math, POB 653, IL-84105 Beer Sheva, Israel'
- 'Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada IV, Escola Politècnica Superior d’Enginyeria de Vilanova i la Geltrú, Av. Víctor Balaguer s/n. E-08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Catalonia, Spain'
- 'Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici C, E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain'
author:
- 'Maria Alberich-Carrami$\tilde{\mbox{n}}$ana'
- 'Alberto F. Boix'
- Julio Fernández
- Jordi Guàrdia
- Enric Nart
- Joaquim Roé
title: Invariants of limit key polynomials
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Consider a valuation $\nu$ on the polynomial ring $\kx$, with coefficients in a field $K$. Let $\gn$ be its value group. The graded algebra of $\nu$ is the integral domain $$\gr_{\nu}(\kx)=\bigoplus\nolimits_{\alpha\in\g_\nu}\ppa/\ppa^+,$$ where $\ppa=\{g\in \kx\mid \nu(g)\ge \alpha\}\supset\ppa^+=\{g\in \kx\mid \nu(g)> \alpha\}$.
A *MacLane-Vaquié (MLV) key polynomial* for $\nu$ is a monic polynomial $\phi\in\kx$ whose initial term generates a prime ideal in the graded algebra $\gr_{\nu}(\kx)$, which cannot be generated by the initial term of a polynomial of smaller degree.
The *degree* of $\nu$ is the minimal degree of a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$.
By a celebrated result of MacLane and Vaquié, $\nu$ is the stable limit of a sequence of augmentations of valuations on $\kx$ $$\label{mu<}
\mu_0<\mu_1<\cdots<\mu_i<\cdots <\nu$$ where $\mu_0$ is a valuation of degree one [@mcla; @Vaq; @MLV].
Let $\kpcal_0=\{\phi_0\}$, where $\phi_0\in\kp(\mu_0)$ is any MLV key polynomial of degree one.
These augmentations of valuations can be either *ordinary* or *limit* augmentations. In both cases, certain MLV key polynomials of the intermediate valuations $\mu_i<\nu$ are involved.
If $\mu_{i-1}<\mu_i$ is an ordinary augmentation, there exists $\phi_i\in\op{KP}(\mu_{i-1})$ such that $\mu_i$ is equal to the truncated valuation $\nu_{\phi_i}$. That is, in terms of $\phi_i$-expansions of polynomials $f\in\kx$, $\mu_i$ acts as follows$$f=\sum\nolimits_{0\le s}a_s \phi_i^s,\quad \deg(a_s)<\deg(\phi_i)\ \imp\ \mu_i(f)=\min\left\{\nu\left(a_s\phi_i^s\right)\mid 0\le s\right\}.$$ To any such ordinary augmentation step we attach the set $$\kpcal_i=\left\{\phi_i\right\}.$$
If $\mu_{i-1}<\mu_i$ is a limit augmentation, there exists a countably infinite chain of ordinary augmentations of constant degree $$\label{rho<}
\mu_{i-1}=\rho_0\ < \rho_1\ < \ \cdots \ < \ \rho_i\ < \ \cdots \ <\mu_i,\qquad\qquad \deg(\rho_i)=m,\quad \forall\,i\ge1,$$ admitting non-stable polynomials, all of them of degree larger than $m$.
A polynomial $f\in\kx$ is *stable* with respect to the chain if there exists an index $i_0$ such that $\rho_i(f)=\rho_j(f)$ for all $j>i\ge i_0$. In this case, we define this stable value by $\rhi(f)$.
In such a chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ of valuations, the value group is constant except eventually for the valuation $\rho_0$. Let us denote this group by $$\gi=\g_{\rho_1}=\g_{\rho_2}=\;\cdots\;=\g_{\rho_i}=\;\cdots$$
The set $\kpi(\mu_i)$ of *MLV limit key polynomials* for $\mu_i$ is defined as the set of monic non-stable polynomials of minimal degree. For any $\phi_i\in\kpi(\mu_i)$ we have again $\mu_i=\nu_{\phi_i}$.
To any such limit augmentation step, we attach the totally ordered set $$\kpcal_i=\left\{\chi_1,\dots,\chi_i,\dots\right\}+\left\{\phi_i\right\},$$ where $\chi_i\in\kp(\rho_{i-1})$ is a MLV key polynomial such that $\rho_i=\nu_{\chi_i}$, and we consider the usual sum ot totally ordered sets.
The main result of MacLane-Vaquié states that $\nu$ falls in one, and only one, of the following cases [@MLV Thm.4.8].
\(1) After a finite number $r$ of augmentation steps, we get $\mu_r=\nu$.
\(2) After a finite number $r$ of augmentation steps, $\nu$ is the stable limit $\nu=\rhi$, of some countably infinite chain of ordinary augmentations of $\mu_r$ as in (\[rho<\]) (with $r=i-1$), with the property that all polynomials in $\kx$ are stable.
\(3) It is the stable limit, $\nu=\lim_{i\to\infty}\mu_i$, of a countably infinite chain of mixed augmentations as in (\[mu<\]), with unbounded degree.
We say that $\mu$ has *finite depth* $r$, *quasi-finite* depth $r$, or *infinite depth*, respectively.
The valuations of finite depth are characterized by the condition [@MLV Lem.-Def.4.9] $$\kpn\ne\emptyset\qquad \mbox{or} \qquad\supp(\nu)\ne0.$$
If $\nu$ has quasi-finite depth, consider the totally ordered set $$\kpcal_{\infty}=\left\{\chi_1,\dots,\chi_i,\dots\right\},$$ where $\chi_i\in\kp(\rho_{i-1})$ is a MLV key polynomial such that $\rho_i=\nu_{\chi_i}$, for all $i\ge 1$.
Then, the well-ordered set of polynomials:-0.1cm
$$\kpcal=\begin{cases}
\kpcal_0+\cdots+\kpcal_r,&\mbox{ if $\nu$ has finite depth }r,\\
\kpcal_0+\cdots+\kpcal_r+\kpcal_{\infty},&\mbox{ if $\nu$ has quasi-finite depth }r,\\
\kpcal_0+\cdots+\kpcal_i+\cdots,&\mbox{ if $\nu$ has infinite depth},
\end{cases}$$0.1cm
is a *complete system of key polynomials* for $\nu$, as defined by F.J. Herrera Govantes, W. Mahboub, M.A. Olalla Acosta and M. Spivakovsky in [@hmos]. That is, for any $f\in\kx$ there exists $Q\in\kpcal$ such that $\nu(f)=\nu_Q(f)$. As a consequence, for any $\al\in\gn$, the set of polynomials $$\kpcal_\al=\left\{a\,Q_1^{n_1}\cdots Q_\ell^{n_\ell}\mid a\in K^*,\ Q_1,\dots,Q_\ell\in\kpcal,\ n_1,\dots,n_\ell\in{\mathbb N}\right\}\cap \pset_\al$$ is a set of generators of $\pset_\al$ as an additive group.
This property is the motivation for Spivakovsky’s strategy to attack the problem of local uniformization [@NS2016; @SS].
Certain *abstract* key polynomials were introduced by J. Decaup, W. Mahboub and M. Spivakovsky as an intrinsic characterization of the polynomials in $\kpcal$ [@Dec]. This idea was developed by Novacoski and Spivakovsky in [@NS2018; @NS2019], where they proved some further properties of key polynomials.
In this paper, we have a double aim. On one hand, in section \[secAKP\], we review some of these results aiming at a determination of which MLV key polynomials of the intermediate valuations $\mu_i$ are abstract key polynomials for $\nu$. We complete in this way some partial results from [@Dec Sec.3].
In section \[secLKP\] we obtain similar results for limit key polynomials. An abstract limit key polynomial is an element in the well-ordered set $\kpcal$ which does not admit an immediate predecessor. Novacoski and Spivakovsky found an intrinsic characterization of these polynomials in [@NS2018]. We prove that they coincide with the MLV key polynomials of the intermediate valuations $\mu_i$ which are a limit augmentation of the immediate predecessor $\mu_{i-1}$ in (\[mu<\]).
On the other hand, in section \[secInvLKP\], we obtain some results on invariants attached to limit key polyomials. Our main result in this section is Theorem \[ubthm\], where we prove an identity between some of these invariants: $$\label{tibi}
\ti(\phi)\,\bi=\ml(\phi),$$ where $\phi$ is a limit key polynomial of any limit augmentation $\mu_{i-1}<\mu_i$ such that the sequence of values $\nu(\rho_i)$ is unbounded in $\gi$.
The invariant $\ml(\phi)$ is the least positive integer $b$ such that $\pb{\phi}\ne0$, where $$\partial_b=\dfrac1{b!}\,\dfrac{\partial^b}{\partial x^b}$$ is the $b$-th formal derivative, which makes sense in any characteristic.
For any $i\ge1$, consider the $\chi_i$-expansion $\phi=\sum_{0\le s}a_{s,i}\chi_i^s$, and let $t_i(\phi)$ be the maximal index $s$ such that $\rho_i(\phi)=\rho_i\left(a_{s,i}\chi_i^s\right)$. This positive integer $t_i(\phi)$ stabilizes for $i$ sufficiently large [@Vaq2004 Sec.3], [@hmos Sec.4]. We denote by $\ti(\phi)$ this stable index, which is known as the *numerical character* of $\phi$.
Finally, for any $i\ge1$, let $b_i$ be the largest positive integer such that $(\nu(\chi_i)-\nu(\prt{b_i}{\chi_i})/b_i$ takes a maximal value in $\gn\otimes{\mathbb Q}$. It is shown in [@hmos Sec.7] that $b_i$ stabilizes for $i$ sufficiently large, and $\bi$ is this stable value.
As a consequence of (\[tibi\]), if $\chr(K)=0$, then $\ti(\phi)=\bi=1$, because $\ml(\phi)=1$.
Preliminaries
=============
Valuations on a polynomial ring {#subsecValsKx}
-------------------------------
Consider a valued field $(K,v)$. Let $k$ be the residue class field and $\g=v(K^*)$ the value group. Denote the divisible hull of $\g$ by $$\gq=\g\otimes{\mathbb Q}.$$
Consider an extension $\nu$ of $v$ to the polynomial ring $\kx$ in one indeterminate. That is, for some embedding $\g\hookrightarrow\La$ into another ordered abelian group, we consider a mapping $$\nu\colon \kx\lra \La\infty$$ whose restriction to $K$ is $v$, and satisfies the following two conditions:
\(1) $\nu(fg)=\nu(f)+\nu(g)$,$\forall\,f,g\in\kx$.
\(2) $\nu(f+g)\ge\min\{\nu(f),\nu(g)\}$,$\forall\,f,g\in\kx$.
The *support* of $\nu$ is the prime ideal $$\p=\nu^{-1}(\infty)\in\sp(\kx).$$
The value group of $\nu$ is the subgroup $\gn\subset \La$ generated by $\nu\left(\kx\setminus\p\right)$.
The valuation $\nu$ induces a valuation on the residue field $\ka(\p)$, field of fractions of $\kx/\p$. Let $k_{\nu}$ be the residue class field of this valuation on $\ka(\p)$.
Clearly, $\ka(0)=K(x)$, while for $\p\ne0$ the field $\ka(\p)$ is a simple finite extension of $K$. The extension $\nu/v$ is *commensurable* if $\g_\nu/\g$ is a torsion group. In this case, there is a canonical embedding $\ \g_\nu{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}\gq$. All valuations with non-trivial support are commensurable over $v$.
We denote the graded algebra of $\nu$ defined in the Introduction by $$\ggn=\gr_{\nu}(\kx).$$ If $\nu$ has non-trivial support $\p\ne0$, there is a natural isomorphism of graded algebras $$\label{isomL}
\ggn\simeq \op{gr}_{\bar{\nu}}(\ka(\p)),$$ where $\bar{\nu}$ is the valuation on $\ka(\p)$ induced by $\nu$.
In particular, every non-zero homogeneous element of $\ggn$ is a unit, if $\p\ne0$.
Consider the *initial term* mapping $\inn\colon \kx\to \ggn$, given by $\inn0=0$ and $$\inn g= g+\pset_{\nu(g)}^+\in\pset_{\nu(g)}/\pset_{\nu(g)}^+,$$ if $g\ne0$. The following definitions translate properties of the action of $\nu$ on $\kx$ into algebraic relationships in the graded algebra $\ggn$.
Let $g,\,h\in \kx$.
We say that $g,h$ are *$\nu$-equivalent*, and we write $g\snu h$, if $\ \inn g=\inn h$.
We say that $g$ is *$\nu$-divisible* by $h$, and we write $h\mmu g$, if $\ \inn h\mid \inn g$ in $\ggn$.
MacLane-Vaquié key polynomials {#subsecMLVKP}
------------------------------
Consider a valuation $\nu$ on $\kx$, extending $v$.
A polynomial $g\in\kx$ is *$\nu$-irreducible* if $(\inn g)\ggn$ is a non-zero prime ideal.
We say that $g$ is *$\nu$-minimal* if $g\nmid_\nu f$ for all non-zero $f\in \kx$ with $\deg(f)<\deg(g)$.
The property of $\nu$-minimality admits a relevant characterization.
[@KP Prop.2.3]\[minimal0\] Let $g\in \kx$ be a non-constant polynomial. Let $$f=\sum\nolimits_{0\le s}a_sg^s, \qquad a_s\in \kx,\quad \deg(a_s)<\deg(g)$$ be the canonical $g$-expansion of $f\in \kx$.Then, $g$ is $\nu$-minimal if and only if $$\nu(f)=\min\{\nu(a_sg^s)\mid 0\le s\},\quad \forall\,f\in \kx.$$
A *MacLane-Vaquié (MLV) key polynomial* for $\nu$ is a monic polynomial in $\kx$ which is simultaneously $\nu$-minimal and $\nu$-irreducible.
The set of MLV key polynomials for $\nu$ will be denoted $\kpn$.
By the isomorphism of (\[isomL\]), only valuations with trivial support may have MLV key polynomials.
A MLV key polynomial is necessarily irreducible in $\kx$.
For any $\phi\in\kpn$, we denote by $\cl{\phi}\subset \kpn$ the subset of all MLV key polynomials which are $\nu$-equivalent to $\phi$.
\[rele\] If $\kpn\ne\emptyset$, the *degree* $\deg(\nu)$ is the minimal degree of a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$. The following subset of $\gn$ is a subgroup: $$\g_{\nu,\deg(\nu)}=\left\{\nu(a)\mid 0\le \deg(a)<\deg(\nu)\right\}.$$ The index $\ \erel(\nu)=\left(\gn\colon \g_{\nu,\deg(\nu)}\right)$ is the *relative ramification index* of $\nu$.
Consider the subring of homogeneous elements of degree zero $$\Delta=\Delta_\nu=\pset_0/\pset_0^+\subset\ggn.$$ There are canonical injective ring homomorphisms: $$k{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}\Delta{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}k_{\nu}.$$.1cm
We denote the algebraic closure of $k$ in $\Delta$ by $$\kappa=\kappa(\nu)\subset\Delta.$$ This is a subfield such that $\kappa^*=\Delta^*$, the multiplicative group of the units of $\Delta$.
[@KP Thm.4.4]\[empty\] The set $\kpn$ is empty if and only if all homogeneus elements in $\ggn$ are units. Equivalently, $\nu/v$ is commensurable and $\ka=\dm=\km$ is an algebraic extension of $k$.
[@KP Thm.4.2]\[incomm\] Suppose $\nu/v$ incommensurable. Let $\phi\in\kx$ be a monic polynomial of minimal degree satisfying $\nu(\phi)\not\in\gq$. Then, $\phi$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$, and $\kpn=\cl{\phi}$. In this case, $\ka=\dm=\km$ is a finite extension of $k$.
[@KP Thms.4.5,4.6]\[comm\] Suppose that $\nu/v$ is commensurable and $\kpn\ne\emptyset$. Let $\phi$ be a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$ of minimal degree $m$.
Let $e=\erel(\nu)$. Let $a\in\kx$ be a polynomial of degree less than $m$ with $\nu(a)=e\nu(\phi)$, and let $u=\inn a\in\ggn^*$. Then, $$\xi=(\inn \phi)^eu^{-1}\in\Delta$$ is transcendental over $k$ and satisfies $\Delta=\kappa[\xi]$.
Moreover, the canonical embedding $\Delta\hookrightarrow \km$ induces an isomorphism $\ka(\xi)\simeq \km$.
These comensurable extensions $\nu/v$ admitting MLV key polynomials are called *residually transcendental* valuations on $\kx$.
The pair $\phi,\, u$ determines a (non-canonical) *residual polynomial operator* $$R=R_{\nu,\phi,u}\colon\;\kx\lra \kappa[y],$$ whose images are monic polynomials in the indeterminate $y$, which are not divisible by $y$ [@KP Sec.5]. This operator facilitates a complete description of the set $\kpn$.
[@KP Prop.6.3]\[charKP\] Suppose that $\nu/v$ is commensurable and $\kpn\ne\emptyset$. Let $\phi$ be a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$ of minimal degree $m$. A monic $\chi\in\kx$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$ if and only if either
1. $\deg(\chi)=m$ and $\chi\snu\phi$, or
2. $\deg(\chi)=me\deg(R(\chi))$ and $R(\chi)$ is irreducible in $\kappa[y]$.
Moreover, $\chi,\,\chi'\in\kpn$ are $\nu$-equivalent if and only if $R(\chi)=R(\chi')$. In this case, $\deg(\chi)=\deg(\chi')$.
The set $\kpn/\!\sim_\nu$ is in canonical bijection with the maximal spectrum of $\Delta$ [@KP Thm.6.7].
Since the choice of a pair $\phi,u$ as above determines an isomorphism $\Delta\simeq \ka[y]$, it induces a (non-canonical) bijection between $\kpn/\!\sim_\nu$ and the set of monic irreducible polynomials in $\ka[y]$.
Chains of valuations {#subsecChains}
--------------------
For any valuation $\mu$ on $\kx$ taking values in a subgroup of $\gn$, we say that $$\mu\le\nu\quad\mbox{ if }\quad\mu(f)\le\nu(f),\qquad \forall\,f\in\kx.$$
Suppose that $\mu<\nu$. Let $\phmn$ be the set of all monic polynomials $\phi\in\kx$ of minimal degree among those satisfying $\mu(\phi)<\nu(\phi)$.
By a well known result of MacLane-Vaquié [@Vaq Lem.1.15], any $\phi\in\phmn$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\mu$ and satisfies $$\mu(f)=\nu(f)\sii \phi\nmid_\mu f,\qquad \forall\,f\in\kx.$$
Actually, $\phmn$ is an element in $\kpm/\!\smu$. That is, $\phmn=[\phi]_\mu$, for all $\phi\in\phmn$ [@MLV Cor.2.6]. We define $$\deg\left(\phmn\right)=\deg(\phi)\quad \mbox{ for any }\quad \phi\in\phmn.$$
If we have a chain $\mu<\eta<\nu$ of valuations, we have $\phmn=\Phi_{\mu,\eta}$ [@MLV Cor.2.6]. In particular, $$\label{transitive}
\mu(f)=\nu(f)\sii \mu(f)=\eta(f),\qquad \forall\,f\in\kx.$$
Abstract key polynomials {#secAKP}
========================
Consider a valuation $\nu$ on $\kx$.
Abstract key polynomials for $\nu$ were introduced by J. Decaup, W. Mahboub and M. Spivakovsky in [@Dec] as an intrinsic characterization of the members of a *complete system of key polynomials* defined by F.J. Herrera Govantes, W. Mahboub, M.A. Olalla Acosta and M. Spivakovsky in [@hmos]. In this section, we review some of these results. Our aim is to find exactly what MLV key polynomials of the intermediate valuations $\mu_i$ are abstract key polynomials for $\nu$, completing in this way some partial results from [@Dec Sec.3].
Invariants of polynomials with respect to the valuation $\nu$
-------------------------------------------------------------
We denote by ${\mathbb N}$ the set of positive integers. For any $b\in {\mathbb N}$, consider the linear differential operator $\partial_b$ on $\kx$, defined by Taylor’s formula: $$f(x+y)=\sum_{0\le b}\pb fy^b, \quad\ \forall\,f\in\kx,$$ where $y$ is another indeterminate. Note that$$\pb{x^n}=\comb{n}{b}x^{n-b},\quad\ \forall\, n\in{\mathbb N},$$ if we agree that $\comb{n}{b}=0$ whenever $n<b$.
Let $f\in\kx$ be a polynomial of positive degree. Denote $$\ml(f)=\mbox{least $b\in{\mathbb N}$ such that }\prt{b}f\ne0.$$
Clearly, $\ml(f)=1$ if $\chr(K)=0$. If $\chr(K)=p$, then $\ml(f)=p^r$ is the largest power of $p$ such that $f$ belongs to $K[x^{p^r}]$.
This integer $\ml(f)$ is an intrinsic datum of $f$. We are interested in some data that may be attached to $f$ in terms of the valuation $\nu$.
Let $f\in\kx\setminus K$ such that $\nu(f)<\infty$. We define $$\ep(f)=\max\left\{\dfrac{\nu(f)-\nu(\pb{f})}b\ \Big|\ b\in{\mathbb N}\right\}\in\left(\gn\right)_{\mathbb Q}.$$ If $\nu(f)=\infty$, we define $\ep(f)=\infty$.
In particular, if $\nu(f)<\infty$ we have $$\label{epsdef}
\nu(\pb{f})\ge\nu(f)-b\,\ep(f),\quad\ \forall\, b\ge0,$$ and we define $I(f)\subset {\mathbb N}$ to be the set of positive integers for which equality holds. If $\nu(f)=\infty$ and $f$ is irreducible, we agree that $I(f)=\{\ml(f)\}$. Otherwise, the set $I(f)$ is not defined.
[**Examples.** ]{}
- If $\deg(f)=1$, then $\ep(f)=\nu(f)$ and $I(f)=\{1\}$.
- If $a\in K^*$, then $\ep(af)=\ep(f)$ and $I(af)=I(f)$.
- If $f$ is monic and $b=\deg(f)$, then $\pb{f}=1$. Hence, $\nu(f)/\deg(f)\le\ep(f)$.
- If $b\not\in[\ml(f),\deg(f)]$, then $\pb{f}=0$. Hence, $I(f)\subset[\ml(f),\deg(f)]$.
- For $a\in K$ and $f=(x-a)^n$, we have $\ep(f)=\nu(x-a)$ and $$\begin{array}{ll}
I(f)=[1,n]\cap{\mathbb N},&\quad\mbox{if }\ \chr(k)=0,\\ I(f)=\left\{b\in [1,n]\cap{\mathbb N}\ \Big|\ p\nmid \comb{n}{b}\right\},&\quad\mbox{if }\ \chr(k)=p.
\end{array}$$
Novacoski and Spivakovski found an interesting interpretation of $\ep(f)$ in [@NS2019].
\[r=maxI\] Let $f\in \kx$ be a monic polynomial such that $\nu(f)<\infty$. Let $\op{Z}(f)\subset\overline{K}$ be the multiset of roots of $f$ in an algebraic closure of $K$.
For any extension $\bar{\nu}$ of $\nu$ to $\overline{K}[x]$, we have $$\label{ep=max}
\ep(f)=\max\{\bar{\nu}(x-\t)\mid \t\in \op{Z}(f)\}.$$
Moreover, the multiplicity of $\ep(f)$ in the multiset $\{\bar{\nu}(x-\t)\mid \t\in \op{Z}(f)\}$ is equal to $\max(I(f))$.
The equality (\[ep=max\]) is proved in [@NS2019 Prop.3.1]. We reproduce the proof because we need it to prove the second statement.
Let $\op{Z}(f)=\{\t_1,\dots,\t_n\}$, $\delta=\max\{\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)\mid 1\le i\le n\}$. Let $r$ be the multiplicity of $\delta$ in this multiset. For any integer $1\le s\le n$, we have $$\prt{s}{f}=\sum_{J}\left(\prod_{i\not\in J}(x-\t_i)\right)\ \imp\ \bar{\nu}\left(\prt{s}{f}\right)\ge\min_J\left\{\sum_{i\not\in J}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)\right\},$$where $J$ runs on all subsets of $[1,n]\cap{\mathbb N}$ of cardinality $s$.
For $s=r$, the set $J_0=\{i\in [1,n]\cap{\mathbb N}\mid \bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)=\delta\}$ is the unique subset of cardinality $r$ for which the term $\sum_{i\not\in J_0}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)$ takes the minimal value. Hence, $$\nu(\prt{r}{f})=\sum_{i\not\in J_0}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i).$$ This implies $$\nu(f)-\nu(\prt{r}{f})=\sum_{i\in J_0}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)=r\delta.$$
For any $s\ne r$, let $J$ be one of the subsets of cardinality $s$ for which $\sum_{i\not\in J}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)$ takes the minimal value. Then, $$\label{ineq}
\nu(f)-\nu(\prt{r}{f})\le\sum_{i\in J}\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)\le s\delta.$$ This proves that $\ep(f)=\delta$ and $r$ belongs to $I(f)$.
Now, if $s>r$, there is at least one index $i\in J$ for which $\bar{\nu}(x-\t_i)<\delta$. Hence, we get an strict inequality in (\[ineq\]). This proves that $s\not\in I(f)$.
\[maxepfg\] For any two $f,g\in\kx\setminus K$, we have $$\label{epfg}
\ep(fg)=\max\{\ep(f),\,\ep(g)\}.$$ Moreover, if $\ep(f)<\ep(g)<\infty$, then $I(fg)=I(g)$.
The equality (\[epfg\]) follows immediately from Proposition \[r=maxI\].
Suppose $\ep(f)<\ep(g)$, and denote $\ep=\ep(g)=\ep(fg)$. For any $b\in {\mathbb N}$, $$\pb{fg}=\sum_{j=0}^b\prt{j}{f}\prt{b-j}{g}\imp\nu\left(\pb{fg}\right)\ge\min\{\nu(\prt{j}{f})+\nu(\prt{b-j}{g})\mid 0\le j\le b\}.$$
For any index $j>0$ the inequality (\[epsdef\]) shows that $$\nu(\prt{j}{f})+\nu(\prt{b-j}{g})\ge \nu(f)-j\ep(f)+\nu(g)+(b-j)\ep>\nu(fg)-b\,\ep.$$ For the index $j=0$, $$\nu(f)+\nu(\prt{b}{g})\ge \nu(f)+\nu(g)-b\,\ep=\nu(fg)-b\,\ep,$$ and equality holds if and only if $b\in I(g)$. This proves that $I(fg)=I(g)$.
If $\supp(\nu)=f\kx$, then Proposition \[r=maxI\] still holds for $f$. In fact, there must be a root $\t\in\op{Z}(f)$ such that $\bar{\nu}(x-\t)=\infty$. Then, necessarily $\supp(\bar{\nu})=(x-\t)\overline{K}[x]$. Hence, the multiplicity of $\infty$ in the multiset $\{\bar{\nu}(x-\t)\mid \t\in \op{Z}(f)\}$ is equal to the multiplicity of $\t$ in the multiset $\op{Z}(f)$, which coincides with $\ml(f)$ because $f$ is irreducible.
Abstract key polynomials. Basic properties
------------------------------------------
Following the criterion of [@NS2018], we drop the adjective “abstract" and talk simply of key polynomials for the valuation $\nu$.
A monic $Q\in\kx$ is a *key polynomial for $\nu$* if for all $f\in\kx$, it satisfies $$0<\deg(f)<\deg(Q)\ \imp\ \ep(f)<\ep(Q).$$
[**Examples**]{}
- All monic polynomials of degree one are key polynomials for $\nu$.
- If $\op{supp}(\nu)=\phi\kx$ for a monic $\phi\in\kx$, then $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$.
On the other hand, we saw in section \[subsecMLVKP\] that $\kpn=\emptyset$ if $\op{supp}(\nu)\ne0$.
By Corollary \[maxepfg\], all key polynomials are irreducible in $\kx$.
Let $p$ be the *characteristic exponent* of the valued field $(K,v)$. That is, $$p=\begin{cases}
\chr(k),&\mbox{ if }\chr(k)>0,\\
1,&\mbox{ if }\chr(k)=0.
\end{cases}$$
\[bIp\][@NS2018 Prop.2.4] If $Q\in\kx$ is a key polynomial, then all elements in $I(Q)$ are a power of the characteristic exponent $p$.
The next basic property of key polynomials is a generalization of [@Dec Prop.10].
\[abcd\] Let $Q\in\kx$ be a key polynomial for $\nu$, and let $f\in\kx$ be non-constant polynomial such that $\ep(f)<\ep(Q)$. Consider the division with remainder in $\kx$: $$f=a+qQ, \qquad \deg(a)<\deg(Q).$$ Then, $\nu(f)=\nu(a)<\nu(qQ)$.
Suppose that $\nu(qQ)\le \nu(a)$. Then, we have $\nu(qQ)\le \nu(f)$ as well. Let us show that this leads to a contradiction.
Since $Q$ is a key polynomial, $\ep(a)<\ep(Q)$. For any $b\in I(qQ)$, we have $$\nu\left(\pb{f}\right)\ge \nu\left(f\right)-b\,\ep(f)>\nu\left(f\right)-b\,\ep(Q)\ge \nu\left(qQ\right)-b\,\ep(Q),$$ $$\nu\left(\pb{a}\right)\ge \nu\left(a\right)-b\,\ep(a)>\nu\left(a\right)-b\,\ep(Q)\ge \nu\left(qQ\right)-b\,\ep(Q).$$ Since $\pb{qQ}=\pb{f}-\pb{a}$, we deduce $$\nu(qQ)-b\,\ep(qQ)=\nu\left(\pb{qQ}\right)>\nu\left(qQ\right)-b\,\ep(Q).$$ This implies $\ep(qQ)<\ep(Q)$, contradicting Corollary \[maxepfg\].
\[units\] Let $Q\in\kx$ be a key polynomial for $\nu$, and let $f\in\kx$ be non-constant polynomial such that $\ep(f)<\ep(Q)$. Then, $\inn f$ is a unit in $\ggn$.
Corollary \[maxepfg\] shows that $f$ is not divisible by $Q$ in $\kx$. Since $Q$ is irreducible, there is a Bézout identity: $$aQ+bf=1,\quad \deg(b)<\deg(Q).$$ By Lemma \[abcd\], $bf\sim_\nu 1$, or equivalently, $(\inn b)(\inn f)=\inn 1$ in $\ggn$.
Let $Q\in\kx$ be a monic polynomial. Consider the function $$\nu_Q\colon \kx \lra \gn\infty,\qquad \nu_Q(f)=\min\{\nu(a_sQ^s)\mid 0\le s\},$$ where $f=\sum_{0\le s}a_sQ^s$ is the canonical $Q$-expansion of $f$ (cf. Lemma \[minimal0\]).
We denote by $S_{\nu,Q}(f)$ the set of indices $s$ for which $\nu(a_sQ^s)=\nu_Q(f)$.
This function $\nu_Q$ is not necessarily a valuation (see Lemma \[zero\] below). However, it is a valuation if $Q$ is a key polynomial.
\[vQval\][@Dec Prop.12] If $Q$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$, then $\nu_Q$ is a valuation on $\kx$ such that $\nu_Q\le \nu$.
Comparison between abstract and MLV key polynomials
---------------------------------------------------
\[A->MLV\] If $Q$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$, then either $\nu(Q)=\infty$, or $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree for $\nu_Q$.
Suppose $\nu(Q)<\infty$.
By the very definition of $\nu_Q$, the key polynomial $Q$ satisfies the criterion of $\nu_Q$-minimality of Lemma \[minimal0\]. In particular, $Q\nmid_\nu 1$, so that $\inn Q$ is not a unit in $\ggn$.
On the other hand, for all polynomials $f\in\kx$ of degree less than $\deg(Q)$, the element $\inn f$ is a unit in $\ggn$. In fact, this follows from $\ep(f)<\ep(Q)$, by Corollary \[units\].
Hence, $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree for $\nu_Q$ [@KP Thm.3.2+Prop.3.5].
The rest of the section is devoted to analyze what MLV polynomials of valuations $\mu\le\nu$ are (abstract) key polynomials for $\nu$. The next two results are crucial for this purpose.
\[nuQnu\][@Dec Lem.14+Prop.15], [@NS2018 Prop.2.7] Let $Q\in\kx$ be a key polynomial for $\nu$. For all $f\in\kx$, the following hold:
\(i) For all $b\in{\mathbb N}$ we have $$\label{epdefQ}
\nu_Q\left(\pb{f}\right)\ge \nu_Q(f)-b\,\ep(Q).$$
\(ii) If $S_{\nu,Q}(f)\ne\{0\}$, then equality holds in (\[epdefQ\]) for some $b\in{\mathbb N}$.
\(iii) If equality holds in (\[epdefQ\]) for $b\in{\mathbb N}$ and $\nu_Q\left(\pb{f}\right)=\nu\left(\pb{f}\right)$, then $\ep(f)\ge \ep(Q)$.
If in addition, $\nu(f)>\nu_Q(f)$, then $\ep(f)>\ep(Q)$.
\[eporder\] [@Dec Prop.20+Lem.24] Let $Q, Q'\in\kx$ be key polynomials for $\nu$. Then, $$\ep(Q)\le\ep(Q')\sii \nu_Q\le\nu_{Q'}.$$ In this case, $\nu_{Q'}(Q)=\nu(Q)$. Moreover, $\ep(Q)<\ep(Q')$ if and only if $\nu_Q(Q')<\nu(Q')$.
From now on, we fix a valuation $\mu$ on $\kx$ with values in the group $\gn$ and satisfying $$\mu\le\nu.$$ Let us first determine for what MLV key polynomials for $\mu$ the truncation $\nu_\phi$ is a valuation.
\[zero\] Suppose $\mu<\nu$, and take $\phi\in\kpm$.
1. $\phi\in\phmn\ \imp\ \nu_\phi\mbox{ is a valuation and }\ \mu<\nu_\phi\le \nu$.
2. $\phi\not \in\phmn,\ \deg(\phi)\le \deg\left(\phmn\right)\ \imp\ \nu_\phi=\mu$.
3. $\deg(\phi)> \deg\left(\phmn\right)\ \imp\ \nu_\phi$ is not a valuation.
\(1) For any $\phi\in\phmn$, the function $\nu_\phi$ coincides with the augmented valuation $[\mu;\phi,\nu(\phi)]$ [@Vaq Sec.1]. The inequalities $\mu<\nu_\phi\le \nu$ are obvious.
\(2) Suppose $\phi\not \in\phmn$ and $\deg(\phi)\le \deg\left(\phmn\right)$. Then, $$\mu(\phi)=\nu(\phi),\qquad \mu(a)=\nu(a),\ \forall\,a\in\kx \mbox{ with }\deg(a)<\deg(\phi).$$ Since $\phi$ is $\mu$-minimal, Lemma \[minimal0\] shows that $$\mu(f)=\min\{\mu\left(a_s\phi^s\right)\mid 0\le s\}=\min\{\nu\left(a_s\phi^s\right)\mid 0\le s\}=\nu_\phi(f),$$ for all $f\in\kx$ with $\phi$-expansion $f=\sum_{0\le s} a_s\phi^s$.
\(3) Let $\phmn=[Q]_\mu$, and suppose $\deg(\phi)> \deg(Q)$ and $\nu_\phi$ is a valuation. Let us derive a contradiction.
By the definition of $\nu_\phi$, our polynomial $\phi$ satisfies the criterion of $\nu_\phi$-minimality of Lemma \[minimal0\]. Hence, $\op{in}_{\nu_\phi} \phi$ is not a unit in $\gg_{\nu_\phi}$. By Theorem \[empty\], the set $\op{KP}(\nu_\phi)$ is not empty.
Therefore, we may apply [@KP Thm.3.9] to both valuations $\mu$ and $\nu_\phi$. For all monic polynomials $f\in\kx$ we have $$\dfrac{\mu(f)}{\deg(f)}\le\dfrac{\mu(\phi)}{\deg(\phi)},\qquad \dfrac{\nu_\phi(f)}{\deg(f)}\le\dfrac{\nu_\phi(\phi)}{\deg(\phi)},$$ and equality holds if and only if $f$ is $\mu$-minimal, or $\nu_\phi$-minimal, respectively.
If we apply these inequalities to $f=Q$ we get a contradiction: $$\dfrac{\mu(Q)}{\deg(Q)}<\dfrac{\nu(Q)}{\deg(Q)}=\dfrac{\nu_\phi(Q)}{\deg(Q)}\le \dfrac{\nu_\phi(\phi)}{\deg(\phi)}=\dfrac{\nu(\phi)}{\deg(\phi)}=\dfrac{\mu(\phi)}{\deg(\phi)}=\dfrac{\mu(Q)}{\deg(Q)},$$ where the last equality holds because $Q$ is $\mu$-minimal.
\[u\][@NS2018 Lem.2.11] Let $Q$ be a key polynomial for $\nu$ such that $\nu_Q<\nu$. Then, all polynomials in $\Phi_{\nu_Q,\nu}$ are key polynomials for $\nu$.
\[dos\] Let $\mu$ be a valuation on $\kx$ such that $\mu\le \nu$. Then all MLV key polynomials for $\mu$ of minimal degree are key polynomials for $\nu$.
If $\mu=\nu$ and $\kpn=\emptyset$, the statement of the proposition is empty. Therefore, in the case $\mu=\nu$ we may assume that $\kpn\ne\emptyset$,
We proceed by induction on $\deg(\mu)$. If $\deg(\mu)=1$, the statement is obvious because all monic polynomials of degree one are key polynomials.
Suppose $\deg(\mu)\ge2$ and the statement holds for all valuations $\rho<\nu$ of degree less than $\deg(\mu)$. Let $\phi\in\kpm$ be a MLV key polynomial for $\mu$ of minimal degree $\deg(\phi)=\deg(\mu)$.
Since $\kpm\ne\emptyset$, the theorem of MacLane-Vaquié shows that $\mu$ is the augmentation of a valuation $\rho$ of smaller degree. Let us discuss in an independent way the cases in which $\mu$ is an ordinary or a limit augmentation of $\rho$.
[**Ordinary augmentation.** ]{}We have $\mu=[\rho; \chi,\mu(\chi)]=\nu_\chi$, for a certain MLV key polynomial $\chi\in\kpr$ satisfying $\mu(\chi)>\rho(\chi)$, which becomes a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree for $\mu$ [@KP Cor.7.3].
In particular, $\deg(\phi)=\dg(\chi)$ and $\mu(\phi)=\mu(\chi)$ [@KP Thm.3.9]. Let us write $\phi=\chi+a$, with $a\in\kx$ of degree less than $\deg(\chi)$. Since $\Phi_{\rho,\mu}=[\chi]_\rho$, we have $$\rho(a)=\mu(a)\ge\mu(\chi)>\rho(\chi).$$ Hence, $\phi\srh\chi$, so that $\phi\in\Phi_{\rho,\mu}$.
Now, let $Q\in\kpr$ be a MLV key polynomial for $\rho$ of minimal degree; that is, $\deg(Q)=\deg(\rho)<\deg\mu)=\deg(\phi)$. By the induction hypothesis, $Q$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$. Since $Q\not\in \Phi_{\rho,\mu}$, Lemma \[zero\] shows that $\nu_Q=\rho$. Thus, Lemma \[u\] shows that $\phi\in\Phi_{\rho,\mu}$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$.
[**Limit augmentation.** ]{}The valuation $\rho$ is the initial valuation of a continuous MacLane chain of valuations of constant degree $m$: $$\rho=\rho_0\ \stackrel{\chi_1,\be_1}\lra\ \rho_1\ \lra\ \cdots\ \stackrel{\chi_i,\be_i}\lra\ \rho_i\ \lra\ \cdots$$ Each $\rho_i=[\rho_{i-1};\chi_i,\be_i]=\nu_{\chi_i}$ is an ordinary augmentation. All polynomials $\chi_i$ have degree $m$ and belong to $\kp(\rho_{i-1})\cap\kp(\rho_i)$.
All polynomials $f\in\kx$ of degree less than or equal to $m$ are stable; that is, $\rho_{i}(f)=\mu(f)=\nu(f)$ for all $i$ sufficiently large.
Also, the chain admits polynomials which are not stable, and we have $\mu=\nu_\varphi$ for some monic non-stable $\varphi\in\kx$ of minimal degree, which becomes a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree for $\mu$ [@KP Cor.7.13]. See section \[subsecLMLV\] for a more precise definition of a limit augmentation. In particular, $\deg(\varphi)=\deg(\phi)$ and $\mu(\varphi)=\mu(\phi)$ [@KP Thm.3.9]. Let us write $\phi=\varphi+a$, with $a\in\kx$ of degree less than $\deg(\varphi)$. By the minimality of $\deg(\varphi)$, the polynomial $a$ is stable; that is, for some index $i_0$ we have $$\rho_i(a)=\mu(a)\ge \mu(\varphi)>\rho_i(\varphi),\qquad \forall\,i\ge i_0.$$ Hence, $\phi\sim_{\rho_i}\varphi$ for all $i\ge i_0$. This implies that $\phi$ is non-stable too: $$\rho_i(\phi)=\rho_i(\varphi)<\mu(\varphi)=\mu(\phi),\qquad \forall\,i\ge i_0.$$ By the induction hypothesis, all $\chi_i$ are key polynomials for $\nu$. Take any $b\in[1,\deg(\phi)]\cap{\mathbb N}$. Since $\deg\left(\pb{\phi}\right)<\deg(\phi)$, the polynomial $\pb{\phi}$ is stable. Take $i$ sufficiently large so that $$\rho_i\left(\pb{\phi}\right)=\mu\left(\pb{\phi}\right)=\nu\left(\pb{\phi}\right),\qquad \forall\, b\in{\mathbb N}.$$
By [@hmos Sec.4], or [@Vaq2004 Sec.3], the integers $\max(S_{\nu,\chi_i}(\phi))$ are all positive, and stabilize for a sufficiently large index $i$. In particular, $S_{\nu,\chi_i}(\phi)\ne\{0\}$ for all $i$. By (iii) of Proposition \[nuQnu\], $\ep(\phi)>\ep(\chi_i)$ for all $i$ sufficiently large.
Now, take any $f\in\kx$ with $\deg(f)<\deg(\phi)$. Since $f$ and $\pb{f}$ are stable, we may take $i$ sufficiently large so that $$\rho_i(f)=\nu(f),\qquad \rho_i\left(\pb{f}\right)=\nu\left(\pb{f}\right),\qquad \forall\,b\in{\mathbb N}.$$ By (i) of Proposition \[nuQnu\], for all $b\in{\mathbb N}$ we have $$\dfrac{\nu(f)-\nu\left(\pb{f}\right)}b=
\dfrac{\rho_i(f)-\rho_i\left(\pb{f}\right)}b\le \ep(\chi_i)<\ep(\phi).$$ Thus, $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$.
Lemma \[zero\] exhibited the first examples of MLV key polynomials for $\mu$ that are not (abstract) key polynomials for $\nu$. The next lemma offers some more examples.
\[tres\] Suppose $\mu<\nu$, and take $\phi\in\kpm$. If $\phi\not \in\phmn$ and $\deg(\phi)>\deg(\mu)$, then $\phi$ is not a key polynomial for $\nu$.
If $\deg(\phi)>\deg(\phmn)$, the lemma follows from Lemma \[zero\] and Proposition \[vQval\]. Suppose $\deg(\mu)<\deg(\phi)\le\deg(\phmn)$.
Let $\phi_0$ be a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree $\deg(\phi_0)=\deg(\mu)$. By Lemma \[zero\], $\nu_\phi=\mu=\nu_{\phi_0}$.
By Proposition \[dos\], $\phi_0$ is a key polynomial for $\mu$. Hence, $\phi$ cannot be a key polynomial because it would have $\ep(\phi)>\ep(\phi_0)$, contradicting Proposition \[eporder\].
We may summarize the results obtained so far in the next two theorems.
\[main\] Suppose that $\mu<\nu$ and $\phi\in\kpm$. Then, $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$ if and only if it satisfies one of the following two conditions.
1. $\phi\in\phmn$,
2. $\phi\not \in\phmn$ and $\deg(\phi)=\deg(\mu)$.
In the first case, $\nu_\phi=[\mu;\phi,\nu(\phi)]$. In the second case, $\nu_\phi=\mu$.
\[mu=nu\] Let $\phi\in\kpn$. Then, $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$ if and only if $\deg(\phi)=\deg(\nu)$. In this case, $\nu_\phi=\nu$.
By Theorem \[charKP\], two $\mu$-equivalent MLV key polynomials for $\mu$ have the same degree. Hence, the next result follows immediately from Theorems \[main\] and \[mu=nu\].
\[classes\] Suppose that $\mu\le\nu$ and $\phi\in\kpm$. If $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$, then all polynomials in $[\phi]_\mu$ are key polynomials for $\nu$ too.
\[Qmaxep\] Let $\phi\in\kpn$ of minimal degree. Then, $\ep(\phi)\ge\ep(f)$ for all $f\in\kx$.
By Theorem \[mu=nu\], $\phi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$ and $\nu_\phi=\nu$.
The result follows from (i) of Proposition \[nuQnu\].
Also, these results lead to another characterization of abstract key polynomials.
\[More\] Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$, and $Q\in\kx$ a monic polynomial. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. $Q$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$.
2. $\nu_Q$ is a valuation and either $\supp(\nu)=Q\kx$, or $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\nu_Q$ of minimal degree.
3. $\nu_Q$ is a valuation and $Q$ has minimal degree among all monic polynomials $f\in\kx$ satisfying $\nu_f=\nu_Q$.
\(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) follows from Propositions \[vQval\] and \[A->MLV\].
\(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1) follows from Proposition \[dos\].
\(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Let $f\in\kx$ be a monic polynomial such that $\nu_f=\nu_Q$. If $\supp(\nu)=Q\kx$, then $\nu(f)=\nu_f(f)=\nu_Q(f)=\infty$, so that $f$ is a multiple of $Q$.
Suppose that $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\nu_Q$ of minimal degree. By Lemma \[minimal0\], $f$ is $\nu_Q$-minimal; thus, $\deg(f)$ is a multiple of $\deg(Q)$ [@KP Prop.3.7].
\(3) $\Rightarrow$ (2). Suppose $\supp(\nu)\ne Q\kx$. Then, (3) implies that $\nu(Q)<\infty$. By Lemma \[minimal0\], $Q$ has minimal degree among all $\nu_Q$-minimal polynomials.
Let $Q_0$ be a MLV key polynomial for $\nu_Q$ of minimal degree. By [@KP Prop.3.7], $Q=Q_0+a$ for some $a\in\kx$ with $\deg(a)<\deg(Q_0)$ and $\nu_Q(a)\ge \nu_Q(Q_0)$. Hence, either $Q\sim_{\nu_Q}Q_0$ (if $\nu_Q(a)> \nu_Q(Q_0)$), or $\deg(R(Q))=1$ (if $\nu_Q(a)=\nu_Q(Q_0)$). By Theorem \[charKP\], $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\nu_Q$ of minimal degree.
A key polynomial $Q$ for $\nu$ is said to be *maximal* if $\nu_Q=\nu$. These key polynomials admit the following characterization.
\[More2\] Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$, and $Q\in\kx$ a monic polynomial. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. $Q$ is a maximal key polynomial for $\nu$.
2. Either $\supp(\nu)=Q\kx$, or $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\nu$ of minimal degree.
3. $\ep(Q)\ge \ep(f)$ for all polynomials $f\in\kx$, and $Q$ has minimal degree with this property.
Theorem \[More\] shows that (1) and (2) are equivalent.
\(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Corollary \[Qmaxep\] shows that $\ep(Q)\ge \ep(f)$ for all polynomials $f\in\kx$.
Since $Q$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$, for any polynomial $f$ of smaller degree $\ep(f)$ cannot be maximal because $\ep(f)<\ep(Q)$.
\(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1). By definition, a monic polynomial of minimal degree for which $\ep(Q)$ takes a maximal value is a key polynomial for $\nu$. Finally, $\nu_Q=\nu$ by Proposition \[eporder\].
As shown in the Introduction, only the valuations $\nu$ of finite depth admit maximal key polynomials.
Comparison of MacLane-Vaquié and abstract limit key polynomials {#secLKP}
===============================================================
MacLane-Vaquié limit key polynomials {#subsecLMLV}
------------------------------------
Let us recall the definition of MacLane-Vaquié (MLV) limit key polynomials [@Vaq Sec.2], [@MLV Sec.3].
Let $\rho$ be a valuation on $\kx$ admitting MLV key polynomials.
A *continuous MacLane chain* of $\rho$, of stable degree $m$, is a countably infinite chain of ordinary augmentations: $$\label{chainrho}
\rho=\rho_0\ \stackrel{\chi_1,\be_1}\lra\ \rho_1\ \lra\ \cdots\ \stackrel{\chi_i,\be_i}\lra\ \rho_i\ \lra\ \cdots\qquad\quad \rho_i=[\rho_{i-1};\chi_i,\be_i],\quad \forall\,i\ge1,$$ such that $\deg(\chi_i)=m$ and $\chi_{i+1}\nmid_{\rho_i}\chi_i$, for all $i\ge1$.
By [@KP Prop.7.2] each $\chi_i\in\op{KP}(\rho_{i-1})$ becomes a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree of $\rho_i$. In particular, $\deg(\rho_i)=m$ for all $i\ge1$.
A polynomial $f\in\kx$ is *stable* with respect to the chain, if for some index $i_0$ we have $$\rho_{i}(f)=\rho_{i_0}(f), \quad\ \forall\,i\ge i_0.$$ This stable value is denoted $\rhi(f)$.
By the equivalence (\[transitive\]), a non-stable polynomial $f$ satisfies necessarily $$\rho_i(f)<\rho_j(f),\qquad \forall\,i<j.$$ Let $\mi$ be the minimal degree of a non-stable polynomial. We agree that $\mi=\infty$ if all polynomials are stable.
The following properties hold for all continuous MacLane chains [@MLV Lem.3.3]
- $\mi\ge m$.
- All polynomials $\chi_i$ are stable.
- For all $i\ge1$, $\rho_i$ is residually transcendental and $\g_{\rho_i}=\g_{\rho_1}$.
The common value grup $\gi:=\g_{\rho_i}$ for all $i\ge1$ is called the *stable value group* of the continuous MacLane chain. Note that $\be_i\in\gi$ for all $i\ge1$.
[**Remark.** ]{}In [@MLV Sec.3] it was supposed that $\rho$ is residually transcendental too, and $\g_{\rho}=\gi$. We omit these conditions on $\rho$ because they are irrelevant for the analysis of the limit behaviour of the chain.
Any continuous MacLane chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ falls in one of the following three cases:
1. It has a *stable limit*. That is, $\mi=\infty$ and the function $\rhi$ is a valuation on $\kx$. This valuation is commensurable and satisfies $\kp(\rhi)=\emptyset$.
2. It is *inessential*. That is, $\mi=m$.
3. It is *essential*. That is, $\mi>m$.
Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$ such that $\rho_i<\nu$ for all $i\ge0$.
If $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ is inessential and $f\in\kx$ is a non-stable polynomial of degree $m$, then the ordinary augmentation $\mu=[\rho; f,\nu(f)]$ satisfies $$\rho_i<\mu\le\nu,\qquad \forall\,i\ge0.$$ In other words, $\mu$ is closer to $\nu$ than any $\rho_i$, and we may access to $\mu$ from $\rho$ by a single augmentation. In the terminology of [@MLV], we may avoid any reference to the continuous MacLane chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ along the process of constructing a MacLane-Vaquié chain of valuations for $\nu$.
In the terminology of [@hmos], all key polynomials $\chi_i$ may be replaced by the single key polynomial $f$ in any complete system of key polynomials for $\mu$.
This justifies why we call it “inessential".
Only the essential continuous MacLane chains admit (non-fake) limit key polynomials. From now on, we suppose that our chain $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ is essential.
We define the set of MLV limit key polynomials for $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$: $$\kpi=\kpi\left((\rho_i)_{i\ge0}\right),$$ as the set of monic non-stable polynomials in $\kx$ of minimal degree $\mi$.
Take $\phi\in\kpi$. Let $\gi\hookrightarrow \La$ be an embedding of ordered groups, and choose $\ga\in\La\infty$ such that $$\ga>\rho_i(\phi),\quad\ \forall\,i\ge0.$$ We may consider a limit augmentation $$\mu_{\phi,\ga}=[(\rho_i)_{i\ge0};\phi,\ga],$$ which on $\phi$-expansions $f=\sum_{0\le s}a_s\phi^s$ acts as follows: $$\mu_{\phi,\ga}(f)=\min\{\rhi(a_s)+s\ga\mid 0\le s\}=\min\{\mu_{\phi,\ga}\left(a_s\phi^s\right)\mid 0\le s\}.$$
This function $\mu_{\phi,\ga}$ is a valuation on $\kx$ which satisfies $\mu_{\phi,\ga}>\rho_i$ for all $i\ge0$.
Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$ such that $\nu>\rho_i$ for all $i\ge0$.
For every stable polyomial $f$ one has $\nu(f)=\rhi(f)$. Thus, $\nu(\chi_i)=\be_i$ for all $i\ge 1$.
A monic polynomial $f\in\kx$ of degree $m$ such that $\nu(f)>\be_i$ for all $i\ge 1$ would be non-stable. In fact, if $f$ were stable, there would exist an index $i$ such that $\rho_i(f)=\nu(f)$. This is impossible because $\rho_i(f)\le\rho_i(\chi_i)=\be_i$ by [@KP Thm.3.9].
Since we are assuming that our continuous MacLane chain is essential, we have $$\label{betaicofinal}
(\be_i)_{i\ge0}\quad\mbox{ is cofinal in the set }\quad\left\{\nu(f)\mid f\in\kx\mbox{ monic, }\deg(f)=m\right\}.$$
It is easy to see that any MLV limit key polynomial $\phi\in\kpi$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$.
In fact, take $\ga=\nu(\phi)$. For all pair of indices $i<j$, we have $\rho_i(\phi)<\rho_j(\phi)\le\nu(\phi)=\ga$. The limit augmented valuation $\mu_{\phi,\ga}$ clearly satisfies $\mu_{\phi,\ga}\le\nu$. By [@KP Cor.7.13], $\phi$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\mu_{\phi,\ga}$ of minimal degree. Thus, our claim follows from Proposition \[dos\].
Abstract limit key polynomials
------------------------------
Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$. Novacoski and Spivakovsky define in [@NS2018] an (abstract) limit key polynomial for $\nu$ as a monic polynomial $Q\in\kx$ for which there exists a key polynomial $Q_-$ satisfying the following conditions.
1. $\deg(Q_-)=\deg\left(\Phi_{\nu_{Q_-},\nu}\right)$.
2. the set $\{\nu(\chi)\mid\chi\in \Phi_{\nu_{Q_-},\nu}\}$ has no maximal element.
3. $\nu_{\chi}(Q)<\nu(Q)$ for all $\chi\in\Phi_{\nu_{Q_-},\nu}$.
4. $Q$ has minimal degree among all polynomials satisfying (K3).
\[LMLV->LAKP\] Let $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ be an essential continuous MacLane chain as in (\[chainrho\]). Let $\nu$ be a valuation on $\kx$ such that $\nu>\rho_i$ for all $i\ge0$. Then, all MLV limit key polynomials for $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ are limit key polynomials for $\nu$.
Let $\phi\in\kpi$. We may take $Q_-=\chi_1$, which is a key polynomial by Proposition \[dos\]. In section \[subsecChains\] we saw that $$[\chi_2]_{\rho_1}=\Phi_{\rho_1,\rho_2}=\Phi_{\rho_1,\rho_i}=\Phi_{\rho_1,\nu},\qquad \forall\,i\ge 1.$$ Since $[\chi_1]_{\rho_1}\ne [\chi_2]_{\rho_1}$, Lemma \[zero\] shows that $\nu_{\chi_1}=\rho_1$. Since, $\deg(\chi_1)=\deg(\chi_2)=\deg\left(\Phi_{\rho_1,\nu}\right)$, condition (K1) is satisfied.
Condition (K2) follows from (\[betaicofinal\]).
Take $\chi\in\Phi_{\nu_{\chi_1},\nu}=\Phi_{\rho_1,\nu}=[\chi_2]_{\rho_1}$. Let $\mu=[\rho_1;\chi,\nu(\chi)]$. Since $\chi$ is a MLV key polynomial of minimal degree for $\mu$, and $\chi\not\in\phmn$, we have $\nu_\chi=\mu$ by Lemma \[zero\]. Since $\deg(\chi)=m$, the property (\[betaicofinal\]) shows that there exists an index $i$ such that $\nu(\chi)<\be_i$. This implies $\mu<\rho_i$, and from this we deduce $\mu(\phi)\le\rho_i(\phi)<\nu(\phi)$. This proves (K3).
Finally, any monic polynomial $Q$ satisfying (K3) is non-stable, Thus, $\deg(Q)\ge \mi=\deg(\phi)$. This proves (K4).
The converse statement holds too.
\[LAKP->LMLV\] Let $Q\in\kx$ be a limit key polynomial for $\nu$. Then, $Q$ is a MLV limit key polynomial for some essential continuous MacLane chain $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$.
Let $Q_-\in\kx$ be a key polynomial satisfying conditions (K1)–(K4). Define $\rho=\rho_0=\nu_{Q_-}$ and $m=\deg(Q_-)$. All elements in $\Phi_{\rho,\nu}$ are MLV key polynomials for $\rho$. By (K1) these polynomials have degree $m$.
By (K2) there exists a sequence $(\chi_i)_{i\ge1}$ of polynomials in $\Phi_{\rho,\nu}$ such that the sequence $\be_i=\nu(\chi_i)$ is strictly increasing and cofinal in the set $\nu\left(\Phi_{\rho,\nu}\right)$.
By Lemma \[u\], $\chi_i$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$, for all $i$. Let $\rho_i=\nu_{\chi_i}$ for all $i$. By construction, $\chi_j$ belongs to $\Phi_{\rho_i,\nu}$ for all $j>i$; thus, $\chi_j$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\rho_i$.
By the very definition of truncation and ordinary augmentation, $\rho_i=[\rho_{i-1};\chi_i,\be_i]$. Also, $\chi_i\not\in\Phi_{\rho_i,\nu}$ implies that $[\chi_i]_{\rho_i}\ne[\chi_{i+1}]_{\rho_i}$.
Therefore, $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ is a continuous MacLane chain of $\rho$, which is not inessential by (K2).
By (K3) and (K4), $Q$ is non-stable of minimal degree. Hence, $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ is essential and $Q$ is a MLV key polynomial.
Invariants of limit key polynomials {#secInvLKP}
===================================
Basic invariants of continuous MacLane chains {#subsecBasicInvs}
---------------------------------------------
Consider a fixed essential continuous MacLane chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge 0}$ as in (\[chainrho\]).
Our aim in this section is to study certain invariants of MLV limit key polynomials, introduced in [@Vaq2004 Sec.3] and [@hmos Sec.4].
Let $\phi\in\kpi$, and let $n=\lfloor \mi/m\rfloor$. Denote the canonical $\chi_i$-expansion of $\phi$ by $$\phi=a_{n,i}\,\chi_i^n+a_{n-1,i}\,\chi_i^{n-1}+\cdots+a_{1,i}\,\chi_i+a_{0,i},\qquad \forall\,i\ge 1.$$
The index $t_i(\phi)=\max\left(S_{\rho_i,\chi_i}(\phi)\right)$ is always positive and decreases as $i$ grows. Thus, it stabilizes for $i$ sufficiently large. The stable value is known as the *numerical character* of $\phi$. We denote it by[^1] $$\ti=\ti(\phi).$$ This integer is a power of the characteristic exponent $p$ of the valued field $(K,v)$ [@hmos Sec.7].
Let $i_0$ be an index which stabilizes $\ti$. Let us denote $t=\ti$ for simplicity. It is easy to check that the image of the coefficient $a_{t,i}$ in the graded algebra stabilizes too: $$a_{t,i}\sim_{\rho_k}a_{t,j},\qquad\forall\,i_0\le i<j\le k.$$ In particular, it determines a stable value $$\ali=\ali(\phi)=\rho_i(a_{t,i})=\rhi(a_{t,i})\in\gi,\qquad \forall\, i\ge i_0.$$ Since $\rho_i(\phi)=\rho_i\left(a_{t,i}\,\chi_i^{t}\right)$, we have $$\rho_i(\phi)=\ali+\ti\,\be_i,\qquad\forall\,i\ge i_0.$$
\[powerphi\] Take $\phi\in\kpi$ and let $i_0$ be an index that stabilizes $t=\ti$. Then, $$\phi\sim_{\rho_i}a_{t,j}\,\chi_{j}^t,\qquad \forall\,i_0< i<j.$$
For all pair of indices $k<\ell$ we have $$\rho_k(\chi_\ell)=\be_k<\be_\ell=\rho_\ell(\chi_\ell)\ \imp\ \chi_\ell\in \Phi_{\rho_k,\rho_\ell}.$$ Thus, $\chi_\ell$ is a MLV key polynomial for $\rho_k$, for all $k\le\ell$. In particular, it is $\rho_k$-minimal and Lemma \[minimal0\] shows that $$\label{jminimal}
\rho_k(\phi)=\min\left\{\rho_k\left(a_{s,\ell}\,\chi_\ell^s\right)\mid 0\le s\right\},\qquad \forall\,0\le k\le\ell.$$
Now, denote $\al=\ali$ and take any pair of indices $j>i>i_0$. Let us apply (\[jminimal\]) for $k=i$, $\ell=j$. For $s=t$ we get the minimal value $$\rho_i\left(a_{t,j}\,\chi_j^t\right)=\al+t\be_i=\rho_i(\phi).$$ The proposition will be proved if we show that $\rho_i\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)$ takes an strictly larger value for all indices $s\ne t$.
For $s<t$, we apply (\[jminimal\]) for $k=j=\ell$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\rhi(a_{s,j})+s\be_j=&\;\rho_j\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)\ge \rho_j(\phi)=\al+t\be_j\\
\imp&\;\rhi(a_{s,j})\ge \al+(t-s)\be_j>\al+(t-s)\be_i.\end{aligned}$$
For $s>t$, we apply (\[jminimal\]) for $k=i_0$, $\ell=j$. Since $t-s$ is a negative integer, we get $$\rhi(a_{s,j})+s\be_{i_0}=\rho_{i_0}\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)\ge \rho_{i_0}(\phi)=\al+t\be_{i_0}$$-.6cm $$\label{serveix}
\qquad\qquad\qquad\imp\rhi(a_{s,j})\ge \al+(t-s)\be_{i_0}>\al+(t-s)\be_i,$$
In both cases, we deduce that $$\rho_i\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)= \rhi(a_{s,j})+s\be_i>\al+t\be_i=\rho_i(\phi).$$
Residual polynomial operators of a continuous MacLane chain {#residual-polynomial-operators-of-a-continuous-maclane-chain .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------
From now on, we freely use the definition and properties of the residual polynomial operators introduced in [@KP Sec.5]. Write $$\chi_{i+1}=\chi_i+a_i,\qquad u_i=\op{in}_{\rho_i}a_i,\qquad \forall\,i\ge1.$$ These polynomials $a_i\in\kx$ have degree $\deg(a_i)<m$; hence, they have a stable value $\rhi(a_i)=\rho(a_i)$ for all $i$.
Since $\be_i=\rho_{i+1}(\chi_i)<\rho_{i+1}(\chi_{i+1})=\be_{i+1}$, we necessarily have $$\rhi(a_i)=\rho_{i+1}(a_i)=\be_i,\qquad\forall\,i\ge1.$$
For $i\ge1$, all valuations $\rho_i$ have relative ramification index equal to one (cf. Definition \[rele\]). Thus, we may consider residual polynomial operators $$R_i=R_{\rho_i,\chi_i,u_i}\colon \kx\lra \ka_i[y],\qquad i\ge 1,$$ where $\ka_i$ is the maximal subfield of $\Delta_{\rho_i}$ (cf. Section \[subsecMLVKP\]).
For this normalization of the residual polynomial operator we have $$R_i(a)=1,\qquad R_i(\chi_i)=1,\qquad R_i(\chi_{i+1})=y+1,\qquad \forall\,i\ge 1,$$ for all $a\in\kx$ with $\deg(a)<m$.
Since the residual operator is multiplicative [@KP Cor.5.4], we deduce immediately from Proposition \[powerphi\] and [@KP Cor.5.5] that $$R_i(\phi)=R_i(a_{t,i+1})R_i(\chi_{i+1})^t=(y+1)^t.$$ This result may be deduced from [@hmos Prop.4.2] too.
\[Sphi\] Take $\phi\in\kpi$ and let $i_0$ be an index that stabilizes $\ti$. Then, $$S_{\rho_i,\chi_i}(\phi)=\{0,\ti\},\qquad \forall\,i\ge i_0.$$
If $\chr(k)=0$, then $\ti=1$ and the statement is obvious.
If $\chr(k)=p>0$, then $\ti=p^e$ for some $e\ge0$, so that $R_i(\phi)=y^{\ti}+1$. Now, by the very definition of $R_i$, the coefficient of degree $j$ of $R_i(\phi)$ is zero if and only if $j\not\in S_{\rho_i,\chi_i}(\phi)$. Hence, the statement follows.
Intrinsic invariants of continuous MacLane chain {#intrinsic-invariants-of-continuous-maclane-chain .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
We are ready to show that the invariants $\ti$, $\ali$ are independent of the choice of the MLV limit key polynomial $\phi$.
\[kp=\] For any two $\phi,\,\varphi\in\kpi$ there exists an index $i_0$ such that $$\phi\sim_{\rho_i}\varphi,\qquad\forall\,i\ge i_0.$$
Write $\phi=\varphi+a$ with $a\in\kx$ of degree less than $\mi$. Since $a$ is stable, there exists an index $i_0$ such that $\rho_i(a)=\rhi(a)$ for all $i\ge i_0$. We want to show that $$\rho_i(a)>\rho_i(\phi)\quad\ \forall\,i\ge i_0.$$ In fact, $\rho_i(a)\le \rho_i(\phi)$ leads to a contradiction: $$\rho_j(a)=\rho_i(a)\le \rho_i(\phi)<\rho_j(\phi),\qquad \forall\,j>i,$$ which implies that $\varphi$ would be stable: $\rho_j(\varphi)=\rho_j(a)=\rhi(a)$ for all $j>i$.
The next result follows immediately from Proposition \[powerphi\] and Lemma \[kp=\].
\[invinv\] For all $\phi,\varphi\in\kpi$ we have $\ti(\phi)=\ti(\varphi)$ and $\ali(\phi)=\ali(\varphi)$.
Let us recall another intrinsic invariant $\bi$ of the chain.
Take any valuation $\nu$ on $\kx$ such that $\nu>\rho_i$ for all $i$. For instance, any limit augmentation of $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$.
In [@hmos Sec.7] it is shown that for a sufficiently large index $j_0$ one has: $$I(\chi_j)=\{\bi\},\qquad \forall\, j\ge j_0,$$ for a certain positive integer $\bi$.
Since all polynomials $\chi_j$ and all their derivatives $\pb{\chi_j}$ are stable, it is clear that $\bi$ does not depend on the choice of the valuation $\nu$.
By Proposition \[bIp\], $\bi$ is a power of the characteristic exponent $p$ of $(K,v)$.
On the other hand, all $\chi_j$ are key polynomials for $\nu$ such that $\nu_{\chi_j}=\rho_j$ by Theorem \[main\]. Let us denote $\ep_j=\ep(\chi_j)\in\left(\gi\right)_{\mathbb Q}$. In [@hmos Cor.7.3] it is proved that $$\rhi(\prt{\bi}{a_j})> \rhi(\prt{\bi}{\chi_j})=\rhi(\prt{\bi}{\chi_{j+1}}),\qquad \forall\,j\ge j_0.$$
In particular, we may consider another invariant of the essential continuous MacLane chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$, independent of $j$ and the choice of $\nu$:$$\di:=\rhi(\prt{\bi}{\chi_j})\in\gi.$$
As a consequence we get a direct formula for the variation of $\ep_j$: $$\label{di}
\be_j-\bi\ep_j=\di=\be_{j+1}-\bi\ep_{j+1}\ \imp\ \ep_{j+1}-\ep_j=\dfrac1{\bi}\,\left(\be_{j+1}-\be_j\right).$$
Finally, let us quote a basic relationship between these invariants.
\[bt>=ml\] For any $\phi\in\kpi$, we have $\ti\bi\ge \ml(\phi)$.
Let $j$ be a sufficiently large index so that it stabilizes both $\ti$ and $\bi$. Recall that $\chi_j$ is a key polynomial for $\nu$ such that $\nu_{\chi_j}=\rho_j$. By Corollary \[Sphi\], $S_{\rho_j,\chi_j}(\phi)=\{0,\ti\}$. Let $b=\ti\bi$. By [@hmos Prop.6.1] or [@Dec Prop. 14], $$\rho_j(\pb{\phi})=\rho_j(\phi)-b\ep_j.$$ In particular, $\pb{\phi}\ne0$, so that $b\ge\ml(\phi)$.
Vertically bounded continuous MacLane chains {#subsecVB}
--------------------------------------------
Let us recall Hahn’s embedding theorem for ordered groups. A basic reference for this result is [@Rib].
Let $\La$ be an abelian (totally) ordered group. A subgroup $H\subset \La$ is *convex* if it satisfies $$0<\be<\ga, \quad \ga\in H\ \imp\ \be\in H,$$ for all $\be,\ga\in \La_{>0}$.
For any $\ga\in\La$ we denote by $H_\ga$ the convex subgroup generated by $\ga$. That is, $H_\ga$ is the intersection of all convex subgroups of $\La$ that contain $\ga$. The convex subgroups of the form $H_\ga$ are said to be *principal*.
The principal convex subgoups of $\La$ are totally ordered by inclusion. Let us denote by $$I=\pcv(\La)$$ the set of non-zero convex principal subgroups of $\La$, ordered by decreasing inclusion.
Formally, we consider $I$ as an abstract totally ordered set parameterizing the principal convex subgoups. For any $i\in I$ we denote by $H_i$ the corresponding principal convex subgroup. Note that $$i\le j\ \sii\ H_i\supset H_j.$$
Denote by $\rlex$ the Hahn product; that is, $\rlex\subset{\mathbb R}^I$ is the subgroup of the cartesian product ${\mathbb R}^I$ formed by the elements $\ga=\left(x_i\right)_{i\in I}$ whose support $$\supp(\ga)=\{i\in I\mid x_i\ne0\}\subset I$$ is a well-ordered subset, with respect to the ordering induced by $I$. It makes sense to consider the lexicographical ordering in $\rlex$.
By Hahn’s theorem, there is an embedding of ordered groups $$\La{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}\La_{\mathbb Q}{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}\rlex,$$ such that the embedding $\La_{\mathbb Q}{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow}\rlex$ is immediate; that is, it determines an identification of the skeleton of both ordered grups. In particular, the natural mapping $$\pcv(\La)\lra \pcv\left(\rlex\right), \quad H_\ga\ \mapsto \left(H_{\ga}\right)_{\mathbb R}=\mbox{ convex subgroup of $\rlex$ generated by $\ga$}$$ is an isomorphism of ordered sets.
\[VBdef\] Consider a strictly increasing sequence of positive elements in $\La$, $$S=\{\ga_1<\ga_2<\cdots<\ga_n<\cdots\}\subset \La_{>0}.$$ Let $H_S$ be the convex subgroup of $\La$ generated by $S$.
We say that $S$ is *vertically bounded* (VB) if $S$ admits an upper bound in $H_S$.
We say that $S$ is *horizontally bounded* (HB) if $S$ has no upper bounds in $H_S$, but it admits an upper bound in $\La$.
We say that $S$ is *unbounded* (UB) if $S$ admits no upper bounds in $\La$.
Clearly, any such sequence $S$ falls in one, and only one, of the three cases VB, HB or UB.
Horizontally bounded sequences occur only in ordered groups of rank greater than one.
The next table displays some examples in the ordered group $\La={\mathbb Q}^2_{\op{lex}}$.
In this case, all convex subroups are principal and $I=\{1,2\}$. The non-zero convex subgroups are $H_1=\La$, $H_2=\{0\}\times{\mathbb Q}$.
$S$ $H_S$ boundness
-------------------------- -------------------------- -----------
$\left(0,1-(1/n)\right)$ $\{0\}\times{\mathbb Q}$ VB
$\left(1,n\right)$ $\La$ VB
$\left(0,n\right)$ $\{0\}\times{\mathbb Q}$ HB
$\left(n,0\right)$ $\La$ UB
\[afitacio\] Let $S=\left(\ga_n\right)_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ be a strictly increasing sequence of positive elements in $\La$. Let $H_S$ be the convex subgroup of $\La$ generated by $S$. Then, the following conditions are equivalent.
1. $S$ is vertically bounded.
2. For all $q\in{\mathbb Q}$, $q>1$, there exists $n\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $q\ga_n>S$ in $\La_{\mathbb Q}$.
In this case, $H_S$ is a principal convex subgroup.
It is obvious that (2) implies (1). From $q\ga_n>S$ we deduce that $N\ga_n>S$ for any integer $N\ge q$.
Let us show that (1) implies (2). If $\ga\in H_S$ satisfies $\ga>S$, then $S\subset H_\ga$ by the convexity of $H_\ga$. Hence, $H_S=H_\ga$ is a principal convex subgroup.
Let $i\in I$ such that $H_i=H_S$. Then, $$(H_S)_{\mathbb R}=\left\{(x_j)\in\rlex\mid x_j=0,\ \forall\, j<i\right\}\subset\rlex.$$ Thus, we may write $$\ga=(0\cdots0\;x\,\star\star\cdots),\qquad \ga_n=(0\cdots0\;x_n\,\star\star\cdots),\quad\forall\,n\in{\mathbb N},$$ where $x,x_n\in{\mathbb R}$ are the $i$-th coordinates. They satisfy $0\le x_n\le x$ for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$, and $x_n>0$ for some $n$ (otherwise $S$ would not generate $H_i$).
Consider $b=\sup(x_n\mid n\in{\mathbb N})$. For any given $q\in{\mathbb Q}$, $q>1$, there exists $n\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $b<qx_n$. Hence, $q\ga_n>S$.
\[rhovbdef\] Let $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ be an essential continuous MacLane chain as in (\[chainrho\]). Let $i_0$ be the first index that stabilizes $\ti$, and consider the strictly increasing sequence $$S=\left(\be_i-\be_{i_0}\right)_{i>i_0}.$$ We say that the chain $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ is vertically bounded, horizontally bounded or unbounded according to the boundness status of $S$ introduced in Definition \[VBdef\].
\[vbthm\] Let $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ be an essential continuous MacLane chain as in (\[chainrho\]). If $(\rho_i)_{i\ge0}$ is vertically bounded, then $\mi=m\ti$ and $\ali=0$.
Denote $t=\ti$, $\al=\ali$, and let $i_0$ be the first index that stabilizes $\ti$.
The sequence $S=\left(\be_i-\be_{i_0}\right)_{i>i_0}$ admits an upper bound in the principal convex subgroup generated by $S$. By Lemma \[afitacio\], there exists an index $j>i_0$ such that $$\label{fitat}
\dfrac{t+1}t\,\left(\be_j-\be_{i_0}\right)>\left(\be_i-\be_{i_0}\right),\qquad \forall\,i>i_0.$$
Take any $\phi\in\kpi$, and let $n=\lfloor \mi/m\rfloor$. Consider the canonical $\chi_j$-expansion of $\phi$, $$\phi=a_{n,j}\,\chi_i^n+a_{n-1,j}\,\chi_i^{n-1}+\cdots+a_{1,j}\,\chi_i+a_{0,j}.$$
[**Claim.** ]{} $\phi\sim_{\rho_i} a_{t,j}\,\chi_j^t+\cdots+a_{1,j}\,\chi_j+a_{0,j},\quad \forall\,i>i_0$.
To prove the Claim we must show that $$\rho_i\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)>\rho_i(\phi)=\al+t\be_i,\qquad \forall\,s>t,\quad\forall\,i>i_0.$$ This holds whenever $i<j$ by Proposition \[powerphi\]. Thus, we may assume that $i\ge j$. In this case, $\rho_i(\chi_j)=\be_j$.
Take any $s>t$. We saw in (\[serveix\]) that $\rhi(a_{s,j})\ge\al+(t-s)\be_{i_0}$. Hence, $$\rho_i\left(a_{s,j}\,\chi_j^s\right)=\rhi(a_{s,j})+s\be_j\ge\al+(t-s)\be_{i_0}+s\be_j=\al+t\be_{i_0}+s\left(\be_j-\be_{i_0}\right).$$ We want to show that $\al+t\be_{i_0}+s\left(\be_j-\be_{i_0}\right)>\al+t\be_i$, which amounts to $$s(\be_j-\be_{i_0})>t(\be_i-\be_{i_0}),$$ and this follows from (\[fitat\]). This ends the proof of the Claim.
By the Claim, the polynomial $F=a_{t,j}\,\chi_j^t+\cdots+a_{1,j}\,\chi_j+a_{0,j}$ is non-stable. By the minimality of $\mi=\deg(\phi)$, we must have $F=\phi$.
Since the coefficients $a_{s,j}$ have degree less than $m=\deg(\rho_1)$, those which are non-zero determine units in the graded algebra $\gg_{\rho_1}$. Conversely, any unit in $\gg_{\rho_1}$ is the initial term of a polynomial of degree less than $m$ [@KP Prop.3.5]. Therefore, there exist polynomials $b,c_0,\dots,c_{t-1}\in\kx$, all of degree less than $m$, such that: $$ba_{t,j}\sim_{\rho_1}1,\qquad ba_{s,j}\sim_{\rho_1}c_s,\qquad \forall\,0\le s<t.$$ Since $\rho_1(c_s)=\rhi(c_s)$ for all $s$, we have $$ba_{t,j}\sim_{\rho_i}1,\qquad ba_{s,j}\sim_{\rho_i}c_s,\qquad \forall\,0\le s<t,$$ for all $i\ge1$. By the Claim, we deduce that $$b\phi\sim_{\rho_i}\chi_j^t+c_{t-1}\chi_j^{t-1}+\cdots +c_0,\qquad \forall\, i>i_0.$$ Since $b\phi$ is clearly non-stable, this implies that the polynomial of degree $mt$, $$\chi_j^t+c_{t-1}\chi_j^{t-1}+\cdots +c_0,$$ is non-stable too. By the minimality of $\mi=\deg(\phi)=\deg(a_{t,j})+mt$, we deduce that $\deg(a_{t,j})=0$, which implies $a_{t,j}=1$ because $\phi$ is monic.
This proves that $\mi=mt$ and $\al=\rhi(a_{t,j})=0$.
For all VB essential continuous MacLane chains, we have $\ti>1$.
Therefore, there are no VB essential continuous MacLane chains at all, if $\chr(k)=0$.
Theorem \[vbthm\] was proved for $\rho$ of finite rank in [@Vaq2004 Sec.3], and for $\rho$ of rank one in [@hmos Sec.5]. Actually, both proofs are valid for arbitrary rank, once the right definition of vertically bounded chain is introduced. We followed the approach of Vaquié in [@Vaq2004].
Invariants of unbounded continuous MacLane chains {#subsecUnbounded}
-------------------------------------------------
\[ubthm\] Let $\left(\rho_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ be an essential continuous MacLane chain as in (\[chainrho\]). If the sequence $(\be_i)_{i\ge0}$ is unbounded in $\gi$, then $$\ti\bi=\ml(\phi),\qquad \forall\,\phi\in\kpi.$$
Let $\nu$ be any valuation on $\kx$ such that $\nu>\rho_i$ for all $i$. Recall that all $\chi_i$ are key polynomials for $\nu$ such that $\nu_{\chi_i}=\rho_i$. Denote $\ep_i=\ep(\chi_i)$ for all $i$.
Let $\phi\in\kpi$. Denote $$b=\ml(\phi),\quad t=\ti, \quad\al=\ali.$$
Since $\pb{\phi}$ has degree less than $\mi$, it is a stable polymomial. Let $i_0$ be any index that stabilizes $\ti$, $\bi$ and $\rhi(\pb{\phi})$. By definition, $$\ep_i=\dfrac{\nu(\chi_i)-\nu(\prt{\bi}{\chi_i})}{\bi}=\dfrac{\be_i-\di}{\bi},\qquad \forall\, i\ge i_0,$$ where $\di$ is the invariant introduced in (\[di\]).
By (i) of Proposition \[nuQnu\], for all $i\ge i_0$ we have $$\rho_i(\pb{\phi})\ge \rho_i(\phi)-b\ep_i=\al+t\be_i-b\ep_i=\al+t\be_i-\dfrac b{\bi}\left(\be_i-\di\right)=\al+\left(t-\dfrac b{\bi}\right)\be_i+\dfrac{b\di}{\bi}.$$ From this inequality we deduce $$\left(t-\dfrac b{\bi}\right)\be_i\le \rhi(\pb{\phi})-\al-\dfrac{b\di}{\bi},\qquad \forall\, i\ge i_0.$$
Since $\pb{\phi}\ne0$, we have necessarily $t\bi\le b$. Otherwise, the sequence $(\be_i)_{i\ge0}$ would admit an upper bound in $\left(\gi\right)_{\mathbb Q}$, and hence in $\gi$, against our assumption.
This proves $t\bi\le b$, and the equality follows from Lemma \[bt>=ml\].
\[chK=0\] If $\chr(K)=0$ and the sequence $\left(\be_i\right)_{i\ge0}$ is unbounded in $\gi$, then $$\ti=\bi=1.$$
If $\chr(K)=0$, then $\ml(\phi)=1$.
In W. Mahboub PhD thesis [@M], some examples of continuous MacLane chains and limit key polynomials are exhibited. Among the HB ones, there are some examples in which the inequality $\ti\bi\ge\ml(\phi)$ is an equality (Examples 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3), and one where it is an strict inequality (Example 5.3.4).
On the other hand, any monic irreducible polynomial $\phi\in \kx$ which determines an extension of $K$ with defect, is a limit key polynomial of a suitable continuous MacLane chain. In the survey [@Kul] of F.V. Kulhmann, some VB examples are exhibited. Among them, we find some cases where the inequality $\ti\bi\ge\ml(\phi)$ is an equality (Example 3.14), and some where it is an strict inequality (Examples 3.12, 3.17, 3.20 and 3.22).
J. Decaup, W. Mahboub, M. Spivakovsky, *Abstract key polynomials and comparison theorems with the key polynomials of MacLane-Vaquié*, Illinois J. Math. [**62**]{}, Number 1-4 (2018), 253–270.
F.J. Herrera Govantes, W. Mahboub, M.A. Olalla Acosta, M. Spivakovsky, *Key polynomials for simple extensions of valued fields*, preprint, arXiv:1406.0657v4 \[math.AG\], 2018.
F.-V. Kuhlmann, *The defect*, in: Commutative Algebra - Noetherian and non-Noetherian perspectives, Marco Fontana, Salah-Eddine Kabbaj, Bruce Olberding and Irena Swanson (eds.), Springer 2011.
S. MacLane, *A construction for absolute values in polynomial rings*, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society [**40**]{} (1936), pp. 363–395.
W. Mahboub, *Une construction explicite de polyn$\hat{\mbox{o}}$mes-clé pour des valuations de rang fini*, Thèse de Doctorat, Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, Novembre 2013.
E. Nart, *Key polynomials over valued fields*, Publ. Mat. [**64**]{} (2020), 3–42.
E. Nart, *MacLane-Vaquié chains of valuations on a polynomial ring*, arXiv:1911.01714 \[math.AG\].
J. Novacoski, M. Spivakovsky, *On the local uniformization problem*, Banach Center Publications [**108**]{} (2016), 231–238. J. Novacoski, M. Spivakovsky, *Key polynomials and pseudo-convergent sequences*, J. Algebra [**495**]{} (2018), 199–219.
J. Novacoski, M. Spivakovsky, *Key polynomials and minimal pairs*, J. Algebra [**523**]{} (2019), 1–14.
P. Ribenboim, *Théorie des valuations*, Presses Univ. Montréal, Montréal, 1968.
J.-C. San Saturnino, *Defect of an extension, key polynomials and local uniformization*, Journal of Algebra [**481**]{} (2017), 91–119.
M. Vaquié, *Famille admisse associée à une valuation de $\kx$*, Singularités Franco-Japonaises, Séminaires et Congrés 10, SMF, Paris (2005), Actes du colloque franco-japonais, juillet 2002, édité par Jean-Paul Brasselet et Tatsuo Suwa, 391–428.
M. Vaquié, *Extension d’une valuation*, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society [**359**]{} (2007), no. 7, 3439–3481.
[^1]: This invariant is denoted $t$ in [@Vaq2004] and $\delta$ in [@hmos].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this work we revisit the thermal relaxation process for neutron stars. Such process is associated with the thermal coupling between the core and the crust of neutron stars. The thermal relaxation, which takes place at around 10 – 100 years, is manifested as a sudden drop of the star’s surface temperature. Such drop is smooth for slow cooling objects and very sharp for those with fast cooling. In our study we focus particularly on the cooling of neutron stars whose mass is slightly greater than the value above which the direct Urca (DU) process sets in. Considering different mechanisms for neutrino production in each region of the star, and working with equations of state with different properties, we solve the thermal evolution equation and calculate the thermal relaxation time for ample range of neutron star masses. By performing a comprehensive study of neutron stars just above the onset of the direct Urca process we show that stars under these conditions exhibit a peculiar thermal relaxation behavior. We demonstrate that such stars exhibit an abnormally late relaxation time, characterized by a second drop of its surface temperature taking place a later ages. We qualify such behavior by showing that it is associated with limited spatial distribution of the DU process is such stars. We show that as the star’s mass increase, the DU region also grows and the start exhibits the expected behavior of fast cooling stars. Finally we show that one can expect high relaxation times for stars in which the DU process takes place in a radius not larger than 3 km.'
author:
- Thiago Sales
- Odilon Lourenço
- Mariana Dutra
- Rodrigo Negreiros
bibliography:
- 'thermal\_relaxation.bib'
title: Revisiting the thermal relaxation of neutron stars
---
Introduction
============
The cooling of neutron stars has demonstrated to be a fantastic way of probing the interior of these objects. Many works were dedicated to investigating several aspects of this rich and complicated phenomena . Our current understanding of the thermal evolution of these objects tell us that they cool down mainly due to two mechanisms: neutrino emission from their interior and photon emission from the surface [for a comprehensive review see @Yakovlev2004; @2004ApJS..155..623P; @Page2009]. Initially the neutrino emission from the interior dominates the cooling. After this neutrino dominated era, when the interiors are cool enough so that neutrino emission becomes less relevant, the cooling is driven by photon emission from its surface. Furthermore, the significant differences between the structure of the star’s core and crust (the former composed of a degenerate interacting gas whereas the latter is mostly crystalline) lead to a thermal decoupling between them. Due to stronger emission, the core acts as a heat sink, absorbing part of the crust’s heat (while the other part is radiated away at the surface and by crustal neutrino emission). Eventually the core and the crust become thermally coupled, a process that is signaled by a drop of the surface temperature of the star [@Lattimer1994; @Potekhin1997; @Gnedin2001]. The drop in temperature is more or less accentuated according to how strong the neutrino emission in the core is. Usually, stars in which the powerful direct Urca (DU) process is taking place will exhibit a significant and sharp temperature drop, whereas stars without the DU will have a much smoother thermal evolution [@Lattimer1991; @Yakovlev2001]. It is this sudden surface temperature change that is used to define the thermal relaxation time.
Previous works [@Lattimer1994; @Gnedin2001] have found that the thermal relaxation time depends on microscopic properties of the star, such as thermal conductivity and specific heat. It was also found that it depends on macroscopic properties such as stellar radius and crust thickness. In this work we will revisit the thermal processes that lead to the thermal relaxation. We will show that while our results agree with the previous studies, we identified a new behavior: stars that exhibit an abnormally high thermal relaxation time. Our work identifies that this transient behavior is typical of stars just above the onset of the DU process. We will show that this is associated with the small regions in which the DU process is active is such stars (as opposed to larger regions in more massive stars, or complete absence for lower mass objects). We will see that for the stars in which the DU is not pervasive its thermal relaxation can take much longer - and that these stars exhibit thermal behavior typical of stars with and without DU process.
In order to perform this study we make use of several microscopic models that have been extensively used and tested for modelling neutron stars [@dutra2014; @PhysRevC.99.045202]. From the pool of models studied in [@dutra2014; @PhysRevC.99.045202] we have chosen four: BSR8, BSR9, G2\* and IU-FSU – all of them allow for the DU process to set in at reasonable neutron star masses (between 1.0 and 2.0 solar masses). Furthermore, all of them present microscopic properties different enough to allow us to conclude that the results we find are most likely general. As we will see, the same behavior is shared among all models studied, with the only difference being the star’s mass at which the DU process becomes available.
This paper is divided as follow: in section 2 we discuss the microscopic models used, section 3 is devoted to the review of the thermal evolution of neutron stars, section 4 contains our results for the relaxation time of neutron stars at the onset of the direct Urca process, and in section 5 we present our conclusions.
Microscopic Models {#Micro}
==================
The Quantum Hadrodynamics (QHD) is a powerful tool used to build models that represent the strongly interacting matter with hadrons being the mainly degrees of freedom. The first model constructed from such an approach was proposed by Walecka [@walecka1; @walecka2] with the two free parameters fixed to reproduce the nuclear matter energy per particle as a function of the density, with a minimum of $B_0=-15.75$ MeV at the saturation density $\rho_0=0.19$ fm$^{-3}$. However, the model also presents bad results for the effective mass ratio and incompressibilty, both at $\rho=\rho_0$, namely, $M^*_0/M_{\mbox{\tiny n}}=0.56$ ($M_{\mbox{\tiny nuc}}$ is the nucleon rest mass) and $K_0=540$ MeV, respectively. Over the years, many other improved versions of this model were proposed in which $M^*_0/M_{\mbox{\tiny n}}$ and $K_0$ are fixed to more compatible values with experimental/theoretical predictions. Furthermore, other bulk parameters at the saturation density are also used in order to constrain the free coupling constants of these microscopic models.
Here, we investigate the cooling process of neutron stars based on parametrizations of a general model described by the following Lagrangian density [@dutra2014; @LI2008113], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &=& \bar{\psi}\left(i \gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-M_{\mbox{\tiny n}}\right) \psi+g_{\sigma} \sigma \bar{\psi} \psi-g_{\omega} \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \omega_{\mu} \psi + \frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{2} \vec{\rho}_{\mu} \vec{\rho}^{\mu}
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{g_{\rho}}{2} \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \vec{\rho}_{\mu} \vec{\tau} \psi
+\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial^{\mu} \sigma \partial_{\mu} \sigma-m_{\sigma}^{2} \sigma^{2}\right)-\frac{A}{3} \sigma^{3}-\frac{B}{4} \sigma^{4} \nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{4} F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu}+\frac{1}{2} m_{\omega}^{2} \omega_{\mu} \omega^{\mu}+\frac{C}{4}\left(g_{\omega}^{2} \omega_{\mu} \omega^{\mu}\right)^{2} -\frac{1}{4} \vec{B}^{\mu \nu} \vec{B}_{\mu \nu}
\nonumber\\
&+& g_\sigma g_\omega^2\sigma\omega_\mu\omega^\mu\left(\alpha_1+\frac{1}{2}{\alpha'_1}g_\sigma\sigma\right)
+\frac{1}{2} \alpha_3' g_{\omega}^{2} g_{\rho}^{2} \omega_{\mu} \omega^{\mu} \vec{\rho}_{\mu} \vec{\rho}^{\mu}
\nonumber\\
&+& g_\sigma g_\rho^2\sigma\vec{\rho}_\mu\vec{\rho}^\mu \left(\alpha_2+\frac{1}{2}{\alpha'_2}g_\sigma\sigma\right),
\label{lagrangian} \end{aligned}$$ in which $F_{\mu \nu}=\partial_{\mu} \omega_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu} \omega_{\mu}$ and $\vec{B}_{\mu \nu}=\partial_{\mu} \vec{\rho}_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu} \vec{\rho}_{\mu}$. $\psi$ is the nucleon field and $\sigma$, $\omega_\mu$ and $\vec{\rho}_{\mu}$ represent the fields of the mesons $\sigma$, $\omega$ and $\rho$, respectively. The mean-field approximation is used in order to solve the equations of motion for the fields. This procedure, along with the energy-momentum tensor, $T_{\mu \nu}$, allows the construction of all thermodynamics of the system since the energy density and pressure are given by $\mathcal{E}=\langle T_{00}\rangle$ and $P=\langle T_{ii}\rangle /3$, respectively. These equations of state are evaluated, as a function of the density, by taking into account the auto-consistency of the field equations and the definition of the effective nucleon mass given by $M^*= M_{\mbox{\tiny n}}-g_\sigma\sigma$. More details related to the calculations of these quantities can be found in Refs. [@dutra2014; @LI2008113] and references therein.
In order to study neutron stars and their thermal evolution, it is needed to construct stellar matter by imposing charge neutrality and $\beta$-equilibrium. This leads to the following conditions upon chemical potentials and densities: $\mu_n - \mu_p = \mu_e=\mu_\mu$ and $\rho_p - \rho_e = \rho_\mu$, where , for $l=e, \mu$, and $\mu_e=(3\pi^2\rho_e)^{1/3}$. The total energy density and pressure of $\beta$-equilibrated stellar matter is then given by $\varepsilon = \mathcal{E} + \mathcal{E}_e + \mathcal{E}_\mu$ and $p = P + P_e + P_\mu$, respectively. The chemical potentials and densities of protons, neutrons, electrons and muons are given, respectively, by $\mu_p$, $\mu_n$, $\mu_e$, $\mu_\mu$, and $\rho_p$, $\rho_n$, $\rho_e$, $\rho_\mu$, with $y=\rho_p/\rho=\rho_p/(\rho_p+\rho_n)$. Some neutron star properties, such as the mass-radius profile, are obtained through the solution of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations [@tov39; @tov39a] given by $dp(r)/dr=-[\varepsilon(r) + p(r)][m(r) + 4\pi r^3p(r)]/r^2f(r)$ and $dm(r)/dr=4\pi r^2\varepsilon(r)$, where $f(r)=1-2m(r)/r$.
We choose to study parametrizations of the relativistic mean-field (RMF) model described by Eq. (\[lagrangian\]) that lead to the onset of the DU process [@Lattimer1991; @Yakovlev2001] at densities associated with a relatively wide range of stellar masses (see next section for more details), namely, BSR8 [@bsr89], BSR9 [@bsr89], G2\* [@g2s] and [@iufsu]. Their main bulk properties (at the saturation density) are listed in Table \[bulk\].
Quantity BSR8 BSR9 G2\* IU-FSU
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$\rho_0$ (fm$^{-3}$) $0.147$ $0.147$ $0.154$ $0.155$
$B_0$ (MeV) $-16.04$ $-16.07$ $-16.07$ $-16.40$
$K_0$ (MeV) $230.95$ $232.50$ $214.77$ $231.33$
$M^*_0/M_{\mbox{\tiny n}}$ $0.61$ $0.60$ $0.66$ $0.61$
$J$ (MeV) $31.08$ $31.61$ $30.39$ $31.30$
$L_0$ (MeV) $60.25$ $63.89$ $69.68$ $47.21$
$K^0_{\mbox{\tiny sym}}$ (MeV) $-0.74$ $-11.32$ $-21.93$ $28.53$
: Bulk parameters of the RMF parametrizations used in the study of the neutron star cooling process.
\[bulk\]
The isovector bulk parameters shown in that table are $J=\mathcal{S}(\rho_0)$ (symmetry energy at $\rho_0$), $L_0=L(\rho_0)$ (symmetry energy slope at $\rho_0$) and $K^0_{\mbox{\tiny sym}}=K_{\mbox{\tiny sym}}(\rho_0)$ (symmetry energy curvature at $\rho_0$), with $\mathcal{S}(\rho)=(1/8)(\partial^{2}E/\partial y^2)|_{y=1/2}$, $L_0=3\rho_0(\partial\mathcal{S}/\partial\rho)_{\rho_0}$, $K^0_{\mbox{\tiny sym}}=9\rho_0^2(\partial^2\mathcal{S}/\partial\rho^2)_{\rho_0}$ and $E(\rho)=\mathcal{E}/\rho$. These specific parametrizations were selected out of $35$ other ones shown to be consistent with constraints related to nuclear matter, pure neutron matter, symmetry energy, and its derivatives, in an analysis that investigated a larger set of $263$ RMF parametrizations [@dutra2014].
Cooling of Neutron Stars
========================
The cooling of neutron stars is driven by the emission of neutrinos and photons, the former being emitted from the stellar core, and the latter from the surface. The thermal evolution equations for a spherically symmetric, relativistic star - with geometric unit system ($G = c = 1$) are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \partial (l e^{2\Phi})}{\partial m}& =
&-\frac{1}{\varepsilon \sqrt{1 - 2m/r}} \left( \epsilon_\nu
e^{2\Phi} + c_v \frac{\partial (T e^\Phi) }{\partial t} \right) \, ,
\label{coeq1} \\
\frac{\partial (T e^\Phi)}{\partial m} &=& -
\frac{(l e^{\Phi})}{16 \pi^2 r^4 \kappa \varepsilon \sqrt{1 - 2m/r}}
\label{coeq2}
\, .\end{aligned}$$
Details of the derivation of such equations can be found in references [@Page2006; @1999Weber..book; @1996NuPhA.605..531S]. One must also note that the cooling of neutron stars strongly depends on both micro and macroscopic properties of the star, which makes thermal evolution studies a fantastic way of probing compact star properties. Quantities that are of extreme importance to calculate the cooling are the neutrino emissivity ($\epsilon_\nu(r,T)$), thermal conductivity ($\kappa(r,T)$), and specific heat ($c_v(r,T)$), all of which depend on microscopic information of the underlying model. In addition to that, macroscopic properties such as radial distance ($r$), mass ($m(r)$), curvature ($\phi(r)$), temperature $T(r,t)$, luminosity ($l(r,t)$) are also needed for the solution of eqs. (\[coeq1\]) and (\[coeq2\]).
The boundary conditions for the solution of eqs. (\[coeq1\]) and (\[coeq2\]) are given by a vanishing heat flow at the star’s center $L(r=0) = 0$ and by the relationship between the surface luminosity and the mantle temperature - this last condition depends on the surface properties of the star and its composition, and is discussed in details in [@Gudmundsson1982; @Gudmundsson1983].
This study takes into account all neutrino emission processes allowed to happen in accordance with our current understanding - for a detailed review of such processes we direct the reader to references [@Yakovlev2000; @Yakovlev2004] .
Notice that we intentionally do not consider pairing among the star’s constituents. This is a conscious decision, as not to cloud the object of study, namely the thermal relaxation time. Evidently we are not advocating for the absence of pairing in neutron stars and refer the reader to several papers on the subject [@1996NuPhA.605..531S; @2004ApJS..155..623P; @Yakovlev2001; @Page2011a]. In this work, however, we study the thermal evolution of objects without pairing, as to properly quantify and qualify the relaxation time of these stars. Evidently this work should be augmented with the inclusion of pairing - which is currently underway.
Thermal Relaxation
-------------------
The thermal relaxation of a neutron star is characterized by the time it takes for the core and the crust to become thermally coupled. As explained in refs. [@Lattimer1994; @Gnedin2001], due to the significantly different structures between the neutron star core and its crust (the latter composed roughly of a degenerate gas and the former of a crystalline structure) their thermal conductivity and specific heat are drastically different. Furthermore, there is strong emission of neutrinos in the core (the actual strength of the neutrino emission will depend on the presence or not of the direct Urca process, as we will discuss below). These two factors lead to the formation of cold front at the core that can be imagined to “propagate” towards the surface. Once it emerges, the surface temperature of the star exhibits a sudden drop (more or less accentuated according to the presence or absence of the DU process) - signaling the thermal coupling between the core and crust. Such relaxation times are typically $t_w \sim 10 - 100$ years - depending on stellar properties. In this work we follow the definition of [@Gnedin2001] and define the relaxation time as $$t_w = \max \left| \frac{d\ln(T_s)}{d(\ln(t))} \right|. \label{tw}$$
The authors of [@Lattimer1994; @Gnedin2001] have found that the relaxation time can generally be written as $$t_w \approx \alpha t_1, \label{tw1}$$ where $t_1$ is a normalized relaxation time that depends solely on the composition of the star. $\alpha$ is given by $$\alpha = \left(\frac{\Delta R_{\text{crust}}}{1\text{km}}\right)^2 \left( 1- 2M/R\right)^{-3/2},$$ where $\Delta R_{\text{crust}}$ is the crust thickness, and $M$ and $R$ the stellar mass and radius, respectively.
Eq. (\[tw\]) shows a linear dependence between the relaxation time and the quantity $\alpha$, which in turn strongly depends on macroscopic properties such as crust thickness, mass and radius. The normalized time $t_1$ is a propotionality constant that depends on the microscopic properties, such as specific heat and thermal conductivity of the underlying model [@Gnedin2001].
These results indicate that stars with higher mass, which are associated with thinner crusts and more intense neutrino emissions from their core, have a smaller relaxation time than their low mass counterparts - which is indeed the case as noted in [@Gnedin2001]. One notes a substantial difference between stars that exhibit fast cooling (generally higher mass objects with the presence of powerful neutrino emission processes such as the DU) and slow cooling stars (objects with lower masses). It was found that they both obey relation (\[tw\]) but have different values for the coefficient ($t_1$) - which is understandable given that such coefficient is associated with microscopic properties of the star. In this work we investigate stars at the transition between slow and fast cooling regimes. We will see that such transition is generally non-linear, with the onset of a fast cooling process such as the DU giving rise to a substantial change in the thermal properties. We will show in the next section that in this transition regime stars exhibit longer thermal relaxation times than their counterparts either in the slow or fast cooling regimes.
Relaxation time at the onset of the DU process
==============================================
Before we can devote our attention to the thermal behavior of stars near the onset of the DU process we will discuss the general cooling properties of the stars described by the different microscopic models described in section \[Micro\]. By varying the central density we calculate a family of stars whose cooling can then be calculated. Furthermore, we also identified the stars at which the DU process becomes active. We recall that the DU process can only take place if the triangle inequality $k_{fn} \leqslant k_{fp} + k_{fe}$ is satisfied. This usually translate to a proton fraction $\sim 11 - 15\%$[@Lattimer1991; @Page2006]. The properties of the stars at the onset of DU process for the models studied are shown in Table \[DU\_threshold\].
Model $\rho_{DU}(fm^{-3})$ $M_{DU}/M_{\odot}$ $Y_{DU}$
-------- ---------------------- -------------------- ----------
BSR8 $0.405$ $1.41$ $0.135$
BSR9 $0.385$ $1.31$ $0.135$
G2\* $0.390$ $1.19$ $0.135$
IU-FSU $0.614$ $1.77$ $0.138$
: Stellar central energy density $\rho_{DU}$, stellar mass $M_{DU}$ and proton fraction $Y_{DU}$ above which the DU process is active inside the star for all EoS’s studied herein.
\[DU\_threshold\]
The cooling of a wide range of masses for each model studied is shown in Figs. \[bsr8cool\]-\[iufsu\]. As we can see, all models exhibit, qualitatively, the same behavior, with lighter stars displaying slow cooling whereas heavier ones show fast cooling. Each model has a different mass at which the DU processes sets in, this can be traced back to the differences in the microscopic model, particularly to the symmetry energy, its slope and curvature. We must note that model IU-FSU sets itself a part due to a lower symmetry energy slope and much higher curvature. This leads to the DU onset to take place at stars with much higher masses. Regardless of the microscopic model, or the mass at which the DU sets in, one can see a substantial difference in the cooling curves once it sets in. The reason behind such behavior lies in the strength of the DU process ($\sim 10^{27} (T_9)^6$ erg/cm$^3$s, being $T_9$ the temperature in units of $10^9 K$), much higher than that of the modified Urca process ($\sim 10^{21} (T_9)^6$ erg/cm$^3$s). Thus even if active in just a small kernel at the stellar core, it strongly affects the thermal evolution of star, as shown in Figs. \[bsr8cool\]-\[iufsu\].
One also sees that as the star’s mass increase the cooling becomes faster – which can be explained by the fact that the DU kernel at the star’s center is growing with the mass of the star. Eventually the DU kernel becomes large enough that any increase in its size becomes mostly irrelevant and the cooling behavior of the star changes very little with any increase in the mass.
We now use the definition given by eq. (\[tw\]), to determine the thermal relaxation time of the stars whose cooling is depicted in Figs. \[bsr8cool\]-\[iufsu\]. The results are shown in Fig. \[tw\_x\_M\].
One can see that the thermal relaxation time exhibits a highly non-linear behavior, drastically increasing at certain values of mass and quickly decreasing to a smoother shape. The mass at which the relaxation time increases is precisely the mass at which the DU sets in (for that particular microscopic model). The overall decrease of the thermal relaxation time with the increase of the mass has already been identified in previous studies, however, in order to identify the non-linear behavior near the DU onset, one needs a high-resolution study of the cooling of stars just above such onset, as in these stars the DU process is not pervasive in the star’s interior as we will discuss below.
To better understand the non-linear behavior of $t_w$ it is helpful to analyze the evolution of the derivative of $\ln T_s$, which we show in Figs. \[dlnt\_bsr8\]–\[dlnt\_iufsu\].
One can see that for stars with slow cooling, the relaxation process is smoother, as can be seen by the smooth minimum in the curves of Figs. \[dlnt\_bsr8\]–\[dlnt\_iufsu\], located at $\sim 100$ years. Analyzing Figs. \[dlnt\_bsr8\]–\[dlnt\_iufsu\] we also see that as the stellar mass increases and the DU process is triggered, a second minimum appears at later times. This minimum has a larger magnitude than the first as it is associated with the DU process. It is also clear that as the mass increases (and so does the region in which the DU takes place) this second minimum becomes sharper and more intense, until eventually overtaking the first smoother minimum - leading to stars with one minimum only, except this time much deeper. This indicates that stars with small DU kernels in the interiors have a “double” thermalization process. Such stars exhibit the thermal behavior typical of stars with and without the DU process. In order to understand this process we show the temperature profile at different times for stars of different masses (all in the BSR8 model): i) $ M = 1.3 M_\odot$ (no DU PROCESS, fig. \[1.3prof\]); ii) $ M = 1.41 M_\odot$ (just above the onset of the DU, fig. \[1.41prof\]); and iii) $M = 1.8 M_\odot$ (well above the DU onset – prominent DU, fig. \[1.8prof\]). We note that all other models exhibit, qualitatively, the same behavior and we omit the figures for the sake of conciseness.
A careful examination of Figs. \[1.3prof\] - \[1.8prof\] provides important insight on the behavior discussed above. First we review the thermal evolution of a low mass star, such as that exhibited in Fig. \[1.3prof\]. In such stars the DU process is absent, thus there is no fast cooling mechanism within. This means that the core cools down in a mostly uniform matter, and as such by 0.1 years it is mostly isothermal. It is also relatively hot. Thus, in stars such as this, the thermal relaxation is solely due to the thermal coupling between the core and the crust. Due to the relatively high temperature of the core this process is slow and smooth. Now we shall skip to high mass stars, such as the 1.8 $M_\odot$, whose temperature profiles are exhibited in Fig. \[1.8prof\]. In these stars the DU process takes place in a large region of their core (although not the entire core). As such, this leads to a temperature profile with a large temperature gradient between the DU and non-DU region within the core. The DU region is significantly colder and acts as a very strong heat sink due to its size and to the strength of the DU process. As such when the core becomes isothermal, it does so at a lower temperature when compared to the non-DU cooling. Furthermore, the core acts as a stronger heat sink, efficiently drawing heat from the crust, thus exhibiting the behavior of a strong cold front, that readily reaches the surface - leading to a sudden and strong drop in surface temperature. Finally, we now turn our attention to stars just above the onset of the DU - illustrated by the $ M=1.41 M_\odot$ star - Fig. \[1.41prof\]. These stars have the DU process limited to a small kernel in their interior. This can be seen in Fig. \[1.41prof\] as the relatively small region with a lower temperature at small radius. Due to the small size of this region, its influence on the global thermal behavior of the star is limited. As such, for the initial years, the outer core and the crust of the star behave as if there is no DU process and the star (initially) behave as a slow cooling star. Eventually the core will become isothermal, as the influence of the DU region propagates until it eventually reaches the surface, leading to a belated thermal relaxation. This indicates a hybrid behavior for such stars, in which at young ages it behaves as a non-DU stars and later exhibits a drop in its surface temperature. The result of which is an abnormally high relaxation time for stars in this transitional region. This is an exotic behavior: stars near the onset of the DU process may exhibit larger thermal relaxation times than other objects either with or without prominent fast cooling processes.
The scenario discussed above can be further understood by analyzing the conductive luminosity [@1999Weber..book] within the star. This quantity is related to a fraction of the total energy of the star that is transferred via heat conduction within the star. For a general relativistic star with spherical symmetry it can be defined as $$L_r = -4 \pi r^2 \kappa(r) \sqrt{1-\frac{m(r)}{r}}e^{-\phi}\frac{d}{dr}(T e^\phi).$$
We show in Figs \[Lcr\_13\]-\[Lcr\_18\] the conductive luminosity for the three stars discussed above.
The results of Figs \[Lcr\_13\]-\[Lcr\_18\] corroborate our previous assessment. We see in Fig. \[Lcr\_13\] that the core is mostly isothermal by 0.1 year (as indicated by a mostly absent conductivity luminosity within the core), leading to very little heat transport within the core - being the core-crust interface the most prominent conductive heat sink (with the core absorbing large amounts of the crust heat). Fig. \[Lcr\_13\] also shows that with the passage of time this sink becomes smaller until core-crust thermal equilibrium is achieved. The situation is drastically different for the 1.8 solar mass star, in which the DU process is present in a large part of the core as shown in Fig. \[Lcr\_18\]. In this star we see that besides the core-crust heat sink, there is also a significant heat sink within the core - which is associated with the interface between the DU and non-DU regions (which is naturally smoother than the core-crust interface). In this system we have a strong heat sink reducing the temperature of the core, as well as the core absorbing heat from of the crust. Finally, in Fig. \[Lcr\_14156\] we show the conductive luminosity for the 1.41 solar mass star - which is just above the DU onset. As discussed before, this star has a hybrid behavior. We see the expected peak at the core-crust transition and a relatively small heat sink near the star’s core. This is associated to the small DU kernel present in this star. As such, this small heat sink takes longer to make itself noticeable and the star initially cools down as if there was no DU process - until the effect of this region finally reaches the crust leading to a second belated thermal coupling, indicated by the late drop in the temperature of the surface.
Finally, we discuss what happens as the mass of the star increases and we move from this transitional behavior to the well known fast cooling scenario. As discussed above, after a certain point, when the DU is pervasive enough the thermal relaxation time changes very little with the increase of the mass. This can be clearly seen in Fig. \[tw\_x\_M\]. In order to understand how large the DU process kernel needs to be such that the star finds itself out of the transient region, we analyse the dependence of the relaxation time on radius of the DU kernel (the fraction of the core in which the DU takes place). In Fig. \[tw\_Rdu\] we show how the thermal relaxation time changes as the radius of the DU kernel ($R_{DU}$) increases (for stars of higher masses). One can note that this graph is essentially analogous as that shown in Fig. \[tw\_x\_M\], as the DU kernel increases together with the mass. It is, nonetheless, useful to see the direct dependence on the size of the DU kernel, as it tell us that the thermal relaxation time stabilizes at $R_{DU} \sim 2 -3$ km, meaning that at this point the star will behave as expected for a fast cooling object.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we revisited the concept of relaxation time for the cooling of neutron stars – we used a set of equations of state to investigate how the thermal relaxation time depends on the micro and macroscopic properties of the star. Previous studies [@Gnedin2001; @Lattimer1994] have found a direct dependence between relaxation time and properties such as crust thickness, stellar mass and radius; in fact it depends linearly on a quantity denoted $\alpha$, which in turn depends only on these stellar macroscopic properties – the proportionality constant in such dependence is given by $t_1$ (see eq. (\[tw\])) and is associated with the microscopic properties of the model adopted. Our study confirms these results, while adding a new attribute: a nonlinear increase on the relaxation time for stars near the onset of the direct Urca process. We have found that stars with masses just above that of the onset of the DU process will have longer relaxation times. In order to understand this behavior we performed an extensive analysis of the relaxation time of stars just above the onset of the DU process. We have found (across all models) that as the DU process sets in a second minimum appears at later times in the curve of $d\ln(T_s)/d(\ln(t))$. We have also found that as the mass increases such minimum becomes stronger and happens at earlier times. We have identified this second minimum as a late influence of the DU process happening in small regions at the core of the stars. This is confirmed by the analysis of both the temperature distribution and conductive luminosity inside the stars. We can see that for stars with low mas, the core is mostly isothermal and acts as a heat sink, drawing heat from the crust. As for high mass stars with prominent DU process in their interior, we have colder region of the core (where the DU is active) that draws heat from the non-DU region, whereas this region draws heat from the crust. This causes a quick and strong cold-front that leads to the well known drop in temperature surface for fast cooling stars. For stars in the transition from absent to prominent DU - we have a hybrid behavior: due to the smaller regions in which the DU is active, the star initially behaves as if there were no DU, with a smooth coupling between core and crust, which is followed by the late arrival of the DU influence, leading to a belated thermal relaxation time. Our studies show that this is a transitional phenomenon, taking place in stars whose composition is just above the onset of the DU process. We have determined that as the DU kernel in the star grows, the object returns to the expected behavior, with shorter relaxation times for stars of higher masses. Our study indicates that, for direct Urca kernels reaching a size of $\sim 2-3$ km, the thermal relaxation time regains its normal and expected behavior.
For this study we have used several microscopic models, covering a wide range of microscopic properties and leading to stars with different masses at the onset of the DU process. All models exhibited the same qualitative behavior, which leads us to believe this is not model dependent. As mentioned before, however, we have not taken into account pairing - which reduces considerably the neutrino emissivity strength, and may even lead to the total suppression of the DU process. We have opted to leave it out of this study as the current uncertainties on pairing at high density regimes would obscure our analysis. We stress that we are not claiming pairing is irrelevant, only that we left it out for the purpose of qualifying the phenomenon studied here. We intend to pursue further investigation of the phenomena we found here by taking account several models of superfluidity, accounting for possible proton and neutron pairings covering different regions of the star. We believe, nonetheless, that we have found an interesting phenomena, possibly not seen before - one that allows neutron stars to exhibit unusually large relaxation time if their structure happens to have just reached the onset of fast neutrino emissivity, typically associated with the DU process. For future perspective we intend to extend this study (in addition to the aforementioned pairing) to other possible transitional phenomena, such as in hybrid stars. It may be possible that for a hybrid EoS that allows for stars in its family to possess a quark matter core to exhibit similar behavior, with a change in the relaxation time for stars that have just reached the transition to quark matter. Such studies are currently underway and will be discussed in future publications.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
T.S. and R.N. acknowledges financial support from Coordenção de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de N' ivel Superior (CAPES) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). R.N. acknowledges financial support from CAPES, CNPq and FAPERJ. This work is part of the project INCT-FNA Proc. No. 464898/2014-5 as well as FAPERJ JCNE Proc. No. E-26/203.299/2017. This work is also partially supported by CNPq under grants 310242/2017-7 and 406958/2018-1 (O.L.), 433369/2018-3 (M.D.), and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) under the thematic project 2013/26258-4 (O.L.) and 2017/05660-0 (O.L., M.D.).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Interactions between an edge dislocation and a void in copper are investigated by means of molecular dynamics simulation. The depinning stresses of the leading partial and of the trailing partial show qualitatively different behaviors. The depinning stress of the trailing partial increases logarithmically with the void radius, while that of the leading partial shows a crossover at $1$ nm above which two partials are simultaneously trapped by the void. The pinning angle, which characterizes the obstacle strength, approaches zero when the void radius exceeds $3$ nm. No temperature dependence is found in the critical stress and the critical angle. This is attributed to an absence of climb motion. The distance between the void center and a glide plane asymmetrically affects the pinning strength.'
author:
- Takahiro Hatano
- Hideki Matsui
title: molecular dynamics investigation of dislocation pinning by a nanovoid in copper
---
introduction
============
Voids are ubiquitous in irradiated metals and act as obstacles to dislocation motion as well as other radiation-induced defects: e.g. stacking fault tetrahedra or helium bubbles. Those obstacles results in the increase of yield stress and therefore play an important role in irradiation hardening. To investigate the extent of hardening by those obstacles, there has been a model in which a dislocation is regarded as a continuous line with a constant line tension. This is referred to as the uniform line tension model. In the presence of obstacles, a dislocation is fixed to form a cusp at an obstacle. The pinning angle $\phi$ is defined as the angle between two tangent vectors at a cusp. (See FIG. \[cartoon\]). Then the restoring force to make a dislocation straight is written as $2\gamma\cos(\phi/2)$, where $\gamma$ denotes the line tension. We assume that a dislocation can penetrate an obstacle when the restoring force exceeds the critical value. Since $\gamma$ is a constant, this condition is equivalent to $\phi\le\phi_c$, which we call the critical angle.
![A cusp formed at an obstacle. The angle $\phi$ between two tangential vectors is called the pinning angle.[]{data-label="cartoon"}](pinned.eps)
Note that stronger obstacles have smaller critical angles. A dislocation bows out to form an arc between two obstacles until the pinning angle reaches its critical value.
For a periodic array of obstacles whose spacing is $L$, the critical resolved shear stress (CRSS) $\tau_c$ above which a dislocation can penetrate the array of obstacles is represented by $$\label{tauperiodic}
\tau_c=\frac{2\gamma}{bL}\cos\frac{\phi_c}{2},$$ where $b$ denotes the Burgers vector length of the dislocation. (The line tension $\gamma$ is given by the elastic theory and is often written as $Gb^2/2$, where $G$ represents the shear modulus.)
In more realistic situations, obstacles are distributed randomly on glide planes and the randomness plays a crucial role in dislocation dynamics. In order to incorporate this effect, Foreman and Makin performed computer simulation of the dislocation motion on a glide plane with randomly distributed obstacles which have the same critical angle [@foreman]. They found that the dislocation propagation has two qualitatively different modes depending on the critical angle. For obstacles of a small critical angle (i.e. strong obstacles), the dislocation propagation resembles dendritic growth [@cieplak], while for a large critical angle (i.e. weak obstacles) the global form does not significantly deviate from the straight line. Also $\tau_c$ are well described by [@note1] $$\label{taurandom}
\tau_c=\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}ll}
\frac{2\gamma}{bL}\left(\cos\frac{\phi_c}{2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}, \ (\phi_c\ge\frac{5}{9}\pi) \\
\frac{1.6\gamma}{bL}\cos\frac{\phi_c}{2}, \ (\phi_c\le\frac{5}{9}\pi)
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $L$ denotes the inverse of the square root of the areal density of obstacles on a glide plane [@kocks].
In this context, the critical angle $\phi_c$, which characterizes the obstacle strength, is an important parameter to discuss the extent of hardening. However, estimation of the critical angle is not an easy task, because it involves the core structure of dislocations. In this regard, extensive molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on the interaction between a dislocation and radiation-induced obstacles have been performed: e.g. stacking fault tetrahedra [@wirth], interstitial Frank loops [@rodney], voids and copper precipitates in bcc iron [@osetsky1; @osetsky2; @osetsky3].
On the other hand, there are some experimental attempts to determine the critical angle utilizing transmission electron microscopy (TEM) [@robach; @nogiwa]. They seem to be promising but still should be complemented by MD simulations in terms of the spatial resolution. For example, subnanometer obstacles cannot be seen by TEM.
In this paper, along the line of the above computational and experimental studies, we wish to estimate the critical angle and the critical stress regarding voids in copper. Especially, effects of the dissociation, temperature, and the distance from the void center to a glide plane are studied in detail. Note that we focus on an edge dislocation here. Results on a screw dislocation will be presented elsewhere.
This paper is organized as follows. In the section \[themodel\], we introduce the computational model; fcc copper including an edge dislocation and a void. In the section \[behaviors\], the nature of the critical stress is investigated. Especially, void size dependence and the temperature dependence is discussed. The section \[thecriticalangle\] deals with the critical angle, which is often measured by experiments (mainly TEM observation) to determine the obstacle strength. The discussion enables us to compare the MD simulation with the experiments. In the section \[impactparameterdependence\], effects of the distance between the void center and a glide plane are investigated. In the section \[thecollapseprocess\], we discuss pinning strength of deformed voids in the context of dislocation channeling and plastic flow localization. The last section \[discussionandconclusion\] is devoted to discussions and conclusions.
the model {#themodel}
=========
the geometry
------------
We treat fcc copper in this paper. As for the interatomic potential, we adopt the embedded-atom method of Finnis-Sinclair type [@finnis] and choose the parameters according to Ackland et al. [@ackland]. The lattice constant $a=3.615$ Å.
The schematic of our system is shown in FIG. \[configuration\].
![Schematic of the system. Periodic boundary conditions are assigned to the $x$ and the $y$ directions. The system contains approximately $0.55$ million atoms.[]{data-label="configuration"}](configuration.eps)
The $x$, $y$, and $z$ axes are taken as the $[11\bar{2}]$, $[1\bar{1}0]$, and $[111]$ directions, respectively. The length of each dimension is $23$nm, $23$nm, and $15$ nm. Periodic boundary conditions are employed in the $x$ and the $y$ directions. That is, we consider dislocations of infinite length in the $x$ direction are periodically located in the $y$ direction.
Note that we have the surface only in the $z$ direction, both for $z>0$ and for $z<0$. Following [@osetsky4], three atomic layers of $[111]$ next to the lowest surface ($z<0)$ are “the fixed layers” where velocities of the atoms always vanish. Similarly, three atomic layers of $[111]$ next to the upper surface ($z>0)$ are “the moving layers” where velocities of the atoms are not given by the integration of force acting on them, but are given as a constant to cause the shear stress. Namely, the strain rate is the control parameter: not the shear stress. The moving surface moves to the $-y$ direction: i.e. $[\bar{1}10]$.
In order to introduce a void, atoms whose barycentric positions are in the spherical region $(x\pm L/2)^2+y^2+z^2<r^2$ are removed, where $r$ denotes the radius of the void. To introduce an edge dislocation, atoms that belong to one $(1\bar{1}0)$ half plane ($z<0$) are removed and the rest of atoms are displaced by the strain field calculated from the elastic theory. This procedure produces a perfect edge dislocation whose Burgers vector is $a/2[1\bar{1}0]$. However, a perfect dislocation in an fcc crystal is energetically unstable to split into two partial dislocations whose Burgers vector length $b$ is $a/\sqrt{6}=1.48$ Å. $$\frac{a}{2}[\bar{1}10]\rightarrow \frac{a}{6}[\bar{2}11]+\frac{a}{6}[\bar{1}2\bar{1}].$$ Since we wish to prepare two partial dislocations and a void in an initial system, atoms are suitably shifted from the original position by the steepest descent method in order to realize the dissociation. In addition, since our system consists of the periodic array of dislocations due to the periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ direction, this procedure also incorporates the excess strain field caused by the next dislocations. After certain time steps, the perfect dislocation dissociates to yield two partial dislocations separated by approximately $4$ nm.
Temperature is fixed to be $300$ K in this paper, except for the section \[temperaturedependence\] where the temperature effect on the CRSS is investigated. Velocities of atoms are given by random numbers which obey the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. After a relatively short time required for phonon relaxation, “the moving layer”, which is explained above, begins to displace to cause strain.
the strain rate
---------------
The strain rate $\dot{\epsilon}$ is an important parameter in MD simulations of dislocations. In this paper, we set $\dot{\epsilon} = 8 \times 10^6$ \[$\rm{sec}^{-1}$\]. Although it seems still unrealistically fast deformation, the strain rate in MD simulation should not be directly compared with the macroscopic (or experimental) strain rate because the macroscopic strain rate involves only the average dislocation velocity. Namely, both spatial and temporal fluctuations in dislocation velocity are neglected. The complete correspondence of microscopic dislocation velocity to the macroscopic strain rate is not clear at all unless we know the statistical property of space-time fluctuation in dislocation motion.
Calculation of the shear stress is noteworthy. We define the shear stress as the forces in the $y$ direction acting on the unit area of the moving layers and the fixed layers. However, this microscopic definition of the shear stress shows a large thermal fluctuation. In addition, the inertial motion of the dislocation due to the high strain rate may enable depinning at lower stress [@osetsky1]. In order to reduce these effects, simulation is performed twofold. Namely, the representative point in the phase space (spanned by the positions and the momenta of all atoms) are recorded every $4.6$ ps. We then take the point where depinning just begins and restart the simulation with $\dot{\epsilon}=0$. In this relaxation process, the inertial effect is ruled out and the thermal fluctuation in the shear stress is averaged out. Taking this relaxation process into account, the average strain rate becomes approximately $10^6$ \[1/sec\].
Behaviors of the critical resolved shear stress {#behaviors}
===============================================
temporal behavior
-----------------
First, we track the time evolution. Under the shear stress caused by the boundary condition, two partial dislocations glide towards the $[\bar{1}10]$ direction: the $-y$ direction. The Burgers vectors of the leading and the trailing partials are $[\bar{2}11]$ and $[\bar{1}2\bar{1}]$, respectively. Snapshots of a pinning-depinning process are shown in FIG. \[snaps\].
![Successive snapshots of a depinning process: (a) trapping of the leading partial, (b) just before the depinning of the leading partial, (c) just before depinning of the trailing partial, (d) depinning of the trailing partial. The void radius is $1$ nm. To visualize the void and the dislocations, atoms that have $12$ nearest neighbors are omitted. (Atoms which form dislocations have $11$ or $13$ nearest neighbors, and the number of nearest neighbors of void surface atoms is less than $12$.)[]{data-label="snaps"}](snaps.eps)
Note that there are two depinning processes of the leading and the trailing partials. In the stress-strain relation (FIG. \[force\]), we can see two peaks which correspond to the each depinning process. We remark that the critical stress for the leading partial is always larger than that of the trailing partial. This is because the leading partial has already escaped from the void and keeps gliding while the trailing partial is pinned by the void. Then the width of the stacking fault ribbon extends to yield attractive force between the partials. Namely, depinning of the trailing partial is assisted by the attractive force from the leading partial. Also, note that the movement of the leading partial leads to the stress relaxation, which appears in the change of modulus in the stress-strain curve in FIG. \[force\]. That is, the modulus is $30$ GPa when the leading partial is pinned ($0.002< \epsilon <0.006$), whereas the one after the leading partial is unpinned ($0.008< \epsilon <0.012$) is $13$ GPa.
![Stress-strain relation. Two arrows indicate the depinning points of two partials. Two circles which indicate sudden stress drops result from the attractive interaction between the dislocations and the void.[]{data-label="force"}](force.eps)
void size dependence
--------------------
Then the critical stress is calculated for various voids of different radii (from $0.3$ to $2.5$ nm). We measure the depinning stresses both for the leading partial and for the trailing partial. An interesting feature arises from the comparison of the both stresses, which are shown in FIG. \[r-CRSS\]. We can see that they have different tendencies with respect to the void radius $r$. The depinning stress of the trailing partial shows the well-known logarithmic dependence, while that of the leading partial (i.e. the yield stress) shows a crossover around $r\simeq 1$ nm. We will discuss the difference more quantitatively in this subsection.
![Void radius dependence of the depinning stress for the leading partial ($\times$) and for the trailing partial ($+$). The dashed line denotes Eq. (\[tau\_trailing\]) with $T=37$ MPa and $B=0.14$ nm. The dotted line denotes Eq. (\[sb\]), which is the result from a continuous model calculation [@scattergood].[]{data-label="r-CRSS"}](r-CRSS.eps)
The depinning stress of the trailing partial can be described by the following relation. $$\label{tau_trailing}
\tau_{\rm c} = T\log\left[\frac{2r}{B}(1+\frac{2r}{L})^{-1}\right],$$ where $T$ and $B$ denote arbitrary constants. The best fit is realized by letting $T=37$ MPa and $B=0.14$ nm. Note that this logarithmic dependence has also been found in a continuous model by Scattergood and Bacon [@scattergood], and also in the context of the Orowan mechanism [@bacon]. Since their computation deals with only the critical stresses for pure edge dislocations and screw dislocations, it does not quantitatively apply to the partial dislocations. At least, it can describe the qualitative behavior regarding the trailing partial.
On the other hand, the crossover of the yield stress cannot be explained in the above context. It seems to be describable by piecewise logarithmic behavior; $$\label{tau_leading}
\tau_{\rm c} =\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}ll}
18 \log\left[\frac{2r}{1.5\times 10^{-3}}(1+\frac{2r}{L})^{-1}\right],\ \ (r\le 1)\\
280\log\left[\frac{2r}{1.2}(1+\frac{2r}{L})^{-1}\right].\ \ (r\ge 1)
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that the extent of hardening becomes much greater when the void radius exceeds $1$ nm. Although we cannot show the definite explanation of this phenomenon, a plausible reason lies in the interaction between two partials. When the void radius is larger than $1$ nm, the two partials are simultaneously trapped by the void. Then the depinning of the leading partial may be significantly affected by the trailing partial, since the distance between them is very close near the void (a few Burgers vectors). Note that, for $r=0.3$ nm and $0.5$ nm, depinning of the leading partial takes place before the trapping of the trailing partial; i.e. the depinning of the leading partial is less affected by the trailing partial. We also remark that a similar crossover due to the interaction between dislocations is observed in the critical stress of dislocation nucleation on the void surface [@hatano].
Regardless of the void radius, the depinning of the trailing partial takes place when the leading partial is completely escaped from the void. Although the trailing partial interacts with the leading partial via stacking fault ribbon and the elastic strain, it is not as strong as the one in the depinning process of the leading partial. Therefore, it is reasonable that the unpinning stress for the trailing partial can be described in the framework of [@scattergood] where a single dislocation involves.
On the other hand, the yield stress for an edge dislocation should be interpreted as the maximum stress during the whole pinning process including two partials: that is, the critical stress for the leading partial. It is interesting to compare the yield stress in the present simulation and the one in [@scattergood] in which the dissociation is not taken into account. The yield stress estimated by Scattergood and Bacon reads $$\label{sb}
\tau_{\rm SB}=\frac{Gb}{2\pi L}\log\left[\frac{2r}{0.22b}(1+\frac{2r}{L})^{-1}\right],$$ which is also plotted in FIG. \[r-CRSS\]. We can see that Eq. (\[sb\]) considerably overestimates the yield stress where $r\le 2.5$ nm. Since it does apply to bcc iron [@osetsky1; @osetsky2; @osetsky3], we can conclude that the dissociation makes depinning easier.
temperature dependence {#temperaturedependence}
----------------------
In this section we investigate temperature dependence of the critical stress. We have calculated the critical stress for four different temperatures: $100$ K, $200$ K, $400$ K, and $500$ K. However, we cannot find any differences regarding the critical stress between these calculations. In FIG. \[Tdependence\] we show the snapshots of dislocations just before depinning where the temperatures are $100$ K and $500$ K, respectively. We can see no difference in the dislocation shape. Also, the critical stress is almost the same: $130\pm 12$ MPa for $r=1$ nm and $288\pm 30$ MPa for $r=2.5$ nm. Namely, temperature plays no role in depinning processes.
![Snapshots of dislocations (the trailing partials) just before depinning. The trailing partial dislocation at $100$ K is represented by $\times$, and the one at $500$ K is $+$. The subtle difference in the middle lies in the range of thermal fluctuation at $500$ K.[]{data-label="Tdependence"}](Tdependence.eps)
Note that this result is opposite to the simulation on bcc iron with a copper precipitate [@osetsky3]. There, definite temperature dependence was observed from $0$ K to $500$ K. The reason for the difference lies in the dissociation nature of dislocation. In bcc iron where a dislocation does not dissociate, a perfect dislocation absorbs vacancies from a void (or the precipitate surface) and undergoes climb motion. The climb motion is remarkable for larger voids where temperature dependence of the critical depinning stress is observed. Note that smaller voids show less temperature dependence and the climb motion is weak there. It implies that the climb motion is essential to the temperature dependence. On the other hand, no climb motion is observed in the present simulation. It is known that the climb motion is difficult in fcc crystals since dislocations dissociate. Therefore, no temperature dependence is observed in the present simulation on fcc copper.
Another possible reason lies in the activation energy for depinning. Although the precise estimation of the activation energy is difficult, it is at least larger than the energy of a dislocation whose length is equivalent to the void diameter. (We neglect the step formation energy on the void surface.) Dislocation energy is calculated by the line tension multiplied by the length. The effective line tension is estimated to be $0.4$ nN by Eq. (\[estimategamma\]). (Please see the next section for the detail.) Therefore, for the void of $2.0$ nm radius, the activation energy is approximately estimated as $1.6\times10^{-18}$ J. It is equivalent to $400$ $k_BT$, where $k_B$ denotes the Boltzmann constant and $T=300$ K. Since this is much larger than the thermal energy of involved atoms on the void surface (less than a hundred), it is plausible that thermal fluctuations cannot assist dislocation depinning. In addition, please recall that the step formation energy is neglected and the actual value may be larger than that. However, in the case of precipitates, the number of involving atoms is larger than in voids. That may be another reason for the difference between the present simulation and the one of [@osetsky3].
The dislocation shape and the critical angle {#thecriticalangle}
============================================
an orientation dependent line tension model
-------------------------------------------
As can be seen in FIG. \[snaps\], the bowing dislocation is asymmetric with respect to $x=0$. Since the uniform line tension model predicts the symmetric form (an arc), we have to incorporate an orientation dependent line tension in order to explain the asymmetric dislocation shape. Indeed, de Wit and Koehler [@dewit] obtained a solution for the dislocation shape. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elliptic1}
y&=& C_1 + \frac{1}{\sigma b}\left[E(\theta)\cos\delta -\frac{dE}{d\theta}\sin\delta\right], \\
\label{elliptic2}
x&=& C_2 + \frac{1}{\sigma b}\left[E(\theta)\sin\delta +\frac{dE}{d\theta}\cos\delta\right], \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ denotes the angle between the tangent line of a dislocation and the $x$ axis. An orientation dependent line tension is denoted by $E(\theta)$, in which $\theta$ represents the angle between the tangent line of the dislocation and the Burgers vector. If the concrete form of $E(\theta)$ is given, these equations can be numerically solved with an appropriate choice of the arbitrary constants $C_1$ and $C_2$. Here, $E(\theta)$ is given as [@dewit] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{odlinetension1}
E(\theta)&=& \frac{b^2}{4\pi}\log\left(\frac{R}{r_0}\right) f(\theta),\\
\label{odlinetension2}
f(\theta) &\simeq& 59.3-16\cos2\theta-0.8\cos4\theta,\ \ [{\rm GPa}]\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ is the (arbitrary) core cutoff length. In FIG. \[odfitting\], Eqs. (\[odlinetension1\]) and (\[odlinetension2\]) are fitted with the simulation result. We can see that the fittings are quite satisfactory.
![Bowing dislocations obtained by the simulation for various voids (a: $r=1.0$ nm, b: $r=1.5$ nm, c: $r=2.0$ nm, d: $r=2.5$ nm.) The solid lines represent Eqs. (\[elliptic1\]) and (\[elliptic2\]), which are derived from an orientation dependent line tension model. Note that the trailing partials also deform to a certain degree as the void becomes larger.[]{data-label="odfitting"}](od_fitting.eps)
determination of the critical angle
-----------------------------------
In macroscopic materials, random configuration of obstacles plays an important role in the dislocation dynamics, as was discussed in the section I. In order to apply Eq. (\[taurandom\]) to a practical situation, we wish to estimate the critical angle from the simulation. Note that the critical angle $\phi_c$ is defined by the angle between two tangent lines of the dislocation at the void surface. Because the critical angles are slightly different for two partial dislocations, we measure the both.
The pinning strength $\alpha =\cos(\phi_c/2)$ with respect to the void radius is shown in FIG. \[r-alpha\].
![Void radius dependence of $\alpha$ for the leading partial ($\times$) and for the trailing partial ($+$).[]{data-label="r-alpha"}](r-alpha.eps)
We remark that the pinning strength $\alpha$ again obeys a logarithmic law. $$\label{fittingalpha}
\alpha =A \log\frac{2r}{B(1+\frac{2r}{L})}.$$ The constants are $A=0.24$ and $B=0.07$ for the leading partial, and $A=0.28$ and $B=0.15$ for the trailing partial. By extrapolation, $\alpha$ reaches $1$ when the void radius exceeds $3$ nm, as shown in FIG. \[r-alpha\]. Note that the tendency has also been observed in the previous simulations on bcc iron [@osetsky1; @osetsky2; @osetsky3].
![Effective line tensions estimated via Eq. (\[estimategamma\]). Those of the leading partial and of the trailing partial are represented by $\times$ and $+$, respectively. Note that the void radius dependence results from the difference in the configuration of dislocations: the degree of bowing and the interactions of two partials.[]{data-label="r-gamma"}](r-gamma.eps)
Meanwhile, it should be remarked that a crossover is not observed in the pinning strength $\alpha$. From Eq. (\[tauperiodic\]), the crossover of $\tau_c$ should be attributed to that of $\gamma$, which can be written as $$\label{estimategamma}
\gamma=\frac{b\tau_cL}{2\alpha}.$$ The calculated line tensions are shown in FIG. \[r-gamma\], in which the line tension of the leading partial shows the minimum at $r=1.0$ nm while that of the trailing partial monotonically decreases. The explanation for the decrease lies in the deformations (i.e. bowouts) of dislocations. As the void gets larger from $r=0$, the extent of bowout becomes greater. This results in the prevalence of the screw component, since the partial dislocation is initially edge-like. The deformation lowers the effective line tension: i.e. the energy per unit length. (However, the total energy increases due to the elongation.) The above mechanism also explains the decrease of the line tension of the leading partial for $r\le 1$ nm.
On the other hand, the increase of the line tension of the leading partial for $r\ge 1$ nm results from the interaction with the trailing partial. For larger voids, the trailing partial is also pinned by the void and bends during the depinning process of the leading partial, as can be seen in FIG. \[odfitting\]. That effectively increases the line tension of the leading partial.
effects of the impact parameter {#impactparameterdependence}
===============================
So far, we have limited ourselves to the situation where a dislocation penetrates the void center. This is rather a special case, because the relative position of a void to a glide plane may be arbitrary. In this section, we change the distance between the void center and a glide plane. We call the distance “the impact parameter”, which is denoted by $d$. (See FIG. \[impactparameter\].)
![The impact parameter $d$ is defined by the distance from the void center to the glide plane. Note that the lower part of the void corresponds to the negative values of $d$.[]{data-label="impactparameter"}](impactparameter.eps)
The pinning strength $\alpha$ is determined for the various impact parameters. The result is shown in FIG. \[d-alpha\], which shows asymmetric dependence of $\alpha$ on $d$. Note that the dislocation is pinned even when it is not in contact with the void. It implies that, as well as the core energy, the elastic strain around the dislocation plays an important role in pinning processes. In addition, the asymmetry regarding $d=0$ comes from the nature of strain field around an edge dislocation: i.e. existence of hydrostatic pressure caused by the extra atomic plane. Especially, the fact that pinning strength for $d>0$ becomes considerably weak suggests that the hydrostatic pressure is dominant over the shear stress.
![Impact parameter dependence of the pinning strength $\alpha$ for the trailing partial. Void radius is $1.0$ nm (indicated by the dashed lines).[]{data-label="d-alpha"}](d-alpha.eps)
Also, we remark that strong pinning ($\alpha\ge 0.5$) occurs only where $-1.0r\le d\le0$: i.e. the lower half of the void. This area accounts for approximately $30$ or $40$ percent of the whole pinning region, while the rest involves relatively weak pinning. The large variance of the pinning strength distribution for a single void suggests the reconsideration of the same pinning strength assumption in dislocation dynamics simulations. In the section \[discussionandconclusion\], we discuss how to incorporate this effect into the estimation of the CRSS in the framework of Eq. (\[taurandom\]).
effects of void deformation after the passage of several dislocations {#thecollapseprocess}
=====================================================================
When a void is sheared by a dislocation, two parts which are divided by the glide plane are displaced to each other by the Burgers vector. After the passages of several dislocations, it may collapse and lose the pinning ability. For example, collapse of stacking fault tetrahedra by the passage of dislocations is both experimentally [@matsukawa] and computationally [@wirth] observed. This phenomenon is believed to be responsible for the formation of dislocation channel and the localization of plastic flow, which recently invokes attention including some computational studies [@delarubia]. In this section, effects of the void deformation on pinning strength are discussed based on the motivation described above.
We remark that another possible mechanism of the void deformation is vacancy absorption by (and the climb motion of) an edge dislocation, as was discussed in the section \[temperaturedependence\]. However, no climb motion was seen in our simulations, because the climb is difficult in fcc metals due to its dissociation. Hence, we do not consider the void contraction by the vacancy emission to dislocations. We concentrate on the effect of the relative deformation with respect to a glide plane.
We prepare the deformed void as shown in FIG. \[deformation\]. First we prepare a spherical void. Then, instead of iterating the pinning simulations, atoms located above the glide plane are displaced by the Burgers vector $a/2[\bar{1}10]$. Iterating this procedure for $N$ times is equivalent to the passage of $N$ edge dislocations.
![Schematic of the void deformation by the passages of $N$ edge dislocations: a) There is a single glide plane which cuts the void center. b) Glide planes are uniformly distributed. Each planes has $N$ dislocations which are to penetrate the void.[]{data-label="deformation"}](deformation.eps)
We set two configurations. In the case (a), the glide plane on which the dislocations move is assumed to be at the void center, whereas glide planes are uniformly distributed in the case (b).
In the case (a), we set $N=5$ and $N=10$. Namely, the void is assumed to be penetrated by dislocations on the same glide plane $5$ times or $10$ times. The pinning strength $\alpha$ is found to be $0.7$ for the both cases, which is almost the same value with the one for the spherical void. This is consistent with the result obtained in the last section that the upper part of the void is dominant in pinning of edge dislocations because of the hydrostatic pressure. In the case (b), we test $N=2$ and cannot find any difference from the non-deformed case regarding the critical angle. Thus, as far as the vacancy absorption mechanism (i.e. climb) is absent, the pinning strength is not seriously altered by the passage of dislocations.
discussions and concluding remarks {#discussionandconclusion}
==================================
practical applications
----------------------
Let us estimate the yield stress of copper in which voids are randomly distributed. First, we determine the average spacing $L$ between obstacles on a glide plane. The areal density is represented as $2r\rho$, where $\rho$ denotes the number density of voids per unit volume. Then the average spacing on a glide plane is written as $L=1/\sqrt{2r\rho}$. Since the expression includes all voids which intersects a glide plane, their impact parameters are randomly distributed from $-r$ to $r$. Since we have seen that the pinning strength $\alpha$ considerably changes with the impact parameter $d$ in the section \[impactparameterdependence\], we wish to incorporate this result. However, there is no simulation which considers this effect at this point. Therefore, we have to resort a rough approximation here.
From FIG. \[d-alpha\], strong pinning ($\alpha\ge 0.4$) occurs only where $-1.2r\le d \le 0.2r$. We neglect the rest. Namely, it is assumed that only this region is responsible for pinning. We use $1.4r$ instead of the diameter $2r$; then $L\simeq 1/\sqrt{1.4r\rho}$. We can rewrite Eq. (\[taurandom\]) as $$\tau_c=\frac{1.8\gamma\alpha}{b}\sqrt{1.4r\rho},$$ where the line tension $\gamma$ should be interpreted as the effective one that is determined by the present simulation, FIG. \[r-gamma\].
For example, an irradiated copper specimen includes voids whose average diameter $2r=4.1$ nm, and the number density $\rho$ is $2.9\times10^{22}$ $\rm{m}^{-3}$ [@nita]. From the present simulation, the line tension $\gamma$ and the pinning strength $\alpha$ are estimated as $0.42$ nN and $0.9$, respectively. The effective areal density is then calculated as $8.4\times10^{-5}$ $\rm{nm}^{-2}$ (i.e. the average spacing is $110$ nm). This yields $\tau_c=40$ MPa, which is quite a reasonable value. In order to give more precise predictions, Eq. (\[taurandom\]) should be modified to include the effects of the impact parameter and the orientation dependent line tension.
comparison with a continuous model with self-interaction
--------------------------------------------------------
Scattergood et al. have presented the calculation on the dislocation pinning by a void based on the framework of Bacon et al. [@bacon]. It is a continuous model that incorporates the self-interaction of a dislocation. Since their system also consists of the periodic array of voids, we wish to compare their result to ours.
Let us briefly review their discussion. They have speculated that depinning concerns the line tension near the pinning point, where a dislocation forms a dipole. Since a dislocation rotates by almost $\pi/2$ there, we regard the effective line tension as that of its counterpart. For example, as for an edge dislocation, the effective line tension upon depinning is that of a screw dislocation. Then the depinning stress for an edge dislocation is expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bks1}
\tau&=&\frac{2\gamma_{\rm{eff}}}{Lb}\\
\label{bks2}
\gamma_{\rm{eff}}&=&\frac{Gb^2}{4\pi}\log\bar{R},\\
\label{bks3}
\frac{1}{\bar{R}}&=&\frac{B}{L-2r}+\frac{B}{2r},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{R}$ should be interpreted as the effective outer cutoff divided by the core cutoff. Note that $B$ itself is not the core cutoff but an unknown function of the core cutoff. The above equations yield Eq. (\[sb\]).
Their discussion can be extended to dislocations of arbitrary orientation. $$\label{bks4}
\gamma_{\rm eff}=\frac{Gb^2}{4\pi(1-\nu)}\left[1-\nu\cos^2(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta)\right]\log{\bar R},$$ where $\nu$ and $\theta$ denote Poisson’s ratio and the angle between the dislocation line and the Burgers vector, respectively. In the present case, substituting $\theta=\pi/3$ (for the partials) into Eq. (\[bks4\]) yields $\tau=30\log{\bar R}$ \[MPa\]. Recall that Eq. (\[bks4\]) is an expression for the resolved shear stress with respect to the Burgers vector of a partial dislocation. It is equivalent to $\tau=35\log{\bar R}$ \[MPa\] with respect to the Burgers vector of an original perfect dislocation. Indeed, it shows an excellent agreement with the critical stress of the trailing partial.
However, the problem is the arbitrary parameter $B$. This arbitrariness may vanish if we can calculate the deformed (curved) effect on the dislocation energy, although it is a very complicated problem. At least, we confirm that the extended form of the proportional constant Eq. (\[bks4\]) agrees with the present simulation, if there is no strong interaction between the partials.
conclusion
----------
We calculated the critical stress and the critical pinning angle for the interaction between an edge dislocation and a void in fcc copper. Dissociation of a dislocation plays an important role in the behaviors of the critical stress: i) It is much lower than the estimation of Scattergood and Bacon, which does not consider dissociation. ii) It suddenly increases at a certain void radius where two partials can be simultaneously trapped. iii) The depinning stress of the trailing partial does agree with that of Scattergood and Bacon, since the leading partial moves far from the void.
We also found that there is no temperature dependence in the critical stress and the pinning angle. This is opposite to the previous simulation on bcc iron [@osetsky1; @osetsky2; @osetsky3]. The difference comes from the presence (in bcc) or the absence (in fcc) of climb motion.
The pinning strength $\cos(\phi_c/2)$ obeys the empirical logarithmic law which has been found in [@scattergood; @bacon]. The distance between the void center and the glide plane (the impact parameter) is found to affect the pinning strength in asymmetric manner. This is due to the hydrostatic pressure around an edge dislocation. Hence, it is interesting to compare the result with that of a screw dislocation, which is a work in progress.
The impact parameter dependence of the critical angle also suggests the importance of randomness in the pinning strength. Even if the system contains voids of the same radius, the cross section on a glide plane is randomly distributed. Hence we have to incorporate the randomness in the pinning strength. It is not straightforward to deduce this effect from the existing simulations which treats only two kinds of obstacles [@foreman2]. Investigation of a continuous model with random pinning angles will be interesting to see how the impact parameter dependence affects the macroscopic dislocation motion.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Nobuyasu Nita for useful discussions regarding experimental situations. They also thank Yuhki Satoh and Hideo Kaburaki for discussions and valuable comments.
[99]{} A. J. E. Foreman and M. J. Makin, Phil. Mag. (1966). The existence of the two modes in one-dimensional surface propagation was rediscovered by Cieplak and Robbins in the context of fluid invasion in porous media.
M. Cieplak and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 11508 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2042 (1988). The validity of the definition of critical resolved shear stress in the dendritic-growth mode is questionable because of the considerable inhomogeneity of plastic flow. In addition, the self-interaction can no longer be negligible there. U. F. Kocks, Can. J. Phys. [**45**]{}, 737 (1967). B. D. Wirth, V. V. Bulatov, and T. Diaz de la Rubia, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. [**124**]{}, 329 (2002). D. Rodney and G. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3272 (1999); D. Rodney, Acta Mater. [**52**]{}, 607 (2004). Yu. N. Osetsky and D. J. Bacon, J. Nucl. Mater. [**323**]{}, 268 (2003). Yu. N. Osetsky, D. J. Bacon, and V. Mohles, Phil. Mag. [**83**]{}, 3623 (2003). D. J. Bacon and Yu. N. Osetsky, J. Nucl. Mater. [**329-333**]{}, 1233 (2004). J. S. Robach, I. M. Robertson, B. D. Wirth, and A Arsenlis, Phil. Mag. [**83**]{}, 955 (2003). K. Nogiwa, T. Yamamoto, K. Fukumoto, H. Matsui, Y. Nagai, K. Yubuta and M.Hasegawa, J. Nucl. Mater [**307-311**]{}, 946 (2002). M. W. Finnis and J. E. Sinclair, Phil. Mag. A [**50**]{}, 45 (1984). G. J. Ackland, D. J. Bacon, A. F. Calder, and T. Harry, Phil. Mag. A [**75**]{}, 713 (1997). Yu. N. Osetsky and D. J. Bacon, Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. [**11**]{}, 427 (2003). R. O. Scattergood and D. J. Bacon, Acta Metall. [**30**]{}, 1665 (1982). D. J. Bacon, U. F. Kocks, and R. O. Scattergood, Phil. Mag. [**28**]{}, 1241 (1973). T. Hatano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 085501 (2004). G. de Wit and J. S. Koehler, Phys. Rev. [**116**]{}, 1113 (1959). T. D. de la Rubia, H. M. Zbib, T. A. Khraishi, B. D. Wirth, M. Victoria, and M. J. Caturla, Nature [**406**]{}, 871 (2000). Y. Matsukawa and S. J. Zinkle, J. Nucl. Mater. [**329-333**]{}, 919 (2004). N. Nita, unpublished data (2004). A. J. E. Foreman and M. J. Makin, Can. J. Phys. [**45**]{}, 511 (1967).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Given an accelerator-based neutrino experiment with the beam energy $E\lesssim 1$ GeV, we expand the probabilities of $\nu^{}_\mu \to
\nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations in matter in terms of two small quantities $\Delta^{}_{21}/\Delta^{}_{31}$ and $A/\Delta^{}_{31}$, where $\Delta^{}_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1$ and $\Delta^{}_{31} \equiv
m^2_3 - m^2_1$ are the neutrino mass-squared differences, and $A$ measures the strength of terrestrial matter effects. Our analytical approximations are numerically more accurate than those made by Freund in this energy region, and thus they are particularly applicable for the study of leptonic CP violation in the low-energy MOMENT, ESS$\nu$SM and T2K oscillation experiments. As a by-product, the new analytical approximations help us to easily understand why the matter-corrected Jarlskog parameter $\widetilde{\cal J}$ peaks at the resonance energy $E^{}_* \simeq 0.14$ GeV (or $0.12$ GeV) for the normal (or inverted) neutrino mass hierarchy, and how the three Dirac unitarity triangles are deformed due to the terrestrial matter contamination. We also affirm that a medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment with the beam energy $E$ lying in the $E^{}_*
\lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ range is capable of exploring leptonic CP violation with little matter-induced suppression.
---
[**Analytical approximations for matter effects on CP violation in\
the accelerator-based neutrino oscillations with $E \lesssim 1$ GeV**]{}
[**Zhi-zhong Xing**]{}$^{1, 2, 3}$ [^1] and [**Jing-yu Zhu**]{}$^{1}$ [^2]\
[$^1$Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China\
$^2$School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China\
$^3$Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100080, China ]{}
PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt\
Keywords: CP violation, matter effects, unitarity triangles, neutrino oscillations
Introduction
============
In the past two decades we have witnessed a booming period in neutrino physics thanks to a number of indisputable observations of atmospheric, solar, reactor and accelerator neutrino oscillations [@PDG], and thus achieved a smoking gun for the incompleteness of the standard model (SM) in particle physics — the neutrinos actually have finite rest masses and the lepton flavors are significantly mixed, motivating us to explore the other unknowns of massive neutrinos beyond the SM and search for their possible consequences in nuclear physics, particle astrophysics and cosmology.
In the standard three-flavor scheme there are six neutrino oscillation parameters: two independent neutrino mass-squared differences (e.g., $\Delta^{}_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1$ and $\Delta^{}_{31} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_1$), three lepton flavor mixing angles (i.e., $\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{13}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$) and one CP-violating phase (i.e., $\delta$). Among them, the sign of $\Delta^{}_{31}$ and the size of $\delta$ remain unknown [@Fogli; @Valle; @GG]. But some preliminary hints for $\delta \sim 3\pi/2$ and $\Delta^{}_{31} > 0$ have recently been seen by combining the T2K [@T2K; @T2K2] and NO$\nu$A [@NOVA] data on $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ oscillations with the Daya Bay (reactor $\overline{\nu}^{}_e \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillation [@DYB; @DYB2]) and Super-Kamiokande (atmospheric $\nu^{}_\mu \to
\nu^{}_\mu$ oscillation [@SK]) data [@Lisi]. Provided $\delta$ is really around $3\pi/2$ or takes a nontrivial value far away from $0$ and $\pi$, then remarkable CP- and T-violating effects will emerge in some upcoming long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
Among a number of ongoing and proposed accelerator-based experiments which aim to probe or constrain CP violation in neutrino oscillations [@Wang], those with the beam energy $E \lesssim 1$ GeV (e.g., T2K [@T2K], MOMENT [@MOMENT] and ESS$\nu$SM [@ESS]) are expected to involve much smaller terrestrial matter effects. To understand the salient features of the matter-corrected $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to
\overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations in this energy region, it is important to expand their probabilities in terms of two small expansion parameters $\alpha \equiv \Delta^{}_{21}/\Delta^{}_{31}$ and $\beta \equiv A/\Delta^{}_{31}$, where $A \equiv 2 \sqrt{2} \
G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e E$ with $G^{}_{\rm F}$ being the Fermi constant and $N^{}_e$ being the background density of electrons. But the previous analytical approximations in this connection, such as the popular one developed by Freund [@Freund], are usually subject to $E \gtrsim 0.5$ GeV and will become invalid when $E$ approaches vanishing [^3]. The reason is simply that mainly the long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with $E \gtrsim 1$ GeV were considered in those works.
Hence our present work is well motivated to offer the hitherto most systematic and useful analytical approximations for terrestrial matter effects on CP violation in the medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with the beam energy $E \lesssim 1$ GeV.
The strength of CP and T violation in neutrino oscillations is measured by a universal and rephasing-invariant quantity of the $3\times 3$ Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) lepton flavor mixing matrix $U$ [@PMNS; @PMNS2; @PMNS3], the so-called Jarlskog parameter $\cal J$ [@J] defined via $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Im}\left(U^{}_{\alpha i} U^{}_{\beta j} U^*_{\alpha j}
U^*_{\beta i}\right) = {\cal J} \sum_\gamma
\epsilon^{}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \sum_k \epsilon^{}_{ijk} \; ,
$$ where the Greek and Latin subscripts run over $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and $(1,2,3)$, respectively. When a neutrino beam travels through a medium, it can see two kinds of refractive indices because of its interactions with the constituents of the medium (i.e., electrons, protons and neutrons) via the weak neutral current (NC) and charged current (CC) [@MSW; @MSW2]. All the three neutrino flavors share a common “matter" phase due to the refractive index arising from the NC forward scattering, but the electron neutrinos develop an extra “matter" phase owing to the CC forward scattering. The latter is nontrivial, and hence it is likely to change the neutrino oscillation behavior. In this case one may define the matter-corrected neutrino masses $\widetilde{m}^{}_i$ and the corresponding PMNS matrix $\widetilde{U}$, so as to express the probabilities of neutrino oscillations in matter in the same way as those in vacuum. For example, the T-violating asymmetry between the probabilities of $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\nu^{}_e \to
\nu^{}_\mu$ oscillations in matter is given by [@Petcov; @Ohlsson] [^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm T} = -16 \widetilde{\cal J}
\sin\frac{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} L}{4E}
\sin\frac{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} L}{4E}
\sin\frac{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} L}{4E} \; ,
$$ in which $E$ denotes the neutrino beam energy, $L$ is the distance between a neutrino source and the detector, $\widetilde{\cal J}$ and $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij}$ are the matter-corrected counterparts of ${\cal J}$ and $\Delta^{}_{ij}$ (for $ij = 21, 31, 32$), respectively. It is known that $\widetilde{\cal J}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} = {\cal J} \Delta^{}_{21} \Delta^{}_{31}
\Delta^{}_{32}$ exactly holds for a constant matter profile [@Naumov; @Naumov2; @Naumov3]. But a more transparent relationship between $\widetilde{\cal J}$ and $\cal J$, which can directly tell us why or how CP violation in matter is enhanced or suppressed as compared with that in vacuum, has been lacking. It should be noted that $\cal J$ (or $\widetilde{\cal J}$) is in principle a measurable quantity, but in practice it is not directly observable since it is always correlated with the oscillation terms as shown in Eq. (2).
However, a careful study of the ratio $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ changing with the neutrino (or antineutrino) beam energy $E$ is not only conceptually interesting but also practically indispensable for expanding the matter-corrected oscillation probabilities $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ in terms of the afore-defined small parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the $E \lesssim 1$ GeV region. So we plan to organize the remaining parts of this paper in an easy-to-follow and step-by-step way: starting from the analytical approximation of $\widetilde{\cal
J}/{\cal J}$, passing through those of $|\widetilde{U}^{}_{e i}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu i}|$, $|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu i}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau i}|$ and $|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau i}
\widetilde{U}^*_{e i}|$ (for $i=1,2,3$), and ending with those of $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$.
In section 2 we aim to reveal a unique range of the [*neutrino*]{} beam energy $E$ in which the size of the effective Jarlskog invariant $\widetilde{\cal J}$ can be enhanced as compared with its fundamental counterpart $\cal J$. We find that $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \gtrsim 1$ will hold if $E$ is below the upper limit $E^{}_0 \simeq \Delta^{}_{21} \cos 2\theta^{}_{12}
/(\sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e) \lesssim 0.3$ GeV in a realistic oscillation experiment. In particular, we find that $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ peaks at the resonance energy $$\begin{aligned}
E^{}_* \simeq \frac{\Delta^{}_{21}}{2 \sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F}
N^{}_e} \left[ \cos 2\theta^{}_{12} \left(1 + \sin^2
\theta^{}_{13}\right) + \alpha \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \right] \; ,
$$ which is about $0.14$ GeV (or $0.12$ GeV) for $\Delta^{}_{31} > 0$ (or $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$), corresponding to the normal (or inverted) neutrino mass ordering. Accordingly, we arrive at the maximum value $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*}{\cal J} \simeq
\frac{1}{\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}} \left[1 + \alpha \cos 2 \theta_{12}
^{} \left( 1 + \sin^2 \theta_{13}^{} \right) + {\rm smaller ~
terms} \right] \; ,
$$ which is roughly $110\%$ (or $107\%$) for $\Delta^{}_{31} > 0$ (or $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$). As for an [*antineutrino*]{} beam, $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ decreases monotonically in the $E
\lesssim 1$ GeV region and thus does not undergo any resonances. In this sense one may draw the conclusion that a medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment with $E$ being in the range $E^{}_*
\lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ should be able to explore leptonic CP violation with little matter-induced suppression [^5]. In section 3 we concentrate on a geometrical description of leptonic CP violation in matter and make some analytical approximations for this intuitive and useful language. Namely, we show how the three Dirac unitarity triangles (UTs) in the complex plane [@FX00] [^6], defined through the orthogonality relations $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle^{}_e : && U^{}_{\mu 1} U^*_{\tau 1} + U^{}_{\mu 2}
U^*_{\tau 2} + U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} = 0 \; ,
\nonumber \\
\triangle^{}_\mu : && U^{}_{\tau 1} U^*_{e 1} + U^{}_{\tau 2} U^*_{e
2} + U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} = 0 \; ,
\nonumber \\
\triangle^{}_\tau : && U^{}_{e 1} U^*_{\mu 1} + U^{}_{e 2} U^*_{\mu
2} + U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} = 0 \; , \hspace{1cm}
$$ are modified (either enlarged or suppressed) by terrestrial matter effects in a low-energy medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment. We find that the third side of each UT (i.e., $U^{}_{\mu
3} U^*_{\tau 3}$, $U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3}$ or $U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu
3}$) is essentially insensitive to the matter-induced corrections when the neutrino beam energy $E$ is low, but the other two sides — both their sizes and orientations — can get appreciable corrections. Besides some new and useful analytical results to be obtained in a reasonably good approximation, a numerical illustration of the real shapes of the effective Dirac UTs in matter (denoted as $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e$, $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\mu$ and $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau$) changing with $E$ will also be presented.
In section 4 we aim to combine our new results about $\widetilde{\cal J}$ and $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) with the probabilities of neutrino oscillations in matter. In particular, the effective probabilities $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ are expanded in the whole $E \lesssim 1$ GeV region with the help of the small quantities $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We show that our analytical approximations are numerically more accurate than those made by Freund in this energy region, and thus they are particularly applicable for the study of leptonic CP violation in the low-energy MOMENT, ESS$\nu$SM and T2K oscillation experiments. We also affirm that a medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment with the beam energy $E$ lying in the $E^{}_* \lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ range is capable of exploring leptonic CP violation with little matter-induced suppression.
The matter-enhanced Jarlskog parameter
======================================
Given the effective neutrino masses $\widetilde{m}^{}_i$ and the effective lepton flavor mixing matrix $\widetilde{U}$ which have accommodated the matter-induced corrections to $m^{}_i$ and $U$, the effective Hamiltonian responsible for the propagation of a neutrino beam in matter can be written as [@MSW; @MSW2] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal H}^{}_{\rm eff} = \frac{1}{2 E} \left[\widetilde{U}
\begin{pmatrix} \widetilde{m}^2_1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \widetilde{m}^2_2
& 0 \cr 0 & 0 & \widetilde{m}^2_3 \cr \end{pmatrix}
\widetilde{U}^\dagger \right] = \frac{1}{2 E} \left[U
\begin{pmatrix} m^2_1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & m^2_2 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & m^2_3
\cr \end{pmatrix} U^\dagger + \begin{pmatrix} A & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &
0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix} \right] \; ,
$$ in which $A = 2\sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e E$ denotes the charged-current contribution to the coherent $\nu^{}_e e^-$ forward scattering in matter. When a constant terrestrial matter profile is concerned, as in the present work, Eq. (6) allows one to derive the following relation between the fundamental Jarlskog invariant $\cal
J$ and its matter-corrected counterpart $\widetilde{\cal J}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} = \left|\frac{\widetilde{U}^{}_{e
1}}{U^{}_{e 1}}\right| \left|\frac{\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}}{U^{}_{e
2}}\right| \left|\frac{\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}}{U^{}_{e 3}}\right| =
\frac{\Delta^{}_{21} \Delta^{}_{31}
\Delta^{}_{32}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} \; ,
$$ which is a reflection of both the Naumov relation [@Naumov; @Naumov2; @Naumov3] and the Toshev relation [@Toshev]. The latter means $\sin 2\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{23} \sin
\widetilde{\delta} = \sin 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin\delta$ in the standard parametrization of $U$ and $\widetilde{U}$. Namely [^7], $$\begin{aligned}
U = \begin{pmatrix} U^{}_{e 1} & U^{}_{e 2} & U^{}_{e 3} \cr
U^{}_{\mu 1} & U^{}_{\mu 2} & U^{}_{\mu 3} \cr
U^{}_{\tau 1} & U^{}_{\tau 2} & U^{}_{\tau 3} \cr \end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix} c^{}_{12} c^{}_{13} & s^{}_{12} c^{}_{13} & s^{}_{13}
e^{-{\rm i} \delta} \cr -s^{}_{12} c^{}_{23} - c^{}_{12} s^{}_{13}
s^{}_{23} e^{{\rm i} \delta} & c^{}_{12} c^{}_{23} - s^{}_{12}
s^{}_{13} s^{}_{23} e^{{\rm i} \delta} & c^{}_{13} s^{}_{23} \cr
s^{}_{12} s^{}_{23} - c^{}_{12} s^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} e^{{\rm i}
\delta} & ~ -c^{}_{12} s^{}_{23} - s^{}_{12} s^{}_{13} c^{}_{23}
e^{{\rm i} \delta} ~ & c^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} \cr
\end{pmatrix}
$$ with $c^{}_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta^{}_{ij}$ and $s^{}_{ij} \equiv
\sin\theta^{}_{ij}$ (for $ij = 12, 13, 23$). The parametrization of $\widetilde{U}$ is exactly the same as that of $U$ in Eq. (8), and hence one may obtain ${\cal J} = c^{}_{12} s^{}_{12} c^2_{13}
s^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} s^{}_{23} \sin \delta$ and the same expression of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ as a function of $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{12}$, $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{13}$, $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{23}$ and $\widetilde{\delta}$. Note, however, that Eq. (7) is actually a parametrization-independent result. We shall use it to establish an approximate but more transparent relationship between $\cal J$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}$ later on.
In fact, the exact relations between $\widetilde{m}^2_i$ and $m^2_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) have been derived by several authors with the help of Eq. (6) [@Barger; @Zaglauer; @Xing2000], but only the normal neutrino mass ordering (i.e., $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$) was assumed in those works. Here we consider both normal and inverted (i.e., $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$) neutrino mass hierarchies. To be explicit, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \frac{2}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \sqrt{3 \left(1 -
z^2\right)} \;\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \left[3z + \sqrt{3
\left(1 - z^2\right)}\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \left[3z - \sqrt{3
\left(1 - z^2\right)}\right] \; \hspace{0.5cm}
$$ in the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ case; or $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \left[3z - \sqrt{3
\left(1 - z^2\right)}\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} -\frac{2}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \sqrt{3 \left(1 -
z^2\right)} \;\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} -\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \left[3z + \sqrt{3
\left(1 - z^2\right)}\right] \; \hspace{0.3cm}
$$ in the $\Delta^{}_{31} < 0$ case, where $$\begin{aligned}
x \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle \Delta^{}_{31} \left( 1 + \alpha + \beta\right) \; ,
\nonumber \\
y \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle \Delta^2_{31} \left[ \alpha + \beta
\left(|U^{}_{e 1}|^2 + |U^{}_{e 2}|^2\right) + \alpha\beta \left(1 -
|U^{}_{e 2}|^2\right) \right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
z \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\cos\left[ \frac{1}{3} \arccos \frac{\displaystyle 2 x^3 - 9
xy + 27 \Delta^3_{31} \alpha\beta |U^{}_{e 1}|^2}{\displaystyle 2
\sqrt{\displaystyle \left( x^2 - 3 y\right)^3}} \right] \;
$$ with the definitions $\alpha \equiv \Delta^{}_{21}/\Delta^{}_{31}$ and $\beta \equiv A/\Delta^{}_{31}$. When an [*antineutrino*]{} beam is taken into account, the corresponding oscillation behaviors depend on $\widetilde{U}^*$ and $-A$. In this case the above formulas remain valid but the replacements $U \to U^*$ and $A \to
-A$ (i.e., $\cal J \to - J$ and $\beta \to -\beta$) are required. Eq. (7) tells us that both $\cal J$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}$ flip their signs in the above replacements, and thus their ratio remains positive.
Although Eqs. (9)—(11) are exact, they are unable to reveal the dependence of $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij}$ on $\Delta^{}_{ij}$ in a transparent way. It is therefore important to make reasonable analytical approximations in this connection, so as to simplify the relations between $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij}$ and $\Delta^{}_{ij}$. The remarkable analytical approximations made by Freund [@Freund] have been popularly applied to the studies of various long- or medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with $E
\gtrsim 0.5$ GeV [^8]. Given the fact that $7.02 \times 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2 \leq
\Delta^{}_{21} \leq 8.09 \times 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ holds at the $3\sigma$ confidence level [@GG] and the dependence of terrestrial matter effects on the neutrino beam energy $E$ can be effectively expressed as $A \simeq 2.28 \times 10^{-4} ~{\rm eV}^2
\left(E/{\rm GeV}\right)$ for a realistic ongoing or upcoming neutrino oscillation experiment [@matter] [^9], the limit $E \gtrsim 0.5$ GeV is essentially equivalent to the requirement $|\alpha| < |\beta|$.
But we stress that the case of $|\alpha| \gtrsim |\beta|$ is also interesting in neutrino phenomenology, especially in the aspect of probing leptonic CP and T violation in a low-energy medium-baseline oscillation experiment [@Minakata]. In fact, there will be no way to obtain $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \gtrsim 1$ if the neutrino beam energy $E$ is higher than about $0.5$ GeV. To see this point, we calculate the ratio of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ to $\cal J$ by using Eqs. (7)—(11) and inputting the best-fit values of $\Delta^{}_{21}$, $\Delta^{}_{31}$, $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ listed in Table 1 [@GG]. Allowing $E$ to vary from $0$ to $100$ GeV, we plot the numerical change of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ with $E$ in Fig. 1, where both the neutrino (with $A$) and antineutrino (with $-A$) beams are considered, together with both the normal ($\Delta^{}_{31} >0$) and inverted ($\Delta^{}_{31} <0$) neutrino mass hierarchies. Some observations and discussions are in order.
[ccccccccc]{}&& &&\
&& best-fit & & $3\sigma$ range & & best-fit & & $3\sigma$ range\
$\theta^{}_{12}$ && $33.48^\circ$ && $31.29^\circ$ — $35.91^\circ$ && $33.48^\circ$ &&$31.29^\circ$ — $35.91^\circ$\
$\theta^{}_{13}$ && $8.50^\circ$ && $7.85^\circ$ — $9.10^\circ$ &&$8.51^\circ$ && $7.87^\circ$ — $9.11^\circ$\
$\theta^{}_{23}$ && $42.3^\circ$ && $38.2^\circ$ — $53.3^\circ$ && $49.5^\circ$ && $38.6^\circ$ — $53.3^\circ$\
$\delta$ && $306^\circ$ && $0^\circ$ — $360^\circ$ && $254^\circ$ && $0^\circ$ — $360^\circ$\
\
\
$\displaystyle \frac{\Delta^{}_{21}}{10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2}$ && $7.50$ &&$7.02$ — $8.09$ && $7.50$ && $7.02$ — $8.09$\
\
$\displaystyle \frac{\Delta^{}_{31}}{10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2}$ && $2.457$ && $2.317$ — $2.607$ && $-2.374$ && $-2.520$ — $-2.226$\
\
{width="16cm"}
\(1) Except the extreme case of ${\cal J} = 0$ (i.e., $\delta =0$ or $\pi$) which makes the ratio of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ to ${\cal J}$ nonsense, the profile of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ changing with $E$ is stable and independent of the value of $\theta^{}_{23}$ and the large uncertainties of $\delta$ itself. In all the four possibilities shown in Fig. 1, the size of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal
J}$ goes down quickly when $E$ becomes larger than about $0.5$ GeV. As for the case of an antineutrino beam plus the normal mass hierarchy, $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ decreases in a monotonic way and does not develop any maxima or minima. In comparison, $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ can have one maximum in the case of a neutrino beam plus the inverted mass hierarchy, or one maximum and one minimum in the case of an antineutrino beam plus the inverted mass hierarchy, or two maxima and one minimum in the case of a neutrino beam plus the normal mass hierarchy. But we are mainly interested in the peaks of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ in the latter three cases, where the corresponding values of $E$ are summarized as follows [^10]: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu ~ {\rm beam}~ (\Delta^{}_{31} >0): & \hspace{-0.2cm} &
\displaystyle E^{}_*
\simeq 0.140 ~{\rm GeV} \; , ~~ \frac{\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*}{\cal
J} \simeq 1.10 \; ; ~~ E^{\prime}_* \simeq 8.906 ~{\rm GeV} \; , ~~
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}^{\prime}_*}{\cal J} \simeq 0.12 \; ;
\nonumber \\
\nu ~ {\rm beam}~ (\Delta^{}_{31} <0): & \hspace{-0.2cm} &
\displaystyle E^{}_* \simeq 0.123 ~{\rm GeV} \; , ~~
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*}{\cal J} \simeq 1.07 \; ;
\nonumber \\
\overline{\nu} ~ {\rm beam}~ (\Delta^{}_{31} <0): & \hspace{-0.2cm}
& \displaystyle
E^{\prime}_* \simeq 8.828 ~{\rm GeV} \; , ~~ \frac{\widetilde{\cal
J}^{\prime}_*}{\cal J} \simeq 0.12 \; . \hspace{1cm}
$$ Of course, the suppressed peaks with $\widetilde{\cal
J}^{\prime}_*/{\cal J} \simeq 0.12$ are not within the scope of our interest in this work, because the corresponding beam energies are far above $1$ GeV.
\(2) But a suppressed peak $\widetilde{\cal J}^{\prime}_*/{\cal J}
\simeq 0.12$ and its resonance energy $E^\prime_*$ can be well understood by following the analytical approximations made in Ref. [@Freund] for $E \gtrsim 1$ GeV. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq
\frac{\Delta^{}_{21}}{\displaystyle A \cos^2 \theta^{}_{13}
\sqrt{\displaystyle \beta^2 - 2 \beta \cos 2\theta^{}_{13} + 1}}
\;\; ,
$$ in which $\beta = \pm A/\Delta^{}_{31}$ correspond to the neutrino and antineutrino beams, respectively. We find that this ratio peaks at $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{\prime}_* = \frac{\pm A^\prime_*}{\Delta^{}_{31}}
\simeq \frac{3 \cos 2\theta^{}_{13} +
\sqrt{\displaystyle 1 - 9 \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{13}}}{4} \;
$$ with $A^\prime_* = 2\sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e E^\prime_*$, where the smallness of $\theta^{}_{13}$ has been taken into account. Now that $\beta^\prime_*$ itself is positive, the plus (or minus) sign in front of $A^\prime_*$ in Eq. (14) must correspond to the neutrino (or antineutrino) beam with the normal (or inverted) mass ordering. Given the best-fit value of $\theta^{}_{13}$ in Table 1, it is straightforward to obtain $E^\prime_* \simeq 9.02$ GeV in the $\Delta^{}_{13} >0$ case or $E^\prime_* \simeq 8.71$ GeV in the $\Delta^{}_{13} <0$ case. Such approximate results are in agreement with the exact numerical results shown in Eq. (12) to a reasonably good degree of accuracy.
{width="16cm"}
From now on let us concentrate on the first (matter-enhanced) peak $\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*/{\cal J} >1$ around $E^{}_* \in (0.1, 0.2)$ GeV in Fig. 1 and understand why it appears in an approximate but more transparent way. Fig. 2 is a clearer illustration of this peak, where the $3\sigma$ ranges of $\Delta^{}_{21}$, $\Delta^{}_{31}$, $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ are also taken into account. One can see that the numerical uncertainties associated with the four input parameters do not change the lineshape of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$, implying that our analytical approximations to be made below will keep valid when the relevant neutrino oscillation parameters are measured to a much higher degree of accuracy in the near future. In the low-energy region under consideration the magnitude of $\beta$ is comparable with or smaller than that of $\alpha$, and thus both of them can serve for the small expansion parameters in our analytical approximations for $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}$, $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}$ and $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}$. We first consider the [*neutrino*]{} beam. A tedious but straightforward calculation leads us to the results $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sqrt{\displaystyle x^2 - 3y} \ \simeq
\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta + \frac{3}{8}
\alpha^2 -\frac{3}{4} \left(|U^{}_{e1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e2}|^2\right)
\alpha\beta \right. \hspace{0.8cm}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{3.2cm} \left.
+ \frac{3}{8} \left(1 + 2|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta^2 \right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
&& \displaystyle z \simeq 1 - \frac{3}{8} \alpha^2 + \frac{3}{4}
\left(|U^{}_{e 1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|^2\right) \alpha\beta -
\frac{3}{8} \left(1 - 2|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta^2 \; ,
\nonumber \\
&& \sqrt{\displaystyle 3 \left(1 - z^2\right)}
\simeq \frac{3}{2} \epsilon \left(1 + \frac12 \alpha +
\frac12 \beta \right) \;
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ case; and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sqrt{\displaystyle x^2 - 3y} \simeq
-\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta + \frac{3}{8}
\alpha^2 -\frac{3}{4} \left(|U^{}_{e1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e2}|^2\right)
\alpha\beta \right. \hspace{0.7cm}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{3.3cm} \left.
+ \frac{3}{8} \left(1 + 2|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta^2 \right] \;
,\nonumber \\
&& z \simeq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{3}{4} \epsilon \left(1 + \frac12
\alpha + \frac12 \beta \right)- \frac{3}{16}
\alpha^2 + \frac{3}{8} \left(|U^{}_{e 1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|
^2\right)\alpha\beta - \frac{3}{16} \left(1 - 2|U^{}_{e 3}|
^2\right) \beta^2\; ,
\nonumber \\
&& \sqrt{\displaystyle 3 \left(1 - z^2\right)} \simeq
\frac{3}{2} - \frac{3}{4} \epsilon \left(1 + \frac12 \alpha +
\frac12 \beta \right) - \frac{9}{16} \alpha^2
+ \frac{9}{8} \left(|U^{}_{e 1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|^2\right)
\alpha\beta \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2.75cm} - \frac{9}{16} \left(1 - 2|U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right)
\beta^2 \;
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$ case, where $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon \equiv \sqrt{\displaystyle \alpha^2 - 2 \left(|U^{}_{e
1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|^2 \right) \alpha\beta + \left(1 - |U^{}_{e
3}|^2 \right)^2 \beta^2} \;
$$ is a small parameter, and the smallness of $|U^{}_{e 3}|$ is already implied. Then we obtain the effective neutrino mass-squared differences from Eq. (9) or Eq. (10): $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \Delta^{}_{31} \left(1 +
\frac{3}{2} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \right) \epsilon \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \Delta^{}_{31} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \right) \beta + \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon +\frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac
32 |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right]
\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \Delta^{}_{31} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \right) \beta - \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon - \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac
32 |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2 \right]
\; ,
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ case; or $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} -\Delta^{}_{31} \left(1 + \frac{3}{2} |U^{}
_{e 3}|^2 \beta \right) \epsilon \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \Delta^{}_{31} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \right) \beta - \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon - \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac
32 |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2 \right]
\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \Delta^{}_{31} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha -
\frac{1}{2} \left(1 - 3|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \right) \beta + \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon + \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac
32 |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2 \right]
\; ,
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$ case. Given the standard parametrization of the PMNS mixing matrix $U$ in Eq. (8), the small parameter $\epsilon$ in Eq. (17) can be reexpressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon = \sqrt{\displaystyle \alpha^2 - 2 \alpha\beta
\cos 2\theta^{}_{12} \cos^2 \theta^{}_{13} +
\beta^2 \cos^4 \theta^{}_{13}} \;\; ,
$$ so its magnitude is apparently of ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ or ${\cal
O}(\beta)$. With the help of Eqs. (7), (18) and (19), we arrive at the approximate analytical results for the ratio of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ to $\cal J$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq +\frac{\alpha}{\epsilon}
\left(1 + \beta\right) \simeq \frac{\alpha}{\displaystyle
\sqrt{\displaystyle \alpha^2 - 2 \alpha\beta \cos 2\theta^{}_{12} +
\beta^2}} \left(1 + \beta\right) \; ,
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ case; or $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq -\frac{\alpha}{\epsilon}
\left(1 + \beta\right) \simeq \frac{-\alpha}{\displaystyle
\sqrt{\displaystyle \alpha^2 - 2 \alpha\beta \cos 2\theta^{}_{12} +
\beta^2}} \left(1 +\beta\right) \; ,
$$ for the $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$ case, in which the terms proportional to $|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 = \sin^2 \theta^{}_{13}$ in $\epsilon$ have been omitted thanks to the smallness of $\theta^{}_{13}$. Since $\epsilon$ has a minimum value $\epsilon^{}_* \simeq |\alpha| \sin
2\theta^{}_{12}$ at $\beta^{}_* \simeq \alpha \cos 2\theta^{}_{12}$, we expect that the ratio $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ takes its maximum value $1/\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}$ in the leading-order approximation, no matter whether the neutrino mass ordering is normal or inverted. As for an [*antineutrino*]{} beam, the matter parameter is actually $-A$, and thus the replacement $\beta \to
-\beta$ must be made for the analytical results obtained above. In other words, $\epsilon$ does not develop a minimum value in the [*antineutrino*]{} case — that is why $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ does not undergo any resonances in this case, a conclusion independent of the neutrino mass ordering. So we only concentrate on the [*neutrino*]{} beam in the subsequent discussions.
Let us go beyond the leading-order approximation to calculate the extreme value of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$, which is a function of $\beta$ (or equivalently, the matter parameter $A$ or the neutrino beam energy $E$). To do so, we take the first derivative of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ with respect to the variable $\beta$ in Eq. (21) or (22) and set it to equal zero, and find that such a treatment leads to the same equation in these two cases: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right)^2 + \alpha \left(|U^{}
_{e 1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|^2 \right)\right] \beta - \left(|U^{}
_{e 1}|^2 - |U^{}_{e 2}|^2\right)\alpha - \alpha^2 \simeq 0 \; .
$$ The solution to Eq. (23) turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{}_* = \frac{A^{}_*}{\Delta^{}_{31}} \simeq \alpha \left[
\cos 2\theta^{}_{12} \left(1 + \sin^2\theta^{}_{13}\right)
+ \alpha \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \right] \;
$$ with $A^{}_* = 2\sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e E^{}_*$, from which one can easily obtain the resonance energy $E^{}_*$ that has been given in Eq. (3). Substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (21) or (22), we immediately arrive at the maximum value of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal
J}$ on the resonance: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*}{\cal J} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \frac{1}{\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}} \left[ 1 +
\alpha \displaystyle \cos 2\theta^{}_{12}
\left( 1 + \sin^2\theta^{}_{13}\right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \alpha^2 \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12}
\right] \; ,
$$ an interesting and instructive result whose leading and next-to-leading-order parts have been shown in Eq. (4). Taking the best-fit values of $\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{13}$, $\Delta^{}_{21}$ and $\Delta^{}_{31}$ for example, we obtain $E^{}_*
\simeq 0.140$ GeV (or $0.123$ GeV) and $\widetilde{\cal
J}^{}_*/{\cal J} \simeq 1.10$ (or $1.07$) for the normal (or inverted) neutrino mass ordering from the analytical formulas in Eqs. (24) and (25), in good agreement with the more exact numerical results that have been listed in Eq. (12).
{width="15.6cm"}
In Fig. 3 we compare the result of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ obtained from our analytical approximation made in Eq. (21) or (22) with its exact numerical result by allowing the neutrino beam energy $E$ to vary from zero to $1$ GeV. We see that the two sets of results agree with each other in a perfect way. In contrast, the numerical result of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ obtained from Freund’s analytical approximation in Eq. (13) is not so good in the $0.4 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim E \lesssim 1 ~{\rm GeV}$ range, and it becomes out of control for $E \lesssim 0.4$ GeV. Hence our analytical approximations stand out as a much better tool of understanding the salient features of the matter-corrected Jarlskog parameter in the $E \lesssim 1$ GeV region. In fact, the typical neutrino beam energy of the realistic T2K long-baseline oscillation experiment [@T2K] is about $0.6$ GeV, just within this region. So one may use the analytical formulas given in the present work to do a reliable phenomenological analysis of CP violation and the associated matter effects in the T2K experiment.
Given the resonance energy $E^{}_*$ in Eq. (3) and the maximum value $\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*/{\cal J}$ in Eq. (4), the profiles of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ in the left and right panels of Fig. 2 can easily be understood. Simply because the next-to-leading-order terms of $E^{}_*$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*/{\cal J}$ are both proportional to the expansion parameter $\alpha =
\Delta^{}_{21}/\Delta^{}_{31} \simeq \pm 1/30$, they exhibit a small but appreciable difference in Fig. 2 with respect to the normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies. This observation indicates that even a low-energy neutrino oscillation experiment could have the potential to probe not only the CP- and T-violating effects but also the neutrino mass ordering.
At this point it is worth stressing that the matter-induced amplification or enhancement of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ under discussion is actually associated with the sensitivity of $\theta^{}_{12}$ to the matter-induced correction. It is well known that $\theta^{}_{13}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$ and $\delta$ are almost insensitive to terrestrial matter effects (i.e., $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{13} \simeq \theta^{}_{13}$, $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{23} \simeq \theta^{}_{23}$ and $\widetilde{\delta} \simeq \delta$) in the $E \lesssim 1$ GeV region [@Ohlsson; @Minakata; @Xing04], and hence the first equality in Eq. (7) leads us to the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sin 2\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{12}}{\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}}
\simeq \frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq
\frac{|\alpha|}{\epsilon} \left(1 + \beta\right) \; ,
$$ where Eq. (21) or (22) has been taken into account. So the behavior of the ratio of $\sin 2\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{12}$ to $\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}$ changing with $E$ is expected to be the same as that of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ shown in Fig. 2.
Last but not least, let us figure out the upper limit of $E$ which allows $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \gtrsim 1$ to hold. For this purpose, we take $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \simeq 1$ in Eq. (21) or (22) and then solve this equation. Besides the trivial solution $E =0$, there is a nontrivial solution $$\begin{aligned}
E^{}_0 \simeq \frac{\Delta^{}_{21}}{ \sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F}
N^{}_e} \left[ \cos 2\theta^{}_{12} \left(1 +\sin^2 \theta_{13}^{}
\right) + \alpha \right] \; ,
$$ which is valid for both normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies. Namely, $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \gtrsim 1$ holds for $E \in \left[0, E^{}_0\right]$ — the region of $E$ which might be especially interesting for the study of leptonic CP violation in a low-energy medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment. If only the leading term in Eq. (27) is taken into account (i.e., omitting the $\alpha$ term and taking $\sin^2 \theta^{}_{13}
\simeq 0$), we are then left with $E^{}_0 \simeq \Delta^{}_{21} \cos
2\theta^{}_{12}/ \left(\sqrt{2} \ G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e\right) \lesssim
0.3$ GeV by considering $A \simeq 2.28 \times 10^{-4} ~{\rm eV}^2
\left(E/{\rm GeV} \right)$ and inputting the best-fit values of $\Delta^{}_{21}$ and $\theta^{}_{12}$ [@GG]. Given the best-fit values and $3\sigma$ ranges of $\Delta^{}_{21}$, $\Delta^{}_{31}$, $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ listed in Table 1, the more accurate results of $E^{}_0$ can be obtained from solving $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} =1$ in Eq. (7) in a numerical way: $E^{}_0 \simeq 0.284$ GeV (best-fit) and $0.214 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim
E^{}_0 \lesssim 0.359 ~{\rm GeV}$ ($3\sigma$ range) for the normal neutrino mass ordering, or $E^{}_0 \simeq 0.244$ GeV (best-fit) and $0.179 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim E^{}_0 \lesssim 0.312 ~{\rm GeV}$ ($3\sigma$ range) for the inverted neutrino mass ordering. These results are consistent with those shown in Fig. 2.
Since $E^{}_0 \simeq 2 E^{}_*$ holds as a good approximation, one could consider to set the neutrino beam energy $E$ in the $E^{}_*
\lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ range when designing a realistic medium-baseline oscillation experiment to probe the $\widetilde{\cal
J}/{\cal J} \gtrsim 1$ region of CP violation. In fact, the typical beam energies of the proposed MOMENT [@MOMENT] and ESS$\nu$SM [@ESS] experiments just lie in such an interesting region.
The matter-deformed unitarity triangles
=======================================
The three Dirac UTs defined in vacuum in Eq. (5) have their counterparts in matter, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e : && \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 1} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 2} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 3} = 0 \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\mu : && \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{e 1} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{e 2} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{e 3} = 0 \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau : && \widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3} = 0 \; . \hspace{0.7cm}
$$ Thanks to the unitarity of $U$ and $\widetilde{U}$, the areas of $\triangle^{}_\alpha$ and $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) are equal to $|{\cal J}|/2$ and $|\widetilde{\cal J}|/2$, respectively. Hence a change of the ratio $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ with the neutrino beam energy $E$ implies that the three UTs must be deformed by terrestrial matter effects. The exact analytical expressions of the three sides of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\alpha$ for a constant matter profile have been derived in Ref. [@Zhang]. Here we find a more convenient way to reexpress the previous results [^11], and take into account both normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies [^12]. To be specific, we obtain the formulas for a [*neutrino*]{} beam as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_e : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu
1}\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{31} +
A\right) \Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}} U^{}_{\mu 1} U_{\tau 1}^{\ast} -
\frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{11} + A\right) \Delta^{}_{32}}
{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}} U^{}_{\mu 3}
U_{\tau 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu
2}\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{32}+A\right)
\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\mu 2} U_{\tau 2}^{\ast} +
\frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{22}+A\right)
\Delta^{}_{31}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\mu 3} U_{\tau 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3}\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{\ast}
\hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{13}+A\right)\Delta^{}_{23}}
{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\mu
3}U_{\tau 3}^{\ast} + \frac{\left(\Delta^{\prime}_{33}+A\right)
\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\mu 1} U_{\tau 1}^{\ast} \; ;
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_\mu : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 1}\widetilde{U}_{e 1}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm}
& = & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{31}\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}} U^{}_{\tau 1} U_{e 1}^{\ast} -
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{11}
\Delta^{}_{32}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}}
U^{}_{\tau 3} U_{e 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 2}\widetilde{U}_{e 2}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm}
& = & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{32}\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\tau 2} U_{e 2}^{\ast}
+\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{22}
\Delta^{}_{31}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}}
U^{}_{\tau 3} U_{e 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3}\widetilde{U}_{e 3}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm}
& = & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{13}\Delta^{}_{23}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{\tau 3} U_{e 3}^{\ast}
+\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{33}
\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}}
U^{}_{\tau 1} U_{e 1}^{\ast} \; ;
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_\tau : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e1}\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
= & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{31}
\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}} U^{}_{e1} U_{\mu 1}^{\ast} -
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{11}
\Delta^{}_{32}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}}
U^{}_{e3} U_{\mu 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e2}\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
= & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{32}\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{e2} U_{\mu 2}^{\ast} +
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{22}
\Delta^{}_{31}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}}
U^{}_{e3} U_{\mu 3}^{\ast} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e3}\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{\ast} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
= & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{13}\Delta^{}_{23}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}} U^{}_{e3} U_{\mu 3}^{\ast} +
\frac{\Delta^{\prime}_{33}
\Delta^{}_{21}}{\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{32}}
U^{}_{e1} U_{\mu 1}^{\ast} \; ,
\end{array} \right.
$$ where $\Delta^{}_{ij} \equiv m^2_i - m^2_j$, $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij} \equiv \widetilde{m}^2_i -
\widetilde{m}^2_j$ and $\Delta^{\prime}_{ij} \equiv m^2_i -
\widetilde{m}^2_j = \Delta^{}_{ij} + \Delta^{\prime}_{jj}$ (for $i,j
= 1,2,3$) with $\Delta^{\prime}_{jj}$ being expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{\prime}_{11} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x +
\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3y} \left [ z + \sqrt{3 \left (1 - z^2
\right)} \right ] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{22} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x +
\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3y} \left [ z - \sqrt{3 \left (1 - z^2
\right)} \right ] + \Delta^{}_{21} \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{33} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x - \frac{2}{3} z \sqrt{x^2 - 3y} \ +
\Delta^{}_{31} \;
$$ in the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ case; or $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{11}^{\prime} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x + \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 -3y} \Big[z -
\sqrt{3\left(1-z^2\right)}\Big] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta_{22}^{\prime} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x - \frac{2}{3} z \sqrt{x^2 - 3y} \ +
\Delta_{21}^{} \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{33} \hspace{-0.15cm} & = & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\displaystyle -\frac{1}{3} x + \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3y} \Big[z +
\sqrt{3\left(1-z^2\right)}\Big] + \Delta_{31}^{} \; \hspace{0.28cm}
$$ in the $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$ case. Eqs. (29)—(33) are exact and elegant in showing the corrections of terrestrial matter to the sides of three UTs, but they are unable to give one a ball-park feeling of the order of magnitude of such corrections due to the complication of $\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij}$ and $\Delta^{\prime}_{ij}$. Hence it is necessary to make some analytical approximations in order to show the deviation of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\alpha$ from $\triangle^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) in a direct and transparent way.
Note that such an exercise is not only conceptually interesting and intuitive but also helpful for expanding the matter-corrected probabilities of $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations in terms of the small parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the $E
\lesssim 1$ GeV region, because the CP-conserving parts of $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ are directly related to the sides of the above effective Dirac UTs. This point will become clear in section 4.
With the help of Eqs. (15), (18) and (32), some straightforward calculations lead us to the following approximate expressions in the case of a normal neutrino mass hierarchy: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{\prime}_{11} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm}
-\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \alpha + \frac{1}{2}
\left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon
- \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon - \frac12
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{21} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \alpha - \frac{1}{2}
\left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon +
\frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac12
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{22} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \alpha - \frac{1}{2}
\left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon
- \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac12
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{31} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha - \frac{1}{2}
\left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon
+ \frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac12
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Delta^{\prime}_{32} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm}
\Delta^{}_{31} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} \alpha - \frac{1}{2}
\left(1 - |U^{}_{e 3}|^2\right) \beta - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon -
\frac{3}{4} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta \epsilon + \frac12
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta^2\right] \; ,
$$ together with $\Delta^\prime_{13} \simeq -\Delta^{}_{31} \left(1 +
|U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta\right)$ and $\Delta^\prime_{33} \simeq
-\Delta^{}_{31} |U^{}_{e 3}|^2 \beta$. When an inverted neutrino mass ordering is concerned, the corresponding expressions of $\Delta^\prime_{ij}$ can simply be obtained from Eq. (34) with the replacement $\epsilon \to -\epsilon$. Given Eqs. (18), (19) and (34), it is easy to make analytical approximations to the sides of three Dirac UTs in Eqs. (29)—(31). In the case of a normal mass hierarchy, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_e : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 1} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{\mu 1} U^*_{\tau 1} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \frac{\alpha
-\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 2} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{\mu 2} U^*_{\tau 2} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \frac{\alpha
+\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 3} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \left(1 - 2 \beta
\sin^2\theta^{}_{13} + \alpha\beta \sin^2 \theta^{}_{12}
\right) U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} + \alpha\beta^{} U^{}_{\mu 1}
U^*_{\tau 1} \; ;
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_\mu : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 1} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{\tau 1} U^*_{e 1} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \beta - \frac{\alpha
+\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 2} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{\tau 2} U^*_{e 2} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \beta - \frac{\alpha
-\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 3} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \left(1 + \beta\right)
U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} - \alpha\beta \sin^2\theta^{}_{13}
U^{}_{\tau 1} U^*_{e 1} \; ; \hspace{2.8cm}
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}_\tau : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{e 1} U^*_{\mu 1} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \beta - \frac{\alpha
+\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{\epsilon} \
U^{}_{e 2} U^*_{\mu 2} - \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \beta - \frac{\alpha
-\beta}{\epsilon}\right) U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \left(1 + \beta\right)
U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} - \alpha\beta \sin^2\theta^{}_{13} U^{}_{e
1} U^*_{\mu 1} \; . \hspace{2.8cm}
\end{array} \right.
$$ One may check that the unitarity of each of the effective triangles holds up to the ${\cal O}(\alpha\beta)$, ${\cal
O}(\sin^2\theta^{}_{13} \beta)$ or higher-order corrections in the above approximations. At this precision level the deviation of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\mu$ from $\triangle^{}_\mu$ and the departure of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau$ from $\triangle^{}_\tau$ are exactly the same, reflecting a kind of $\mu$-$\tau$ flavor symmetry between these two effective UTs [@Zhao]. Some further discussions about our approximate analytical results are in order.
\(a) The $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3}$ side of the UT $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\gamma$, where the subscripts $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ run cyclically over $e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$, is least sensitive to terrestrial matter effects. The reason is simply that $\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}$, $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3}$ and $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3}$ only depend on the effective flavor mixing angles $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{13} \simeq \theta^{}_{13}$ and $\widetilde{\theta}^{}_{23} \simeq \theta^{}_{23}$, which are almost insensitive to the matter-induced corrections when the neutrino beam energy $E$ is low. Hence $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3} \simeq U^{}_{\alpha 3} U^*_{\beta 3}$ is a reasonably good approximation for $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\gamma$ and $\triangle^{}_\gamma$ in the low-energy region. In other words, the size and orientation of this side are essentially stable against terrestrial matter effects, and thus the deviation of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\gamma$ from $\triangle^{}_\gamma$ is mainly attributed to the changes of the other two sides.
\(b) The $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 1}$ (or $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 2}$) side of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\gamma$ consists of the corresponding $U^{}_{\alpha 1} U^*_{\beta 1}$ (or $U^{}_{\alpha 2} U^*_{\beta 2}$) side of $\triangle^{}_\gamma$ multiplied by a universal factor $\alpha/\epsilon$ and the $U^{}_{\alpha 3} U^*_{\beta 3}$ side of $\triangle^{}_\gamma$ multiplied by another factor. Because of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|\alpha|}{\epsilon} \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\displaystyle 1 -
2\cos 2\theta^{}_{12} \cos^2\theta^{}_{13} \frac{A}{\Delta^{}
_{21}} + \cos^4 \theta^{}_{13} \left(\frac{A}{\Delta^{}_{21}}
\right)^2}} \; , \hspace{1cm}
$$ it becomes clear that this factor approaches $1$ for $A \to 0$ and approximates to $1/\left(2 \sin\theta^{}_{12}\right) \simeq 0.91$ when $A \simeq \Delta^{}_{21}$ holds (i.e., $\alpha \simeq \beta$ with $E\simeq 0.33$ GeV) for a [*neutrino*]{} beam or to $1/\left(2
\cos\theta^{}_{12}\right) \simeq 0.60$ when $A \simeq
\Delta^{}_{21}$ holds for an [*antineutrino*]{} beam. In comparison, the term proportional to $U^{}_{\alpha 3} U^*_{\beta 3}$ can change the orientation of the $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 1}$ (or $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 2}$) side, and its factors $\left[1 -
\left(\alpha \mp \beta\right)/\epsilon \right]/2$ may appreciably deviate from zero even though $E$ is small. The deformation of the UT $\triangle^{}_\gamma$ is therefore understandable.
\(c) Note that the approximate analytical results in Eqs. (35)—(38) are valid for the normal neutrino mass hierarchy. As for the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy with $\alpha <0$, the nine sides of the three effective Dirac UTs can be directly read off from Eqs. (35)—(37) with the replacement $\epsilon \to -\epsilon$. In this case one may similarly discuss the deformation of each UT in the low-energy region for either a neutrino beam or an antineutrino beam.
To be more explicit, let us look at the unique peak $\widetilde{\cal
J}^{}_*/{\cal J} \simeq |\alpha|/\epsilon^{}_* \simeq 1/\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}$ at the resonance point $\beta^{}_* \simeq \alpha
\cos 2\theta^{}_{12}$ in the leading-order approximation, as already discussed below Eq. (22). In this special but interesting case the nine sides of the effective Dirac UTs can be simply expressed as follows [^13]: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 1} \hspace{-0.15cm}
& \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{\mu 1} U^*_{\tau 1} - \frac{1 -
\tan\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{\mu 1} U^*_{\tau 1} - 0.17 \ U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 2} \hspace{-0.15cm}
& \simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{\mu 2} U^*_{\tau 2} - \frac{1 -
\cot\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{\mu 2} U^*_{\tau 2} + 0.26 \ U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 3} \hspace{-0.15cm}
&\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{\tau 3} \; ;
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\mu : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 1} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{\tau 1} U^*_{e 1} - \frac{1 -
\cot\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{\tau 1} U^*_{e 1} + 0.26 \ U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 2} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{\tau 2} U^*_{e 2} - \frac{1 -
\tan\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{\tau 2} U^*_{e 2} - 0.17 \ U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 3} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} U^{}_{\tau 3} U^*_{e 3} \; ;
\end{array} \right.
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau : ~ \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{e 1} U^*_{\mu 1} - \frac{1 -
\cot\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{e 1} U^*_{\mu 1} + 0.26 \ U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin
2\theta^{}_{12}} \ U^{}_{e 2} U^*_{\mu 2} - \frac{1 -
\tan\theta^{}_{12}}{2} \ U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \simeq 1.09 \
U^{}_{e 2} U^*_{\mu 2} - 0.17 \ U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \; ,
\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \\
\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3} \hspace{-0.15cm} &
\simeq & \hspace{-0.15cm} U^{}_{e 3} U^*_{\mu 3} \; ,
\end{array} \right.
$$ where $\theta^{}_{12} \simeq 33.48^\circ$ has been taken as a typical input value to illustrate the deviation of each effective UT from its fundamental counterpart in vacuum. In particular, the enhancement of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ and the deformation of each triangle become quite transparent. For example, Eq. (41) leads us to the approximate relationship $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_* = {\rm Im}\left(\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{e 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2}
\right) \simeq \frac{1}{\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}}
{\rm Im}\left(U^{}_{e2} U^{}_{\mu 3} U^*_{ e3} U^*_{\mu 2}\right)
= \frac{1}{\sin 2\theta^{}_{12}} {\cal J} \;
$$ at the resonance point $\beta^{}_* \simeq \alpha \cos
2\theta^{}_{12}$ under discussion. In Fig. 4 we plot the three Dirac UTs in the complex plane by inputting the best-fit values of six neutrino oscillation parameters and taking the resonant beam energy $E^{}_* \simeq 0.140$ GeV (or $0.123$ GeV) for the normal (or inverted) neutrino mass ordering, corresponding to the peak of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ shown in Fig. 2. Now the deformation of each UT becomes more intuitive, although the terrestrial matter effects in such a low-energy case are not very significant. Two comments are in order.
{width="14.5cm"}
\(1) Fig. 4 is a reflection of the real shapes of the fundamental and effective UTs based on the best-fit results of current neutrino oscillation data. The configurations of $\triangle^{}_\mu$ (or $\triangle^{}_\tau$) in the cases of normal and inverted mass neutrino hierarchies look quite different, simply because one of its three sides is proportional to $U^*_{e 3} = s^{}_{13} e^{{\rm
i}\delta}$ (or its complex conjugate) but the best-fit value of the CP-violating phase $\delta$ lies in two different quadrants in these two cases, as one can see in Table 1. In comparison, the configuration of $\triangle^{}_e$ is not so sensitive to the best-fit values of $\delta$ in the cases of normal and inverted mass hierarchies since its three sides do not directly depend on $U^{}_{e
3}$ or equivalently $s^{}_{13} e^{-{\rm i}\delta}$. As for the three effective Dirac UTs in matter, the same observations are true.
\(2) Although the matter-induced corrections to the three fundamental UTs are not very significant, one can see a clear change in the orientations of two sides of each triangle at the resonance energy $E^{}_*$. Our numerical results in Fig. 4 confirm the observations based on the analytical approximations made below Eq. (37), implying that we have fully understood the matter-corrected behaviors of leptonic CP and T violation in the low-energy region.
To be more realistic, Figs. 5 and 6 show the matter-corrected Dirac UTs corresponding to the realistic accelerator-based T2K [@T2K] and NO$\nu$A [@NOVA] experiments which have the typical neutrino beam energies $0.6$ GeV and $2$ GeV, respectively. In plotting these two figures we have input the best-fit values of six oscillation parameters and considered both the neutrino and antineutrino beams. Note that a description of [*antineutrino*]{} oscillations in matter actually involves $U^*$ and $-A$, but here we plot the relevant effective UTs defined in Eq. (28) with $-A$ instead of their complex conjugate counterparts for an [*antineutrino*]{} beam so as to make a direct comparison between the same set of triangles in the neutrino (Fig. 5 with $A$) and antineutrino (Fig. 6 with $-A$) cases [^14]. Some comments and discussions are in order.
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
\(1) In both the T2K and NO$\nu$A cases, the ratios of $\widetilde{\cal J}$ to ${\cal J}$ are strongly suppressed, as one can expect from Fig. 1. To be specific, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm T2K} ~(E \simeq 0.6 ~{\rm GeV}): &&
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0.633 \hspace{0.6cm} (\nu ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31} >0) \; , \\
0.568 \hspace{0.6cm} (\nu ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31} <0) \; , \\
0.402 \hspace{0.6cm} (\overline{\nu} ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31}
>0) \; , \\ 0.448 \hspace{0.6cm} (\overline{\nu} ~ {\rm beam},
\Delta^{}_{31} <0) \; ;
\end{array} \right.
\nonumber \\
{\rm NO}\nu{\rm A} ~(E \simeq 2 ~{\rm GeV}): &&
\frac{\widetilde{\cal J}}{\cal J} \simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0.216 \hspace{0.6cm} (\nu ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31} >0) \; , \\
0.150 \hspace{0.6cm} (\nu ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31} <0) \; , \\
0.132 \hspace{0.6cm} (\overline{\nu} ~ {\rm beam}, \Delta^{}_{31}
>0) \; , \\ 0.190 \hspace{0.6cm} (\overline{\nu} ~ {\rm beam},
\Delta^{}_{31} <0) \; , \hspace{0.5cm}
\end{array} \right.
$$ where ${\cal J} \simeq -0.0268$ (normal hierarchy) or $-0.0316$ (inverted hierarchy), calculated by inputting the best-fit values of $\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{13}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$ and $\delta$ as listed in Table 1. Hence the areas of the UTs in Figs. 5 and 6 are much smaller than those in Fig. 4, where $\widetilde{\cal
J}^{}_*/{\cal J} \simeq 1.10$ (normal hierarchy) or $1.07$ (inverted hierarchy) for a neutrino beam with the same inputs.
\(2) The $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3}$ side of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\gamma$, where the subscripts $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ run cyclically over $e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$, remains least sensitive to terrestrial matter effects as compared with the other two sides when the neutrino (or antineutrino) beam energy goes up. In either Fig. 5 or Fig. 6, one may see the difference between the shapes or orientations of the same UT in the normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchy cases. Such a difference mainly originates from the fact that the best-fit values of $\delta$ lie in two different quadrants in these two cases. When comparing one UT with respect to a neutrino beam with its counterpart with respect to an antineutrino beam (i.e., one UT in Fig. 5 and its counterpart in Fig. 6), we find that the changes associated with each triangle’s shapes and orientations corresponding to $A
\leftrightarrow -A$ are appreciable and even significant when $E$ increases — this effect is just the [*fake*]{} CP-violating asymmetry induced by terrestrial matter between $\nu^{}_\alpha \to
\nu^{}_\beta$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha \to
\overline{\nu}^{}_\beta$ oscillations. The reason for this “asymmetry" is simply that the ordinary matter background is not symmetric under the CP transformation.
\(3) The nine inner angles of the three effective Dirac UTs in matter can be defined as $\phi^{}_{\alpha i} \equiv \arg\left[-
\left(\widetilde{U}^{}_{\beta j} \widetilde{U}^*_{\gamma
j}\right)/\left(\widetilde{U}^{}_{\beta k} \widetilde{U}^*_{\gamma
k}\right)\right]$ [@Luo], where the Greek and Latin subscripts keep their cyclic running over $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and $(1, 2, 3)$, respectively. Taking the T2K and NO$\nu$A experiments for example, we calculate these inner angles and list the numerical results in Table 2, where the best-fit values of six neutrino oscillation parameters shown in Table 1 have been input. It is obvious that terrestrial matter effects may significantly change the inner angles of the UTs, and therefore change their configurations and orientations.
[c|lll|lll]{} & &\
&&&&&&\
\
& $\widetilde U=U$ & $E\simeq 0.6~\rm{GeV}$ & $E\simeq 2~\rm{GeV}$ & $ \widetilde U=U$ & $E\simeq 0.6~\rm{GeV}$ & $E\simeq 2~\rm{GeV}$\
$\phi_{e1}^{}$ & $9.0^{\circ}$ & $ \left\{
\begin{array}{r} 47.0^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 2.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu})
\end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
134.8^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 0.8^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $10.8^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 47.8^{\circ}
~(\nu) \\ 3.5^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 111.7^ {\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 1.5^{\circ}
~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{e2}^{}$ & $21.4^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
4.4^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 68.4^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 1.4^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
128.0^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $25.1^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 4.7^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
77.4^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{
\begin{array}{r} 1.2^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 138.3^{\circ}
~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{e3}^{}$ & $149.6^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
128.6^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 109.0^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu})
\end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 43.8^{\circ}
~(\nu)\\
51.2^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $144.1^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 127.5^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 99.1^{\circ}
~(\overline{\nu})
\end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 67.1^{\circ}
~(\nu)\\
40.2^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\mu1}^{}$ & $49.3^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
34.9^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 52.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 15.2^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
53.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu})
\end{array} \right.$ & $101.3^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
82.7^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 104.5^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 43.2^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
105.3^{\circ} ~( \overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\mu2}^{}$ & $112.9^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
123.5^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 78.0^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 125.2^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
31.5^{\circ} ~(\overline {\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $64.1^{\circ}$ & $\left\{
\begin{array}{r} 72.0^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 45.8^{\circ}
~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
73.5^{\circ} ~(\nu)
\\
21.8^{\circ} ~(\overline {\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\mu3}^{}$ & $17.8^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
21.6^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 49.4^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 39.6^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
94.9^{\circ} ~ (\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $14.6^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 25.3^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
29.7^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 63.3^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
52.9^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\tau1}^{}$ & $121.7^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
98.1^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 124.8^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 30.0^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
125.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $67.9^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 49.5^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
72.0^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu})
\end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 25.1^{\circ} ~(\nu)
\\
73.2^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\tau2}^{}$ & $45.6^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
52.1^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 33.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 53.4^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
20.5^{\circ} ~(\overline {\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $90.8^{\circ}$ & $\left\{
\begin{array}{r} 103.3^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 56.8^{\circ}
~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
105.3^{\circ} ~(\nu)
\\19.9^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
$\phi_{\tau3}^{}$ & $12.7^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r}
29.8^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 21.6^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array}
\right.$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 96.6^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
33.9^{\circ} ~(\overline {\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $21.3^{\circ}$ & $\left\{ \begin{array}{r} 27.2^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\
51.2^{\circ} ~(\overline{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$ & $\left\{
\begin{array}{r} 49.6^{\circ} ~(\nu) \\ 86.9^{\circ} ~(\overline
{\nu}) \end{array} \right.$\
Neutrino oscillations and CP violation
======================================
Now we turn to the possibility of measuring leptonic CP violation in neutrino oscillations in a low-energy or low-matter-density region. In practice the matter-corrected sides $|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i}|$ of three Dirac UTs and their corresponding Jarlskog parameter $\widetilde{\cal J}$ can be determined from a variety of long- or medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments [@Zhang2]. The probabilities of $\nu^{}_\alpha \to \nu^{}_\beta$ oscillations in matter are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\alpha \to \nu^{}_\beta) =
\delta^{}_{\alpha\beta} - 4 \sum_{i<j} {\rm Re}
\left(\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\beta j}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\alpha j} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i} \right) \sin^2
\widetilde{F}^{}_{ji} + 8 \widetilde{\cal J} \sum_\gamma
\epsilon^{}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \prod^{}_{i<j} \sin
\widetilde{F}^{}_{ji} \; ,
$$ where $\widetilde{F}^{}_{ji} \equiv \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ji}
L/\left(4 E\right)$, and the Greek and Latin subscripts run over $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and $(1, 2, 3)$, respectively. Given the algebraic relationship $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Re} \left(\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i}
\widetilde{U}^{}_{\beta j} \widetilde{U}^*_{\alpha j}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i} \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left(
|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha k} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta k}|^2 -
|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i}|^2 -
|\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha j} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta j}|^2 \right)
$$ with $\alpha \neq \beta$ and $i\neq j\neq k$, one may then express the [*appearance*]{} ($\beta \neq \alpha$) probabilities of neutrino oscillations in terms of the sides of the UTs and $\widetilde{\cal
J}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\alpha \to \nu^{}_\beta) \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 2}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{21}
\hspace{1cm}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 2}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{31}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 2}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta 3}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{32}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} + 8 \widetilde{\cal J} \sum_\gamma
\epsilon^{}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{21}
\sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{31} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{32} \; .
$$ Of our particular interest are the $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations to probe leptonic CP violation. In this case it is the Dirac UT $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau$ that fully determines the oscillation probabilities. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e) \hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{21}
\hspace{1cm}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{31}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} - 2 \left( |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 1}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 2}|^2 - |\widetilde{U}^{}_{e 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\mu 3}|^2 \right) \sin^2 \widetilde{F}^{}_{32}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.15cm} - 8 \widetilde{\cal J} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{21}
\sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{31} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{32} \; ,
$$ and the corresponding expression of $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ can be directly read off from Eq. (47) with the replacements ${\cal J}
\to -{\cal J}$ and $A \to -A$.
To see an interplay between the fundamental physics and terrestrial matter effects in the probability of $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ oscillations in a more transparent way, let us make an analytical approximation for the expression of $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to
\nu^{}_e)$ in Eq. (47), whose CP-conserving part is only related to the sides of $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_\tau$. Instead of adopting Eq. (37), here we start from Eq. (31) and make a higher-order analytical approximation to ensure a sufficient accuracy associated with $\widetilde P (\nu_{\mu}^{} \to \nu_e^{})$ itself. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{U}_{e1}^{}\widetilde{U}_{\mu1}^*\hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm}\frac{\alpha}{\epsilon}{U}_{e1}^{}{U} _{\mu1}^* +
\frac{\alpha - \epsilon + \beta \cos^2\theta_{13}^{} - \epsilon
\beta -\alpha \beta\cos 2\theta_{12}^{} + \beta^2
}{2\epsilon}{U}_{e3}^{}{U}_{\mu3}^* \; ,
\nonumber\\
\widetilde{U}_{e2}^{}\widetilde{U}_{\mu2}^*\hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm}\frac{\alpha}{\epsilon}{U}_{e2}^{}{U} _{\mu2}^* +
\frac{\alpha - \epsilon - \beta \cos^2\theta_{13}^{} - \epsilon
\beta + \alpha \beta\cos 2\theta_{12}^{} - \beta^2
}{2\epsilon}{U}_{e3}^{}{U}_{\mu3}^* \; ,
\nonumber\\
\widetilde{U}_{e3}^{}\widetilde{U}_{\mu3}^*\hspace{-0.15cm} & = &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \left(1+\beta\right) {U}_{e3}^{}{U}_{\mu3}^* \; .
$$ With the help of Eqs. (18), (21) and (48), we finally arrive at the result $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde P (\nu_{\mu}^{} \to \nu_e^{}) \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle \alpha^2 \sin^2 2\theta_{12}^{}
\cos^2\theta_{13}^{} \left(\cos^2\theta_{23}^{} - \sin^2
\theta_{13}^{} \sin^2 \theta_{23}^{}\right) \frac{\sin^2 \left(
\epsilon F_{31}^{} \right)}{\epsilon^2}
\nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm} \displaystyle + \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + 2\beta\right)
\sin^22\theta_{13}^{} \sin^2\theta_{23}^{} \left[ 1-\cos \left(F^{}_*
- \beta F^{}_{31}\right) \cos \left( \epsilon F_{31}^{} \right)
\right] \nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm} \displaystyle + \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + 2\beta\right)
\left(\alpha\cos 2\theta_{12}^{} - \beta \cos^2\theta_{13}^{}\right)
\sin^2 2\theta_{13}^{} \sin^2\theta_{23}^{} \sin \left(F^{}_* -
\beta F_{31}^{}\right) \frac{\sin \left(\epsilon F_{31}^{}
\right)}{\epsilon} \nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm} \displaystyle + 4 {\cal J}\alpha \left(1 + \beta\right)
\left(\alpha \cos2 \theta_{12} - \beta \cos^2 \theta_{13}^{}\right)
\cot\delta\frac{\sin^2 \left(\epsilon F_{31}^{} \right)
}{\epsilon^2}\nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm} \displaystyle - 4 {\cal J}\alpha \left(1 + \beta\right)
\cos \left(\epsilon F_{31}^{}\right) \frac{\sin \left(\epsilon
F_{31} \right)}{\epsilon}
\nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-0.2cm} \displaystyle + 4 \frac{\cal J} {\sin
\delta}\alpha \left(1 + \beta\right) \sin\left(F^{}_* - \beta
F_{31}^{} +\delta
\right) \frac{\sin\left(\epsilon F_{31}^{}\right)}{\epsilon} \; ,
$$ where $F^{}_* \equiv \Delta^{}_* L/\left(4 E\right)$ with $\Delta^{}_* \equiv \Delta^{}_{31} + \Delta^{}_{32}$. Since the sign of $\Delta^{}_*$ is always the same as that of $\Delta^{}_{31}$ or $\Delta^{}_{32}$, it can serve as a discriminator of the neutrino mass ordering in a medium-baseline reactor antineutrino oscillation experiment [@LWX]. Of course, Eq. (49) is valid for the normal neutrino mass ordering case. When the inverted mass hierarchy (i.e., $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$) is concerned, the corresponding result can be easily obtained from Eq. (49) with the replacement $ \epsilon \to
-\epsilon$, leading us to an expression which is formally the same as Eq. (49). As for an [*antineutrino*]{} beam, the expression of $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ in the normal hierarchy case can be directly read off from Eq. (49) with the replacements ${\delta} \to -{\delta}$ and $A \to -A$. Note that $A \to -A$ is equivalent to $\beta \to -\beta$, implying a consequent change of $\epsilon$.
![A comparison between the accuracies of our analytical approximations in Eq. (49) and Freund’s in Ref. [@Freund] by requiring $\delta\widetilde{P}({\nu}^{}_\mu \to {\nu}^{}_e)$ defined in Eq. (50) to be smaller than $0.1\%$, $0.1\% - 0.5\%$, $\cdots$. Here the best-fit values of relevant oscillation parameters [@GG], together with $A \simeq 2.28 \times 10^{-4} ~{\rm eV}^2
\left(E/{\rm GeV}\right)$, have been typically input.](pueComparison.eps){width="13.3cm"}
Different from Freund’s analytical approximations for $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ [@Freund], which mainly work in the $E \gtrsim 0.5$ GeV region, ours in Eq. (49) can simply reproduce the corresponding vacuum result in the $A \to 0$ limit (i.e., in the absence of terrestrial matter effects). Although Xu has shown that Freund’s result can be extended to cover the solar neutrino resonance region, it is expected to be numerically less accurate than our result. To verify this point, we illustrate the allowed parameter space of $E$ and $L$ for a given departure of the analytical-approximation-based numerical result of $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ from the exact numerical result in Fig. 7, in which $A \simeq 2.28 \times 10^{-4} ~{\rm eV}^2
\left(E/{\rm GeV}\right)$ is typically taken and the best-fit values of relevant oscillation parameters [@GG] are input. Namely, we require $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e) \equiv \left|
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)^{}_{\rm exact} -
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)^{}_{\rm approximate}
\right| \lesssim 0.1\% \; , ~ 0.1\% - 0.5\% \; , \cdots ,
$$ to see how small or how big the corresponding space of $E$ and $L$ is. Fig. 7 clearly shows that our analytical approximations in Eq. (49) are numerically more accurate than Freund’s in the $E \lesssim 1$ GeV region, especially when $E$ is smaller and smaller.
Now let us compare between the numerical results of Freund’s and ours in another way, by considering one proposed experiment (MOMENT with $L = 150$ km [@MOMENT]) and two real ones (T2K with $L =
295$ km [@T2K] and NO$\nu$A with $L = 810$ km [@NOVA]). Since the $E < 0.1$ GeV region is essentially irrelevant to these three experiments, we have restricted ourselves to the $E\gtrsim 0.1$ GeV region in our calculations. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the behaviors of $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\delta
\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ for the normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies, respectively. We see that both Freund’s analytical approximations and ours are actually good enough to describe the behaviors of matter-corrected $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ oscillations for the MOMENT and T2K experiments, although the accuracy of our approximations is certainly much better. In contrast, Freund’s result is much better than ours for the NO$\nu$A experiment, simply because the latter involves $E \gtrsim 1$ GeV. In short, our new approximations provide an alternative analytical way for understanding the matter-modified behaviors of $\nu^{}_\mu \to
\nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations in the $0.1 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim E \lesssim 1 ~{\rm
GeV}$ region.
{width="15.3cm"}
{width="15.3cm"}
In the following we focus on a low-energy medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment which is capable of probing leptonic CP-violating asymmetry $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP} \equiv \widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}
+ \widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F} \equiv \widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to
\nu^{}_e) - \widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to
\overline{\nu}^{}_e) \; ,
$$ in which $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ stands for the [*genuine*]{} CP-violating effect governed by the nontrivial value of Dirac phase $\delta$ [^15], and $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ denotes the [*fake*]{} asymmetry arising from an asymmetry between terrestrial matter and antimatter. The latter must disappear when the “matter" parameter $A$ is switched off. With the help of Eq. (49) and its counterpart for $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$, one may obtain the simplified expressions of $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\cal J}$ and $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J} \simeq -16{\cal J} F^{}_{21} \sin^2
F^{}_{31} \simeq {\cal A}^{}_{\cal J} \equiv -16 {\cal J}
\sin F^{}_{21} \sin F^{}_{31} \sin F^{}_{32} \; ,
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F} \hspace{-0.15cm} & \simeq &
\hspace{-0.15cm} \displaystyle 2 \beta
\left\{\sin^2 2\theta_{13}^{} \sin^2\theta_{23}^{} \left[
2 \sin^2 F_{31}^{} - (1 + \alpha) F_{31}^{} \sin
\left( 2 F_{31}^{} \right) +
\alpha \sin^2\theta_{12}^{} F_{31}^2 \cos \left( 2 F_{31}^{}
\right) \right]\right.
\nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.55cm} \left.
- 8 \alpha \mathcal{J} \cot \delta F_{31}^2 \cos^2 F_{31}^{}
\right\} \; ,
$$ if $\sin\left(\epsilon F^{}_{31}\right) \simeq \epsilon F^{}_{31}$ holds as a reasonable approximation. In this case it becomes transparent that the fake CP-violating asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\rm F}$ is proportional to the matter parameter $A$, while the genuine CP-violating asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ in matter is essentially equal to its counterpart in vacuum. In fact, the result in Eq. (52) is well known [@Ohlsson; @Minakata; @Xing13] [^16], but the one in Eq. (53) is new and instructive.
{width="15.3cm"}
To illustrate the above observations in a numerical way, let us take two benchmark values of the neutrino beam energy $E$ and plot the asymmetries $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$, $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\rm F}$ and $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP} = \widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\cal J} + \widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ as functions of the baseline length $L$ in Fig. 10, where the best-fit values of six neutrino oscillation parameters have been input. These two benchmark beam energies are just $E^{}_*$ and $E^{}_0 \simeq 2 E^{}_*$, corresponding to the $\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*/{\cal J}$ peak and the nontrivial $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} =1$ point as pointed out in section 2. One can see that $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP} \simeq
\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ is an acceptable approximation in the $E \simeq E^{}_*$ case, and the deviation of $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ from $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ can be appreciable when $L$ becomes larger simply because the matter-induced fake asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ increases with $L$ as implied in Eq. (53). Although it is possible to obtain much larger CP-violating asymmetries when the baseline length $L$ is properly large, a price to pay for the growth of $L$ is the decrease of the neutrino flux luminosity because the latter is proportional to $L^{-2}$ [@Minakata]. For this reason, we focus on the first two peaks of $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ in Fig. 10. The values of $E$, $L$, $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ and $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}/\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ associated with these two peaks are summarized in Table 3. Two comments are in order.
\(a) In the case of a normal neutrino mass hierarchy, $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}/\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP} <1$ holds on the peaks, implying that the fake CP-violating asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ contributes in a positive way. In contrast, the contribution of $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm F}$ is negative for the inverted neutrino mass ordering, and hence $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}/\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP} >1$ holds in this case.
\(b) Given $E \simeq E^{}_*$ for the first peak of $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\rm CP}$, the corresponding baseline length $L$ is about $85.20$ km (or $71.90$ km) in the $\Delta^{}_{31} >0$ (or $\Delta^{}_{31} <0$) case. When $E \simeq 2 E^{}_*$ is taken, the value of $L$ is roughly doubled. The situation is similar for the second peak of $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$. Of course, a realistic experiment should optimize both $E$ and $L$ to make $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ easily observable.
---------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
0.140 0.284 0.123 0.244
1st peak $\begin{array}{c} L~({\rm km})\\ \widetilde{\mathcal $\begin{array}{c}85.20\\ 0.025\\ 0.893\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}175.5\\ 0.028\\ 0.801\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}71.90\\ 0.024\\1.121\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}138.5\\ 0.021\\ 1.256\end{array}$
A}_{\rm CP}^{}
\\ \widetilde{\mathcal A}_{\mathcal J}^{}/\widetilde
{\mathcal A}_{\rm CP}^{}\end{array}$
2nd peak $\begin{array}{c} L~({\rm km})\\ \widetilde{\mathcal $\begin{array}{c}221.7\\ 0.066\\ 0.948\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}454.0\\ 0.069\\ 0.892\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}190.7\\ 0.072\\1.031\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}372.9\\ 0.069\\ 1.043\end{array}$
A}_{\rm CP}^{}
\\ \widetilde{\mathcal A}_{\mathcal J}^{}/\widetilde
{\mathcal A}_{\rm CP}^{}\end{array}$
---------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
: The benchmark values of $E$, $L$, $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ and $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal
J}/\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ associated with the first and second peaks of the CP-violating asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal
A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ shown in Fig. 10.
Furthermore, we plot the effective probabilities $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ changing with the baseline length $L$ in Fig. 11, where the inputs are exactly the same as those used for plotting Fig. 10. Since these two probabilities depend on $\pm A$ respectively, they receive different contributions from terrestrial matter effects and thus their peaks correspond to different values of $L$. The difference between $\widetilde{P}(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $\widetilde{P}(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ is just the CP-violating asymmetry $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ as illustrated in Fig. 10. Note that $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm CP}$ is essentially insensitive to the neutrino mass hierarchy in the leading-order approximation, because it is dominated by the $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ term which is insensitive to the sign of $\Delta^{}_{31}$. This observation implies that a reasonable determination of the CP-violating effect in the lepton sector (or equivalently, the size of $\delta$) should in principle be possible in such a low-energy medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment even before the sign of $\Delta^{}_{31}$ is measured.
{width="15.3cm"}
We hope that some of our results obtained in this work will be helpful for the design of a low-energy oscillation experiment to explore leptonic CP violation. The proposed MOMENT project [@MOMENT] is just an experiment of this type. The neutrino flux of the MOMENT is expected to peak in the $0.15 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim E
\lesssim 0.20 ~{\rm GeV}$ region, which happens to coincide with the $E^{}_* \lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ region recommended above. In other words, this experiment is capable of probing the effects of CP violation in $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu
\to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations with little matter-induced suppression. The present studies indicate that the optimal baseline length of the MOMENT experiment should be around $L \simeq 150$ km [@MOMENT; @Blennow], which is also within the expectation shown in Figs. 10 and 11. But the bottlenecks to the physics reach of this experiment include how to achieve a sufficiently intense neutrino (or antineutrino) flux and how to achieve a sufficiently high suppression of the atmospheric neutrino background, as pointed out and discussed in depth by Blennow [*et al.*]{} in Ref. [@Blennow]. In this connection we plan to go into details of the feasibility and physics potential of the MOMENT project elsewhere in collaboration with its team members [@Li].
In addition to the MOMENT facility, the ESS$\nu$SB project — a very intense neutrino super-beam for the measurement of leptonic CP violation — has recently been proposed based on the European Spallation Source Linac [@ESS]. Its neutrino beam energy and baseline length are expected to lie in the $0.2 ~{\rm GeV} \lesssim
E \lesssim 0.5 ~{\rm GeV}$ range and the $300 ~{\rm km} \lesssim L
\lesssim 600 ~{\rm km}$ range, respectively. It is obvious that the lower-energy and shorter-baseline part of this parameter space is consistent with our recommendation about $E$ and $L$ made above. In fact, our analytical approximations are valid for the whole space of $E$ and $L$ of the ESS$\nu$SB experiment, and hence they will be very helpful to understand the numerical analysis of this experiment’s sensitivity to CP violation and matter contamination [@Zhou].
We stress that a low-energy medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment can not only help probe leptonic CP violation but also help test the other properties of lepton flavor mixing. Therefore, a further study of this possibility is desirable [@Li].
Summary
=======
We have developed a new set of analytical approximations for the probabilities of $\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e$ oscillations in matter to understand the effects of leptonic CP violation in a possible low-energy medium-baseline experiment with the beam energy $E \lesssim 1$ GeV. Our primary motivation comes from the fact that the previous works of this kind, such as the popular one done by Freund [@Freund], are subject to the $E \gtrsim 1$ GeV (or $E
\gtrsim 0.5$ GeV) region for a long-baseline oscillation experiment. We have shown that our analytical approximations are numerically more accurate than those made by Freund in the $E\lesssim 1$ GeV region, and thus they are expected to be particularly applicable for the MOMENT, ESS$\nu$SM and T2K experiments. The new analytical approximations can also help us to easily understand why the matter-corrected Jarlskog parameter $\widetilde{\cal J}$ peaks at the resonance energy $E^{}_* \simeq 0.14$ GeV (or $0.12$ GeV) for the normal (or inverted) neutrino mass hierarchy, and how the three Dirac unitarity triangles are deformed due to the terrestrial matter contamination. Finally we have affirmed that a medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment with the beam energy $E$ lying in the $E^{}_* \lesssim E \lesssim 2 E^{}_*$ range is capable of exploring leptonic CP violation with little matter-induced suppression.
Of course, more detailed works have to be done to combine our analytical results with a given experiment, such as the MOMENT project, by considering both the neutrino beam issues and the detector issues. We plan to focus on such important but complicated issues elsewhere in collaboration with the MOMENT team [@Li].
We are indebted to Yu-Feng Li and Shun Zhou for their useful discussions and comments. One of us (Z.Z.X.) is also grateful to Fumihiro Takayama for his warm hospitality during the Chinese New Year at the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics of Kyoto University, where part of this work was done. The present research is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11135009.
[99]{} K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Review of particle physics, Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{} (2014) 090001.
F. Capozzi, G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Status of three-neutrino oscillation parameters, circa 2013, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{} (2014) 093018 \[arXiv:1312.2878 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. V. Forero, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino oscillations refitted, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{} (2014) 9, 093006 \[arXiv:1405.7540 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Updated fit to three neutrino mixing: status of leptonic CP violation, JHEP [**1411**]{} (2014) 052 \[arXiv:1409.5439 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[T2K Collaboration\], Measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters from muon neutrino disappearance with an off-axis beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{} (2013) 21, 211803 \[arXiv:1308.0465 \[hep-ex\]\].
K. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[T2K Collaboration\], Precise measurement of the neutrino mixing parameter $\theta^{}_{23}$ from muon neutrino disappearance in an off-axis beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 18, 181801 \[arXiv:1403.1532 \[hep-ex\]\].
See, e.g., B. Rebel, talk given at the XIV International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics, September 2015, Torino, Italy.
F. P. An [*et al.*]{} \[Daya Bay Collaboration\], Spectral measurement of electron antineutrino oscillation amplitude and frequency at Daya Bay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 061801 \[arXiv:1310.6732 \[hep-ex\]\].
F. P. An [*et al.*]{} \[Daya Bay Collaboration\], New measurement of antineutrino oscillation with the full detector configuration at Daya Bay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{} (2015) 11, 111802 \[arXiv:1505.03456 \[hep-ex\]\].
See, e.g., C. Kachulis, talk given at the EPS Conference on High Energy Physics, July 2015, Vienna, Austria.
The latest global analysis can be found in: F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Neutrino masses and mixings: Status of known and unknown $3\nu$ parameters, arXiv:1601.07777 \[hep-ph\].
Y. Wang and Z. z. Xing, Neutrino Masses and Flavor Oscillations, arXiv:1504.06155 \[hep-ph\].
J. Cao [*et al.*]{}, Muon-decay medium-baseline neutrino beam facility, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams [**17**]{} (2014) 090101 \[arXiv:1401.8125 \[physics.acc-ph\]\].
E. Baussan [*et al.*]{} \[ESSnuSB Collaboration\], A very intense neutrino super beam experiment for leptonic CP violation discovery based on the European spallation source linac, Nucl. Phys. B [**885**]{} (2014) 127 \[arXiv:1309.7022 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. Freund, Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabilities in matter, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 053003 \[hep-ph/0103300\].
X. J. Xu, Why is the neutrino oscillation formula expanded in $\Delta m_{21}^{2}/ \Delta m_{31}^{2}$ still accurate near the solar resonance in matter? JHEP [**1510**]{} (2015) 090 \[arXiv:1502.02503 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Pontecorvo, Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP [**6**]{} (1957) 429 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**33**]{} (1957) 549\].
Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**28**]{} (1962) 870.
B. Pontecorvo, Neutrino experiments and the problem of conservation of leptonic charge, Sov. Phys. JETP [**26**]{} (1968) 984 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**53**]{} (1967) 1717\].
C. Jarlskog, Commutator of the quark mass matrices in the standard electroweak model and a measure of maximal CP violation, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{} (1985) 1039.
L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino oscillations in matter, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{} (1978) 2369.
S. P. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Resonance amplification of oscillations in matter and spectroscopy of solar neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**42**]{} (1985) 913 \[Yad. Fiz. [**42**]{} (1985) 1441\].
P. I. Krastev and S. T. Petcov, Resonance amplification and T violation effects in three-neutrino oscillations in the earth, Phys. Lett. B [**205**]{} (1988) 84.
E. K. Akhmedov, P. Huber, M. Lindner and T. Ohlsson, T violation in neutrino oscillations in matter, Nucl. Phys. B [**608**]{} (2001) 394 \[hep-ph/0105029\].
V. A. Naumov, Three neutrino oscillations in matter, CP violation and topological phases, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**1**]{} (1992) 379.
P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, CP and T violation in neutrino oscillations and invariance of Jarlskog’s determinant to matter effects, Phys. Lett. B [**476**]{} (2000) 349 \[hep-ph/9912435\].
Z. z. Xing, Sum rules of neutrino masses and CP violation in the four neutrino mixing scheme, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 033005 \[hep-ph/0102021\].
H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, Measuring leptonic CP violation by low-energy neutrino oscillation experiments, Phys. Lett. B [**495**]{} (2000) 369 \[hep-ph/0004114\].
H. Fritzsch and Z. z. Xing, Mass and flavor mixing schemes of quarks and leptons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**45**]{} (2000) 1 \[hep-ph/9912358\].
J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, Unitarity triangles and geometrical description of CP violation with Majorana neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 096009 \[hep-ph/0007025\].
Z. z. Xing and J. y. Zhu, Leptonic unitarity triangles and effective mass triangles of the Majorana neutrinos, arXiv:1511.00450 \[hep-ph\].
S. Toshev, On T violation in matter neutrino oscillations, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**6**]{} (1991) 455.
V. D. Barger, K. Whisnant, S. Pakvasa and R. J. N. Phillips, Matter effects on three-neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D [**22**]{} (1980) 2718.
H. W. Zaglauer and K. H. Schwarzer, The mixing angles in matter for three generations of neutrinos and the MSW mechanism, Z. Phys. C [**40**]{} (1988) 273.
Z. z. Xing, New formulation of matter effects on neutrino mixing and CP violation, Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{} (2000) 327 \[hep-ph/0002246\].
A. Cervera, A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, J. J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena and S. Rigolin, Golden measurements at a neutrino factory, Nucl. Phys. B [**579**]{} (2000) 17 \[hep-ph/0002108\].
Y. F. Li and S. Luo, Neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter with direct and indirect unitarity violation in the lepton mixing matrix, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{} (2016) 3, 033008 \[arXiv:1508.00052 \[hep-ph\]\].
See, e.g., I. Mocioiu and R. Shrock, Matter effects on neutrino oscillations in long baseline experiments, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 053017 \[hep-ph/0002149\].
Z. z. Xing, Flavor mixing and CP violation of massive neutrinos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**19**]{} (2004) 1 \[hep-ph/0307359\].
H. Zhang and Z. z. Xing, Leptonic unitarity triangles in matter, Eur. Phys. J. C [**41**]{} (2005) 143 \[hep-ph/0411183\].
Z. z. Xing and Z. h. Zhao, A review of mu-tau flavor symmetry in neutrino physics, arXiv:1512.04207 \[hep-ph\].
Z. z. Xing and H. Zhang, Reconstruction of the neutrino mixing matrix and leptonic unitarity triangles from long-baseline neutrino oscillations, Phys. Lett. B [**618**]{} (2005) 131 \[hep-ph/0503118\].
Z. z. Xing, Leptonic commutators and clean T violation in neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 017301 \[arXiv:1304.7606 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Luo, Dirac lepton angle matrix v.s. Majorana lepton angle matrix and their renormalization group running behaviours, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 013006 \[arXiv:1109.4260 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. F. Li, Y. Wang and Z. z. Xing, Terrestrial matter effects on reactor antineutrino oscillations at JUNO or RENO-50: how small is small?, arXiv:1605.00900 \[hep-ph\].
M. Blennow, P. Coloma and E. Fern��ndez-Martinez, The MOMENT to search for CP violation, arXiv:1511.02859 \[hep-ph\].
Private communications with Y. F. Li and other members of the MOMENT experiment.
T. Ohlsson, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Probing the leptonic Dirac CP-violating phase in neutrino oscillation experiments, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 5, 053006 \[arXiv:1301.4333 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: E-mail: xingzz@ihep.ac.cn
[^2]: E-mail: zhujingyu@ihep.ac.cn
[^3]: Xu has noticed that the approximate formulas obtained by Freund [@Freund] are still valid even near the solar neutrino resonance in matter (i.e., $A \simeq \Delta^{}_{21} \cos
2\theta^{}_{12}$) [@Xu], but we are going to show that they will become problematic in the $E \lesssim 0.4$ GeV region and definitely turn to be invalid in the $E \lesssim 0.1$ GeV region.
[^4]: Since an ordinary medium (e.g., the Earth) only consists of electrons, protons and neutrons instead of both these particles and their antiparticles, the matter background is not symmetric under the CP transformation. Hence the expression of the CP-violating asymmetry between $P(\nu^{}_\mu \to \nu^{}_e)$ and $P(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \to \overline{\nu}^{}_e)$ is not so simple as that of $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm T}$ in Eq. (2), as one can clearly see in section 4.
[^5]: Note that Minakata and Nunokawa have discussed a similar possibility and obtained the leading-order analytical result of $E^{}_*$ in Ref. [@Minakata]. In comparison, our analytical result in Eq. (3) has a much higher degree of accuracy and thus the new result in Eq. (4) can explain the sensitivity of $\widetilde{\cal J}^{}_*/{\cal J}$ to the neutrino mass ordering.
[^6]: The other three unitarity triangles (defined as $\triangle^{}_1$, $\triangle^{}_2$ and $\triangle^{}_3$), the so-called Majorana UTs [@Branco; @Zhu], will not be discussed here because they have nothing to do with leptonic CP and T violation in normal neutrino-neutrino and antineutrino-antineutrino oscillations.
[^7]: For the sake of simplicity, we have omitted the Majorana CP-violating phases of massive neutrinos in this parametrization simply because they have nothing to do with neutrino oscillations under discussion.
[^8]: See, also, the analytical expansions made in Refs. [@Xu; @Ohlsson; @Cervera]. When the unitarity of the $3\times 3$ PMNS matrix $U$ is directly or indirectly violated in the presence of light or heavy sterile neutrinos, the similar analytical expansions of neutrino oscillation probabilities have been done by Li and Luo [@Li-Luo].
[^9]: To be more specific, the “matter" parameter $A$ is given as $A \simeq 1.52 \times 10^{-4} ~{\rm eV}^2 ~Y^{}_e \left(\rho/{\rm
g/cm^3}\right) \left(E/{\rm GeV}\right) \simeq 2.28 \times 10^{-4} ~
{\rm eV}^2 \left(E/{\rm GeV}\right)$, where $Y^{}_e \simeq 0.5$ is the electron fraction and $\rho \simeq 3 ~{\rm g/cm^3}$ is the typical matter density for a neutrino trajectory through the Earth’s crust.
[^10]: In the case of a neutrino (or antineutrino) beam with the normal (or inverted) mass ordering, the minimum of $\widetilde{\cal
J}/{\cal J}$ is about $0.116$ (or $0.113$) appearing at $E \simeq
6.462$ GeV (or $6.172$ GeV). The magnitude of such an extreme is actually similar to the suppressed peak $\widetilde{\cal
J}^\prime_*/{\cal J} \simeq 0.12$ at $E^\prime_* \simeq 8.906$ GeV (or $8.828$ GeV).
[^11]: In the low-energy region under consideration we find that the $U^{}_{\alpha 3} U^*_{\beta 3}$ side of $\triangle^{}_{\gamma}$, where the subscripts $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ run over $e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$ cyclically, is least sensitive to terrestrial matter effects. Hence it is appropriate to express the other two sides in matter as $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i} = c^{}_1 U^{}_{\alpha i} U^*_{\beta i} +
c^{}_2 U^{}_{\alpha 3} U^*_{\beta 3}$ (for $i = 1$ or $2$), in which the coefficients $c^{}_1$ and $c^{}_2$ deviate respectively from $1$ and $0$ due to the matter-induced corrections.
[^12]: In this connection only the possibility of a normal neutrino mass hierarchy is discussed analytically and numerically in the literature. The present work improves the previous ones by taking account of both normal and inverted mass hierarchies and shows the phenomenological differences between these two cases.
[^13]: In this case the matter-induced corrections to the three Dirac UTs are not very significant due to the smallness of $E^{}_*$, but the corresponding analytical approximations are simple and instructive because they only involve a single known parameter $\theta^{}_{12}$ at the leading-order level.
[^14]: This point can be easily understood as follows. For example, $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e$ is defined by the orthogonality relation $\widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 1}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 1} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 2}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 2} + \widetilde{U}^{}_{\mu 3}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\tau 3} = 0$ for a neutrino beam depending on $U$ and $A$. As for an antineutrino beam depending on $U^*$ and $-A$, the corresponding effective triangle is described by $\widetilde{U}^{*}_{\mu 1} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 1} +
\widetilde{U}^{*}_{\mu 2} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 2} +
\widetilde{U}^{*}_{\mu 3} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\tau 3} = 0$. What we have done in plotting Fig. 6 is simply to make a complex conjugation of this orthogonality relation, such that $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e$ as a function of $A$ in Fig. 5 and $\widetilde{\triangle}^{}_e$ as a function of $-A$ in Fig. 6 can be directly compared.
[^15]: Note that $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\cal J}$ as a CP-violating asymmetry is associated with both matter ($A$) and antimatter ($-A$), while $\widetilde{\cal A}^{}_{\rm T}$ defined in Eq. (2) is the T-violating asymmetry and thus depends only on matter.
[^16]: For example, it has been shown that the equality $\widetilde{\cal J} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{21}
\sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{31} \sin\widetilde{F}^{}_{32} \simeq {\cal J}
\sin F^{}_{21} \sin F^{}_{31} \sin F^{}_{32}$ holds to a good degree of accuracy provided the neutrino beam energy $E$ and the baseline length $L$ satisfy the condition $10^{-7} \left(L/{\rm km}\right)^2
\left( {\rm GeV}/E\right) \ll 1$ [@Xing13].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We reply to the critique by Pucchini and Vucetich of our construction of a non-relativistic proof of the spin-statistics connection using $SU(2)$ invariance and a Weiss-Schwinger action principle.'
author:
- 'E. C. G. Sudarshan'
- Anil Shaji
title: 'Note on Non-relativistic proof of the spin-statistics connection in the Galilean frame'
---
In a recent paper [@puccini04], Puccini and Vucetich have argued that a non-relativistic proof of the spin-statistics connection cannot be obtained in the Galilean frame. The paper is a critique of a proof suggested by us in [@shaji03]. The main assertion in [@puccini04] is that Hermitian field operators are incompatible with Galilean invariance if the fields are not massless. hermiticity and Galilean invariance; both are indeed required of the field operators in our proof presented in [@shaji03].
The argument of Puccini and Vucetich is centered on the transformation properties of the field operator $\xi_{\lambda}({\bf x}, t)$ under the Galilei group: $$\label{eq:trans1}
U_g \xi_{\lambda}({\bf x}, t)U^{-1}_g = e^{\frac{i}{\hbar} m \gamma(g; {\bf x}, t)} \sum_{\lambda'} D^{s}_{\lambda \lambda'} (R^{-1}) \xi_{\lambda'} ({\bf x'}, t)$$ where $\xi_{\lambda}$ is a field operator with spin $s$ and $\lambda = -s, \ldots , s$, $D^{s}_{\lambda \lambda'}$ is the $(2s+1)$ dimensional unitary representation of the rotation group and $\gamma(g; {\bf x}, t)=\frac{1}{2} {\bf v}^2 t + {\bf v} \cdot {\bf x}$. The transformation properties for the field $\xi_{\lambda}^{\dagger}$ follow from equation (\[eq:trans1\]): $$\label{eq:trans2}
U_g \xi_{\lambda}^{\dagger}({\bf x}, t)U^{-1}_g = e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} m \gamma(g; {\bf x}, t)} \sum_{\lambda'} D^{s}_{\lambda' \lambda} (R) \xi_{\lambda'}^{\dagger} ({\bf x'}, t).$$
The inequivalent Bargmann phase [@bargmann54] picked up by $\xi_{\lambda}$ and $\xi_{\lambda'}$ under the transformation is used by Puccini and Vucetich to conclude that “[*no Galilean field operator of non-zero mass can he hermitian*]{}”.
In the usual (complex) realization of the extended Galilei group the finite transformations are a mixture of real and complex transformations. The generators of rotations and space translations $J_{jk}$ and $P_j$ are pure imaginary and the corresponding finite transformations $e^{i {\bf J} \cdot {\bf \theta}}$ and $e^{i{\bf P}\cdot{\bf a}}$ are real. On the other hand the generators of time translation and boosts, $H$ and $G_j$ are usually chosen to be real so that the corresponding finite translations are imaginary. In the extended Galilei group $M$ is taken to be a non-negative real number and so it also generates transformations that are not real. If we want the field operators to be hermitian then we want all the finite transformations to be real too so that under the action of an element of the Galilei group the real components of the field gets mapped on to real components. This can be accomplished by doubling the number of components of $\xi_{\lambda}$ and choosing $M$, $H$ and $G_j$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:realgen}
M & = & m \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & - i \\ i & 0 \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
H & = &\frac{p^2}{2M}= \frac{p^2}{2m} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & - i \\ i & 0 \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
G_j & = & M q_j = m q_j \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & - i \\ i & 0 \end{array} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Doubling the number of components for $\xi_{\lambda}$ also means that the rotation and space translation generators which are already pure imaginary have to be expanded appropriately. This choice representation allows us to keep the field operators hermitian while at the same time keeping the Lagrangian density constructed out of $\xi_{\lambda}$ Galilean invariant. Using this choice of representation of the extended Galilei group we can again go through with the proof constructed in [@shaji03] and apply it to massive Galilean fields also. The choice of Galilei group generators that has to be made to keep the fields hermitian may be cumbersome for most computations. However it shows that all the assumptions necessary for our construction of the proof can in principle be justified for massive fields that transform according to representations of the (extended) Galilei group.
The essential point is that a field (of any spin) can be made to carry an additional charge by doubling the components while still keeping them real. The ’mass’ $M$, which may be considered as just another charge, can also be accommodated in an identical fashion. To lament over the Bargmann phase due to $M$ and not worry about any other charge in relation to the proof of the spin-statistics connection stems from assigning $M$ a special status over any other charge that may be relevant to the fields that are being considered.
[9]{}
G. D. Puccini and H. Vucetich, arXiv:quant-ph/0407208 (2004). Anil Shaji and E. C. G. Sudarshan, arXiv:quant-ph/0306033 (2004). V. Bargmann, Ann. of Math. [**59**]{}, 1 (1954).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Sub-relativistic magnetic monopoles are predicted from the GUT era by theory. To date there have been no confirmed observations of such exotic particles. The Iron CALorimeter (ICAL) at India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) aims to measure the neutrino oscillation parameters precisely. As it is a tracking detector there is also the possibility of detecting magnetic monopoles in the sub-relativistic region. Using ICAL the magnetic monopole event is characterised by the large time intervals of upto $30~\mu sec$ between the signals in successive layers of the active detectors. The aim of this study is to identify the sensitivity of ICAL for a particle carrying magnetic charge in the mass range from $10^{5}~-~10^{17}$ GeV with $\beta$ ranging from $10^{-5}~-~9\times10^{-1}$ for ICAL at INO. A similar study has also been carried out for the ICAL prototype which will be placed overground. Due to the rock cover of approximately $1.3~km$, ICAL at INO will not be able to place bounds on the flux of the lower mass magnetic monopoles. This mass region is however addressed by the prototype ICAL.'
author:
- 'N. Dash'
- 'V. M. Datar[^1]'
- 'G. Majumder'
title: Search for Magnetic Monopole using ICAL at INO
---
Introduction
============
The India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) $\bf [1]$ project is a proposed multi-institutional effort aimed at building an underground laboratory with a rock cover of approximately $1.3~km$ at Pottipuram in Bodi West hills of Theni District of Tamil Nadu. It will focus on research in the area of non-accelerator based high energy physics and nuclear physics. The flagship experiment, to study atmospheric neutrinos, will make use of a large detector called the Iron CALorimeter (ICAL). It is a magnetised calorimeter of mass around $50~kton$. The detector size is of the order of $48~m~\times~16~m~\times~15~m$. Due to its comparatively large size, assuming an isotropic $\bf [2]$ magnetic monopole (MM) flux equal to the Parker Limit $\bf [3]$, ICAL could expect a few events due to MMs per year. The detectors which are used for detecting MM are mainly based either on induction or on ionization. During the early 80’s, the experiment at Stanford University by Cabrera $\bf [4]$ performed a mass and velocity independent search of MM by the induction method using a Superconducting QUantum Interferometer Device (SQUID) as the detector. The induction based experiment was subsequently improved upon to yield the upper bound of the flux of MMs $\sim$ $3.8\times10^{-13}~cm^{-2}~sr^{-1}~sec^{-1}$ $\bf [5]$. The experiments like MACRO $\bf [6]$, SLIM $\bf [7]$, Soudan 2 $\bf [8]$ etc., used the ionization method for MM detection as they have used either scintillators or gaseous detectors. Similarly most of the ice and water Cherenkov based detectors like AMANDA $\bf [9]$, Baikal $\bf [10]$, Kamiokande $\bf [11]$ etc. have also looked for MM detection and have placed upper bounds on MM flux. Last, but not least, (the accelerator based ) experiments such as CDF $\bf [12]$, Oklahoma $\bf [13]$ etc., have looked for low mass MM which may be produced at accelerators. The ICAL detector size is comparable to the size of the MACRO detector at Gran Sasso. The ionization produced in a gas detector can either be measured quantitatively with a signal height “proportional to” energy loss of the MMs in the gas thickness or produce a saturated pulse which only carries “hit” and “time” information. For an MM, in ionization method the energy loss in the active detector element should be sufficient enough to give a signal in the detector. The ICAL will use a gaseous detector called the Resistive Plate Chamber (RPC), which belongs to the second category of gas detector mentioned earlier. The track of the MM in the ICAL and the characteristic sequence of trigger times of consecutive layers of RPCs will help in identifying the MM against random background.
In this work we report the results of the simulation work that has been carried for MMs with Dirac charge $(g=68.5e)$ $\bf [14]$ to estimate the upper limit in flux for ICAL within a mass range of $10^5 - 10^{18}$ GeV and velocity range of $10^{-5}$c to $0.9$c. A prototype of the ICAL with a mass of $\sim 2~kton$ is planned to be built at the surface. This allows it to be sensitive to lighter MMs. A similar analysis has been carried out for the ICAL prototype to estimate the efficient region in the MM M$-\beta$ plane. In Sec.2, we briefly discuss the physics of Magnetic Monopoles. In Sec.3, we outline the mechanisms by which an MM gives a signal in the detector and makes it detectable like a particle carrying electric charge. In Secs.4 and 5, we discuss the future prospect of the MM in the ICAL. Section 6, gives a brief idea about the possibility of using the ICAL prototype for detecting MMs and the paper ends with conclusions in the last section.
Theoretical Overview
====================
In 1931 Dirac predicted the possible existence of isolated magnetic poles, by considering a connection between a charge on the MM and the quantization (integral multiple of smallest unit) $\bf [14]$ of an electric charge, given by $$\label{eq:someequation}
eg = \frac{n\hbar c}{2\pi},$$ where $g$ is the magnetic charge, $e$ is the electric charge, and $n$ is an integer which can take both positive and negative values.
The expression in Eq.(2.1) was also derived by M. N. Saha $\bf [15]$ in $1936$, by considering the quantized angular momentum perpendicular to the line joining the point electric charge and MM.
In 1974 G. ’t Hooft $\bf [16]$ and Polyakov $\bf [17]$ discovered MM solutions of the classical equations of motion for spontaneously broken non-abelian gauge field theories. This leads to a lower bound on the mass of the MM which depends on the mass of the carrier of the unified interaction and coupling constant. $$M_{mm} \geq \frac{M_x}{G},$$ where $M_x$ is the mass of the carrier of the unified interaction and $G$ is the unified coupling constant.
From a cosmological point of view it is believed that MMs are created during the big-bang around $10^{-34}~sec$ after of the creation of the universe. It is assumed that they are moving with velocity of the earth$^{'}$s orbital velocity of the order of $10^{-3}$ c. Those with large mass can penetrate the rock with an initial velocity of the order of the orbital velocity of the earth. Due to the energy loss of MMs in the rock their velocity gradually decreases. If the mass of the MM is small they get stopped in the earth matter. Parker $\bf [3]$ has obtained an upper bound on the flux of the MMs in the galaxy by noting that the rate of energy loss is small compared to the time scale on which the galactic field regenerated. The flux for the MM with mass less than equal to $10^{17}$ GeV is constant but it increases linearly with mass for higher masses (see Eq.(2.3)). $$F_M = \begin{cases} {10^{-15}cm^{-2}sec^{-1}sr^{-1}}, & {M \leq 10^{17}GeV}\\{10^{-15}\frac{M}{10^{17}GeV}cm^{-2}sec^{-1}sr^{-1}}, & {M \geq 10^{17}GeV} \end{cases}$$
The existence of magnetic charges and magnetic currents make Maxwell’s equations symmetric. The Maxwell’s equation in the cgs system of units are :
$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla~.~E & = 4\pi\rho_e\\
\nabla~.~B & = 4\pi{\rho_m} \\
\nabla \times E & = - \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial B}{\partial t} - \frac{4\pi}{c}{J_m}\\
\nabla \times B & = \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} + \frac{4\pi}{c}J_e\end{aligned}$$
where $J_e$ is the electric current density, $\rho_e$ is the electric charge density, $\rho_m$ is the magnetic charge density, and $J_m$ is the magnetic current density.
Interaction of a magnetic monopole with matter
==============================================
The detection of an MM in a particle detector is similar to that of a charged particle as both are detected through a certain amount of energy loss in the detector medium. Just as the stopping power of a charged particle depends on its charge and velocity, the energy loss of an MM also depends on its magnetic charge and velocity.
A fast MM is characterized by its velocity \[$v=\beta c$\], which is much larger than the typical electron orbital velocity ($\alpha c$, $\alpha$ being the fine structure constant). So in principle, for a fast MM, the electron can be assumed to be stationary so that the MM-e collisions can be characterized by an impact parameter. In close collisions, the large energy transfer from the projectile allows the electrons to be treated as free. But in the case of distant collisions the atoms are excited by the perturbation caused by electric field of the MM. These approximations are valid for a particle irrespective of whether it carries an electric or magnetic charge. However there is a difference between the dependence of the stopping power of fast MM and an electric charge through the dependence on velocity. For an MM, the magnitude of the electric field is reduced by a factor of $\beta$ from that of an electrically charged particle with the same velocity and charge. For $\beta \geq \alpha$ it is essentially the lab frame electric field which determines the interaction between the projectile and the electrons. Since the stopping power scales as the square of the electric field, it is apparent that the ratio of fast MM stopping power to that of an electric projectile is $\sim$ $({g\beta}/{Ze})^2$. Hence the stopping power expression is similar to that of an electrically charged particle which is given by Bethe-Bloch expression $\bf [18]$. In this expression the $Ze$ term is replaced by $g\beta$ for the MM is given by $$-\frac{dE}{dX}=\frac{4\pi {N{e}}^{2}g^{2}}{m_{e}c^{2}}(\ln(\frac{2m_{e}c^{2}\beta^{2}\gamma^{2}}{I_{m}})-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\delta_{m}}{2}
-B(\mid g \mid)+\frac{K(\mid g \mid)}{2}),$$ where $N$ is the electron number density, $m_e$ is the mass of the electron, $I_m$ is the mean ionization potential of the target material, $\delta_{m}$ is the density correction for high energies, $$B(\mid g \mid) =\begin{cases}{0.248} & {\mid g \mid=137e/2}\\
{0.672} & {\mid g \mid=137e} \end{cases}$$ is the Bloch correction for an MM, and
$$K(\mid g \mid) = \begin{cases}{ 0.406} & {\mid g \mid=137e/2}\\
{0.346} & {\mid g \mid=137e} \end{cases}$$
is the Kazama cross-section correction $\bf [19]$. At the above mentioned velocity range the ratio between the stopping power of the MM and the relativistic singly charged electric particle is $\sim$ $(g/e)^2$ $\sim$ $4700$. Due to its enormous energy loss, an MM can be detected easily by any device that can detect electrically charged particles.
The expression in Eq.(3.1) is valid only for high values of $\beta$, viz. $\beta \geq 10^{-2}$. However for lower $\beta$, the interaction between the MM and the absorber is different. For an absorber with atoms with larger atomic numbers \[$Z \geq 10$\] the electron motion in an atom is approximated by that in a locally uniform potential, such as obtained from a Thomas-Fermi approximation. But for lower Z materials the excitation of the atom is due to the interaction of the magnetic field of the MM with the electron magnetic moment, where the energy loss varies linearly with $\beta$ $\bf [20]$. The expression is as follows $$-\frac{dE}{dX}=20(\frac{g}{137e})^2\beta~\frac{GeV}{gm~cm^{-2}}.$$ The energy loss of MMs at lower $\beta$ is comparatively less than that for electrically charged particles. This can be used to distinguish MM from electrically charged particles $\bf [21]$.
Figure 1 shows the stopping power of an MM with Dirac charge in silicon computed using GEANT4, the High Energy Physics (HEP) simulation tool-kit $\bf [22]$ and is comparable with the plot presented in Ref. $\bf [18]$.
![\[fig1\]Stopping power of an MM($g=68.5e$) in silicon.](monopole_eloss_1cm_silicon.pdf){width="66mm"}
Magnetic Monopole simulation for ICAL
=====================================
GEANT4 is used to define the ICAL detector geometry as well as to simulate the detector response for an MM event, through the simulated detector volume. The detector design which has been implemented in GEANT4 consists of $3$ ICAL modules each of $16~kton$. Each ICAL module consists of $150$ layers of $2~m~\times~4~m~$ iron plates of $5.6~cm$ thickness interleaved with layers of RPCs. The iron plates are magnetised with average field of $1.3~Tesla$. The transverse dimensions of each module are $16~m~\times~16~m$. Two consecutive iron plates are separated by an air gap of $4~cm$ to accommodate a layer of RPCs which are the active detector elements. The RPC consists of a $2~mm$ layer of gas enclosed between $3~mm$ thick glass sheets, which are overlaid by honey-comb based pick-up strips for electrical contact which yield an electrical signal on the passage of a charged particle or an MM. The pick-up readout system on either side of the RPC are placed orthogonal to each other to give both X and Y co-ordinate information. Each strip has a width of $\sim$ $3~cm$. The RPC also gives a fast timing signal ($\sigma$ $\sim$ $1~nsec$) that can be used to discriminate MMs from muons. The ICAL modules have the same dimensions and are placed side by side, separated by a $40~cm$ gap.
To simulate the MM events for the ICAL at INO, a rock mass of density $2.89$ ${gm}/{cm^3}$ of height $1.3~km$ from the top surface of the detector is defined in addition to the ICAL geometry (see Fig. 2). Particles are incident from the surface of the rock, so that they will move through the rock before detection in ICAL and are represented by solid line in Fig. 2. The events presented by dashed line in Fig. 2 are not used during simulation. To simulate an isotropic flux the zenith angle (cos$\theta$) is smeared from $\pi$ to ${\pi}/{2}$ corresponding to down-ward going events and $2\pi$ smearing in azimuthal angle ($\phi$). The stopping power in different materials is given by Eqs.(3.1 and 3.2).
![\[fig1\]Schematic view of the MM events generation in the ICAL detector with rock.](rockdetectorwithevent.pdf){width="76mm"}
Particles propagate through the detector while losing energy in the sensitive region of the detector which has a gas mixture of Freon (95.15$\%$), Iso-Butane (4.51$\%$) and $SF_6$ (0.34$\%$), and registering “hits”. Each hit has an associated position and time information. The plot in Fig. 3 shows the energy loss of an MM in $2~mm$ thick RPC gas with composition mentioned above as a function of $\beta$ range. At lower $\beta$ it increases linearly with it but at higher value it increases ln($\gamma^2$).
![\[fig1\]Energy Loss of an MM in 2 mm thick RPC gas(composition of gas is in text) as function of velocity in units of c.](monopole_eloss_rpcgas.pdf){width="66mm"}
Analysis and Results
====================
The time and position information of each hit is used to reconstruct the velocity of a particle. Their massive nature do not allow them to bend in the $1.3~Tesla$ magnetic field in the iron plates during their travel through the detector. So its trajectory is almost straight. Hence a straight line fitting is used for velocity reconstruction. Due to the large mass and sub-relativistic velocity, the time of flight method is suitable for identifying the MM using ICAL. For relativistic MMs high energy muons will constitute the main background. However in the smaller velocity region the background will be due to the chance coincidences rate which can be minimised by choosing a minimum number of layers for velocity reconstruction. By requiring a coincidence of an additional layer, the random coincidences reduce by a factor of $\sim~2\times10^{-6}$ for a $\beta$ value of $0.8$ with a travel distance of $10~cm$ and assuming RPC strip rate to be $200~Hz$. For each mass and $\beta$ bin a sample of 10,000 events have been used to estimate the efficiency.
![\[fig1\]ICAL detection efficiency for MM in its M$-\beta$ plane. The efficiencies in different regions in the plot are marked by different colours as shown in legend on the right side.](efficiency_minimumlay10_contour.pdf){width="66mm"}
Figure 4 represents the sensitive region for ICAL in the M$-\beta$ plane by considering 10 as the minimum number of layers for velocity reconstruction. The events with reconstructed $\beta$ within $3$ times the incident $\beta$ are considered for the efficiency calculation. The different colours in the plot depict the efficiency in different regions of the M$-\beta$ plane with the value shown by the legend on the right side of the plot. In the plot the uncoloured part represents there is no sensitivity of ICAL, red colour represents detection efficiency with $90\%$ and colour coded such that the decreasing efficiency is depicted by colour with decreasing wavelength. At the lower mass and sub-relativistic $\beta$, they get absorbed by the rock materials before detecting in the ICAL. Similarly for higher mass and lower $\beta$ their energy is not sufficient to detect them by the active detector element of ICAL. In the mass range from $10^{12}$ to $10^{17}$ GeV, even at lower values of $\beta$ the MMs are able to travel at least 10 layers.
Depending on the minimum number of layers used for $\beta$ reconstruction the angular distributions obtained by the ICAL are different. The efficiency of detection of the MM by ICAL is used to then calculate the expected event rate or obtain a limit on the flux of MM from an upper bound on the detected events. Figure 5 shows the angular distribution for different minimum number of layers with different colours as marked inside it. The figure shows that with increase in cut in number of minimum layers the events are biased to more vertical ones to the detector and gradually the number of reconstructed events also goes on decreasing. So when the minimum layers are $10$ and $20$ all of them come from the upper half of the hemisphere.
![\[fig1\]Reconstructed cos$\theta$ distribution for MM by considering minimum number of layers as 10, 20, 50, 100 and 150 for $\beta$ reconstruction in ICAL.](reconstructedthetadist.pdf){width="66mm"}
Expected Event Rate
-------------------
If the effective area of cross-section of the ICAL detector is A, the solid angle obtained by its is $\Omega$, detection efficiency of MM estimated by ICAL is $\epsilon$, MM flux is f and T is the counting time period, then the expected events ($N_{Ex}$) is given by $$%\begin{align}
N_{Ex}=f(cm^{-2}~sr^{-1}~sec^{-1})~A(cm^2)~\Omega(sr)~T(sec)~\epsilon.
%\end{align}$$ Furthermore, if we choose the ICAL transverse area of cross-section A = $16~m~\times~48~m~$ = $768$ $m^2$, $\Omega$ = $2\pi$ sr, T = $1$ Yr, $\epsilon$ = $1$ and f = $10^{-15}$ $cm^{-2}sr^{-1}sec^{-1}$, we get $N_{Ex}$ $\simeq$ $1.5$ events per year.
![\[fig1\]Expected events obtained for ICAL in 10 years of counting period using flux upper bound from the MACRO and SLIM experiments.](expectedeventsfor10years.pdf){width="66mm"}
The expected events are guided by the upper limit in flux observed by different experiments. Figure 6 shows expected number of events estimated for 10 years of running using the flux upper bound obtained from the MACRO $\bf [6]$ and SLIM $\bf [7]$ experiments. The transverse area of cross-section of the ICAL, detection efficiency for MM from Fig. 4 and solid angle obtained by the ICAL for minimum 10 layers from Fig. 5 are used for the estimation of expected events.
Estimation of Upper Limit in Flux
---------------------------------
An estimation of the Upper Limit in flux that can be obtained by ICAL assuming zero observed event is based on the Frequentist $\bf [23]$ Method including background. If the upper limit in number of event for finite observed event is $N_{upper}$, $N_{obs}$ is the number of observed events and $N_{BG}$ is the number of background events, then the upper limit in flux is given by $$f_{upper}=\frac{N_{upper}(N_{obs},N_{BG})}{A(cm^2)~\Omega(sr)~T(sec)~\epsilon}.$$ For zero observed events and zero background $N_{upper}$ is 2.3 at a $90\%$ confidence level. This procedure has been followed to get the upper limit in flux, which is presented in Fig. 7.
![\[fig1\]Upper limit in Flux obtained by ICAL with $90\%$ C. L. for 10 years in units of $10^{-15}~cm^{-2}~sr^{-1}~sec^{-1}$.](flux_10years_minimumlay10_contour.pdf){width="66mm"}
Magnetic Monopole simulation for ICAL engineering module
========================================================
An engineering prototype module of the ICAL of dimensions $8~m~\times~8~m~\times~7.5~m~$ is planned to be built over ground at Madurai in the next $2-3$ years. It has a mass which is 1/8$^{th}$ of that of a single ICAL module. This engineering module will be similar to the main ICAL module from all other points of view. Hence the various parameters of the detector are the same except for the scaling down. The MM simulation has been done to identify the region of M$-\beta$ space where the ICAL prototype has a reasonably good efficiency.
The same simulation tool-kit has been used as for the main detector module. To simulate the events in the ICAL prototype, the events are generated randomly from the surface of the atmosphere with a height of $10~km$ from the top surface of the prototype detector. The $cos\theta$ is smeared from $\pi~-~\pi/2$ and $\phi$ from $0$ to $2\pi$ to obtained an isotropic flux for MM. For the detection of such type of events on the surface, cosmic ray muons will be the main background. However the sensitivity for lower beta is expected to increase, where one can use the time information to minimise the background due to cosmic muons. Also one has the possibility of covering the lower mass region which is not possible for the underground ICAL due to the energy loss of the MM in around $1~km$ rock cover. For higher $\beta$ ($\beta > 0.2$), the minimum number of layers used for $\beta$ reconstruction is 10 but for lower value of $\beta$ it is used as 5 layers. Figure 8 shows the sensitive region for MM in the M$-\beta$ plane. It covers a region starting from mass $10^5$ GeV to $10^{17}$ GeV and $\beta$ from $10^{-5}$ to $9\times10^{-1}$.
![\[fig1\]Efficient region of MM using ICAL prototype in the M$-\beta$ plane. Different colours in the plot presents different values of the efficiencies.](eff_prototype_10kmatm.pdf){width="66mm"}
In conclusion, using Eq.(5.2), a search for MMs in a certain range of mass and $\beta$ is feasible. This would require a measurement of the time at which the RPC layers fire with time differences between consecutive layers ranging between $0.4~nsec$ and $30$ $\mu sec$, corresponding to $\beta$ of $9\times10^{-1}$ to $10^{-5}$. The flux bounds are comparable to those existing at the present time from experiments worldwide.
Conclusions
===========
The ICAL at the under ground laboratory can detect MMs with mass ranging from $10^{7}$ GeV to $10^{17}$ GeV. For the mass range of $10^7$ to $10^{9}$ GeV ICAL is sensitive for $\beta \geq 10^{-3}$. For mass from $10^{10}$ to $10^{17}$ GeV ICAL can cover the $\beta$ values above $10^{-5}$. The engineering module of ICAL will cover the lower mass region from $10^5$ - $10^{17}$ GeV. A search for Magnetic Monopoles in a certain range of mass and $\beta$ is feasible with ICAL and also with the ICAL prototype. The flux bounds derived from these detectors will be comparable to those obtained from existing detectors presently operating worldwide.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The INO project is funded by Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Department of Science and Technology (DST) in India. The authors are grateful to Prof M. V. N. Murthy, Prof A. Raychaudhuri and Prof J. B. Singh for their valuable comments and suggestions during the preparation of the manuscript. We would also like to thank Prof A. S. Dighe and P. C. Rout for their worthful suggestions during the analysis. Last, but not least, our thanks are also due to the INO collaborators for their invaluable support.
[100]{} http://www.ino.tifr.res.in J. Derkaoui et al., Astroparticle Physics [**9**]{}, 173 (1998). E.N. Parker, Astrophys. J. [**160**]{}, 383 (1970). B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1378 (1982). S. Bermon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 839 (1990). M. Ambrosio et al., \[MACRO Collab.\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**25**]{}, 511 (2002). S. Balestra et al., Eur. Phys. J. C [**55**]{}, 57 (2008). J. L. Thron et al., Phys. Rev., D [**46**]{}, 4846 (1992). A. Pohl. Search Subrelativistic Particles with the AMANDA Neutrino Telescope. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, 2009. V. Aynutdinov et al., Astropart. Phys. [**29**]{}, 366 (2008). T Kajita et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jap. [**54**]{}, 4065 (1985). A. Abulencia et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 201801, (2006). G. R. Kalbfleisch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5292 (2000). P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [**133**]{}, 60 (1931), P. A. M. Dirac, Phys. Rev. [**74**]{}, 817 (1948). M. N. Saha, Ind. J. Phys. [**10**]{}, 145 (1936) G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B [**79**]{}, 276 (1974). A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. [**20**]{}, 194 (1974). S. P. Ahlen, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 229 (1978). Y. Kazama et al., Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2287 (1977). S. P. Ahlen and K. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 2347 (1982). S. P. Ahlen and G. Tarle, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 688 (1983). http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/ R. M. Barnett et al., Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1 (1996).
[^1]: vivek.datar@gmail.com
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'A. O. Leonov'
title: 'Chiral skyrmion states in non-centrosymmetric magnets \[BHPhase\]'
---
[^1]
Introduction \[BHIntro\]
========================
Chiral skyrmion states exist in non - centrosymmetric magnetic crystals [@JETP89; @JMMM94; @Nature06; @pss94] as a consequence of the asymmetric exchange Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions that destroy the homogeneous magnetic state and generally lead to twisted incommensurate magnetic spin-structures [@Dz64]).
Recently, microscopic observation of skyrmion lattices and free skyrmions in magnetic layers of the chiral helimagnets with the noncentrosymmetric cubic B20 crystal structure confirm the existence of these chiral topological spin-textures in otherwise rather simple magnetic metals [@Yu10; @Yu10a]. The stabilization of these states and their transformation properties impressively illustrate the theoretically predicted solitonic nature of these chiral two-dimensionally localized spin-states [@JETP89; @JMMM94; @Nature06; @pss94]. In particular, the experiments clearly show the ability of skyrmions to form densely packed two-dimensional arrangements and how the field-driven transformation process can decompose these lattices by setting free the constituent skyrmions as excitations. The stabilization of such skyrmion lattices against one-dimensionally modulated helices in these cubic helimagnets at low temperatures requires a subtle effect possibly combining uniaxial magnetic anisotropy (or cubic and exchange anisotropy) with the magnetic field \[XI,XII\]. However, both in magnetic films and in magnetic crystals, symmetry imposed restrictions on the chiral Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions may allow to create skyrmion lattices with high perfection in applied fields because the competing conical helix state does not exist [@JETP89; @JMMM94].
This chapter is mainly devoted to numerically rigorous solutions of hexagonal skyrmion lattices for cubic helimagnets. It justifies and extends previous approximate solutions that used a circular cell approximation (CCA) for the calculation of the free energy of skyrmion lattices [@JETP89; @JMMM94]\[XI\]. The theoretical results of the present chapter provide a comprehensive description of skyrmion lattice evolution in an applied magnetic field and/or in the presence of uniaxial, cubic, and exchange anisotropy. The low-temperature phenomenological theory with fixed modulus of magnetization, M=const, is applied to the magnetic states in chiral magnets.
Phenomenological theory of modulated states in chiral helimagnets \[PTBH\] {#PT1}
==========================================================================
Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interaction
--------------------------------
In many magnetic crystals the magnetic properties may be strongly influenced by the asymmetric exchange interaction known also as the Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interaction (DMI). When acting between two spins $\mathbf{S}_i$ and $\mathbf{S}_j$, it leads to a term in the Hamiltonian which is generally described by a spin vector product: $$H_{\mathrm{DM}}=\mathbf{D}_{ij}\cdot(\mathbf{S}_i\times\mathbf{S}_j).
\label{DMvector}$$ where $\mathbf{D}_{ij}$ is the Dzyaloshinskii vector.
Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions arise in certain groups of magnetic crystals with low symmetry where the effects of coupling (\[DMvector\]) do not cancel. Their effect is to cant (i.e. slightly rotate) the spins by a small angle. In general, $\mathbf{D}_{ij}$ may not vanish even in centrosymmetric crystalls. Anisotropic exchange interaction occurs commonly in antiferromagnets and then results in a small ferromagnetic component of the moments which is produced perpendicularly to the spin-axis of the antiferromagnet. The effect is known as *weak ferromagnetism*. It is found, for example, in $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$, MnCO$_3$, and CoCO$_3$. To explain the phenomenon of weak ferromagnetism the interaction (\[DMvector\]) was phenomenologically introduced by Dzyaloshinskii [@Dz57]. Moriya found a microscopic mechanism due to the spin-orbit coupling responsible for the interactions (\[DMvector\]) [@Moriya60].
Another fundamental macroscopic manifestation of the antisymmetric coupling (Eq. \[DMvector\]) takes place in non-centrosymmetric magnetic crystals. Dzyaloshinskii showed that in this case the interaction (\[DMvector\]) stabilizes long-periodic spatially modulated structures with fixed sense of rotation of the vectors $\mathbf{S}_i$. Within a continuum approximation for magnetic properties, the interactions responsible for these modulations are expressed by inhomogeneous invariants. One calls these contributions to the free magnetic energy, involving first derivatives of magnetization or staggered magnetization with respect to spatial coordinates, inhomogeneous Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. They are linear with respect to the first spatial derivatives of a magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ of type [@Dz64] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{ij}^{(k)} = M_i\left(\frac{\partial M_j}{\partial x_k}\right)
-M_j\left(\frac{\partial M_i}{\partial x_k}\right).
\label{LI}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_i$ and $M_j$ are components of magnetization vectors that arise in certain combinations in expressions (\[LI\]) depending on crystal symmetry, and $x_k$ are spatial coordinates. Such antisymmetric mathematical forms were studied in the theory of phase transitions by E. M. Lifshitz and are known as *Lifshitz invariants* [@LandauLifshitz].
Depending on the crystal symmetry [@Dz64; @JETP89], the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya energy $W_{\mathrm{DM}}(\mathbf{M})$ includes certain combinations of Lifshitz invariants (\[LI\]). Particularly, for important uniaxial crystallographic classes, $(\mathit{nmm})$($C_{nv}$), $\overline{4}2m$($D_{2d}$), and $n22$ ($D_n$) functional $W_{\mathrm{DM}}$ can be written as $$%(nmm): W_D=D\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(x)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(y)}),
(nmm): W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int w_{\mathrm{DM}}dV=\int[D\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(x)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(y)})]dV,
\label{Cnv}$$ $$%(\overline{4}2m): W_D=D\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)}),
(\overline{4}2m): W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int[D\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)})]dV,
\label{D2d}$$ $$%(n22): W_D=D_1\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}-\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)})+D_2\mathcal{L}_{xy}^{(z)}.
(n22): W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int[D_1\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}-\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)})+D_2\mathcal{L}_{xy}^{(z)}]dV.
\label{Dn}$$ where $n=3,4,6$, and $D_1$, $D_2$, $D$ are Dzyaloshinskii constants.
Lifshitz invariants for n ($C_n$) and $\overline{4}$ ($S_4$) classes consist of terms with simultaneous presence of two Dzyaloshinskii constants related to directions $x,\,y$ in the basal plane: $$(n): W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int[D_3\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(x)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(y)})+D_4\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}-\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)})]dV,
\label{Cn}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
%(\overline{4}): \quad w_D=D_5\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(x)}-\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(y)}) +
%D_6\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)}).
(\overline{4}): W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int[D_5\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(x)}-\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(y)}) +
D_6\,(\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{yz}^{(x)})]dV.
\label{S4}\end{aligned}$$ For cubic helimagnets belonging to 23 (T) (as MnSi, FeGe, and other B20 compounds) and 432 (O) crystallographic classes Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions are reduced to the following form: $$%W_D=D\,(\mathcal{L}_{yx}^{(z)}+\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{zy}^{(x)})=D\,\mathbf{M}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{M}.
W_{\mathrm{DM}}=\int[D\,(\mathcal{L}_{yx}^{(z)}+\mathcal{L}_{xz}^{(y)}+\mathcal{L}_{zy}^{(x)})]dV=\int[D\,\mathbf{M}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{M}]dV.
\label{LifshitzCubic}$$
Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions stabilizing chiral magnetic states may be also induced by the symmetry breaking at the surface in confined systems as magnetic nanolayers, nanowires, and nanodots. As a genuine consequence of surface-induced DM couplings different types of chiral modulations have been observed [@Bode07; @Heinze11]. Therefore, thin film systems are appropriate candidate structures to study chiral magnetic skyrmions. In particular, micromagnetic analysis of the chirality selection for the vortex ground states of magnetic nanodisks shows that the sign and the strength of the DM coupling strongly influence their structures, magnetization profiles and core sizes [@Butenko09]. The calculated relations between strength of the DM interactions and vortex-core sizes provide a method to determine the magnitude of surface-induced DM couplings in ultrathin magnetic films/film elements.
The general micromagnetic energy functional
-------------------------------------------
Within the phenomenological theory introduced by Dzyaloshinskii [@Dz64] the magnetic energy density of a non-centrosymmetric ferromagnet with spatially dependent magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ can be written as $$%W(\mathbf{M})=\underbrace{A \sum_{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial m_j}{\partial x_i}\right)^2
%-D\,\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{m}
%-\mathbf{M}\cdot\mathbf{H}}_{W_0(\mathbf{M})}
%+W_a(\mathbf{m})
W(\mathbf{M})=\underbrace{A \sum_{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial m_j}{\partial x_i}\right)^2
+D\,w_D(\mathbf{M})
-\mathbf{M}\cdot\mathbf{H}}_{W_0(\mathbf{M})}
+W_a(\mathbf{m})
\label{DMdens1}$$ where $A>0$ and $D$ are coefficients of exchange and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions; $\mathbf{H}$ is an applied magnetic field; $x_i$ are the Cartesian components of the spatial variable. $w_D$ is composed of Lifshitz invariants. Almost all calculations of the present chapter have been done for cubic helimagnets with $w_D=\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{m}$.
$W_a(\mathbf{m})$ includes short-range anisotropic energies: $$W_a(\mathbf{m})=-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left[B_{EA} \left(\frac{\partial m_i}{\partial x_i} \right)^2
+K_c (\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{n}_i)^4\right]-K_u (\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{a})^2
\label{additional}$$ where $B_{EA}$, $K_c$, and $K_u$ are coefficients of exchange, cubic, and uniaxial magnetic anisotropies, correspondingly; $ \mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{n}_i$ are unit vectors along easy uniaxial and cubic magnetizaton axes, respectively.
Functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ includes only basic interactions essential to stabilize skyrmion and helical states. Solutions for chiral modulated phases and their most general features attributed to all chiral ferromagnets are determined by this functional. Generically, there are only small energy differences between various modulated states. On the other hand, weaker energy contributions (as magnetic anisotropies (\[additional\])) impose distortions on solutions of model (\[DMdens1\]) which reflect crystallographic symmetry and values of magnetic interactions in individual chiral magnets. It is essential to recognize that these weaker interactions determine the stability limits of the different modulated states. The fact that thermodynamical stability of individual phases and conditions of phase transfomations between them are determined by magnetocrystalline anisotropy and other relativistic or weaker interactions means that (i) the basic theory only determines a set of different and unusual modulated phases, while (ii) the transitions between these modulated states, and their evolution in magnetization processes depends on symmetry and details of magnetic secondary effects in chiral magnets, in particular the strengths of relativistic magnetic interactions. Thus functional (\[DMdens1\]) is the *generic* model for a manifold of interaction functionals describing different groups of noncentrosymmetric magnetic crystals, because it allows to identify the basic modulated structures that may be found in them.
Dzyaloshinskii’s phenomenology (\[DMdens1\]) is a main theoretical tool to analyze and interprete experimental results on chiral magnets. During last three decades of intensive investigations of chiral modulations in different classes of non-centrosymmetric magnetic systems a huge empirical material has been organized and systematized within the framework of this theory (see, for example, a review [@Izyumov84] and bibliography in papers [@Bogdanov02k; @Nature06]). The Dzyaloshinskii interaction functional (\[DMdens1\]) plays in chiral magnetism a similar role as the Frank functional in liquid crystals [@books] or Ginzburg-Landau functionals in physics of superconductivity [@Brandt95; @Brandt03].
Reduced variables and characteristic lengths \[reducedUnits\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the forthcoming calculations I will use two ways of indroducing non-dimensional variables.
In the first method, the length scales are reduced by the characteristic width of the Bloch domain wall. This method is valuable in the situations where anisotropic magnetic materials are considered and the influence of “tunable” DM interactions on the solutions of micromagnetic equations is investigated. In the second method, the lengths are expressed in units of $L_D$, i.e. the length scales are related to the period of the spiral state in zero field. Such a method is suitable for the calculations of the present chapter, as first I consider different modulated states as solutions of the isotropic energy functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ and then “activate” additional small anisotropic contributions $W_a(\mathbf{m})$.
*A. Reduced variables with the length scales in units of the width of the Bloch domain wall*
Following Refs. [@JMMM99] I introduce the non-dimensional variables based on the domain wall width $$L_B=\sqrt{\frac{A}{K_u}}.$$ Then the energy functional (\[DMdens1\]) can be written in the reduced form as $$\begin{aligned}
w(\mathbf{m})=\sum_{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial m_j}{\partial \widetilde{x}_i}\right)^2
&-\frac{4\varkappa}{\pi}\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{m}-2\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{h}-\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left[\frac{B_{EA}}{K_u} \left(\frac{\partial m_i}{\partial \widetilde{x}_i} \right)^2+\frac{K_c}{K_u} (\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{n}_i)^4\right]-(\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{a})^2 \end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathbf{h}=\frac{\mathbf{H}}{H_a},\,\widetilde{\mathbf{r}}=\frac{\mathbf{r}}{L_B},\,w(\mathbf{m})=\frac{W(\mathbf{M})}{H_aM}$$ and $$H_a=\frac{2K_u}{M}$$ is the anisotropy field.
The parameter $$\varkappa=\frac{\pi D}{4\sqrt{A\,K_u}}$$ plays a similar role as the Ginzburg-Landau parameter in the theory of superconductivity. It describes the relative contribution of the Dzyaloshinsky energy term. In Refs. [@pss94; @JMMM99] it was shown that modulated structures can be realized as thermodynamically stable states only if $\varkappa$ exceeds the value of 1.
*B. Reduced variables with the length scales in units of $L_D$*
Following Refs. [@JMMM94] I introduce the non-dimensional variables based on the period of the helical state in zero magnetic field. Then the energy functional (\[DMdens1\]) can be written in the reduced form as $$w(\mathbf{m})=\sum_{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial m_j}{\partial \widetilde{x}_i}\right)^2-\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathrm{rot}\mathbf{m}-\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{h}-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left[b_{EA} \left(\frac{\partial m_i}{\partial \widetilde{x}_i} \right)^2+k_c (\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{n}_i)^4\right]-\beta_u(\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{a})^2$$ where $$\mathbf{h}=\frac{\mathbf{H}}{H_D},\,\widetilde{\mathbf{r}}=\frac{\mathbf{r}}{L_D},\,w(\mathbf{m})=\frac{W(\mathbf{M})}{H_DM}$$ and $$H_D=\frac{D^2}{AM}.$$
The reduced constants of exchange $b_{EA}$, cubic $k_c$, and uniaxial $\beta_u$ anisotropies are defined as $$b_{EA}=\frac{B_{EA}A}{D^2},\,k_c=\frac{K_cA}{D^2},\,\beta_u=\frac{K_uA}{D^2}.$$
![ \[spirals1\] One-dimensional chiral modulations in cubic helimagnets. In a helical “array” (a) the magnetization rotates in the plane spanned by the orthogonal unity vectors $\mathbf{n}_1$ and $\mathbf{n}_2$ and the rotation sense is determined by the sign of Dzyaloshinskii constant $D$. Under the influence of the magnetic field applied perpendicularly to the propagation direction the helix is transformed into a transversally distorted *helicoid* with non-linear profiles $\theta(x)$ (c). Magnetic field applied along propagation direction stabilizes single-harmonic conical phase (b). ](Spirals_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
One-dimensional chiral modulations \[1DBH\]
===========================================
The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions arising in non-centrosymmetric magnets play a crucial role in destabilizing the homogeneous ferromagnetic arrangement and twisting it into a helix (Fig. \[spirals1\]). At zero magnetic field such helices are single-harmonic modes forming the global minimum of the functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$[@Dz64]: $$\mathbf{M}= M_s \left[ \mathbf{n}_1 \cos
\left(\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r} \right)
+ \mathbf{n}_2 \sin \left(\mathbf{k}
\cdot \mathbf{r} \right) \right],
\quad |\mathbf{k}| = \frac{1}{2L_D}
\label{helix0}$$ where $\mathbf{n}_1$, $\mathbf{n}_2$ are the unit vectors in the plane of the magnetization rotation orthogonal to the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ ($\mathbf{n}_1\perp\mathbf{n}_2; \mathbf{n}_1\perp\mathbf{k};\,\mathbf{n}_2\perp\mathbf{k}$).
The modulations (\[helix0\]) have a fixed rotation sense determined by the sign of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya constant $D$ and are continuously degenerate with respect to propagation directions in the space.
An applied magnetic field lifts the degeneracy of the helices (\[helix0\]) and stabilizes two types of one-dimensional modulations: cones and helicoids (Fig. \[spirals1\] (a), (b)).
Helicoids \[helicoidsBH\]
-------------------------
If the propagation vector $\textbf{k}$ of a spiral state is perpendicular to an applied magnetic field, I will call such a state *helicoid* (Fig. \[spirals1\] (a)).
*A. Solutions for the polar angle $\theta$ in the helicoid*
Analytical solutions for the polar angle $\theta(x)$ of the magnetization written in spherical coordinates, $$\mathbf{M} = M_s\left( \sin \theta(x) \cos \psi, \sin \theta(x) \sin \psi, \cos \theta(x) \right),$$ are derived by solving a *pendulum* equation $$A \frac{d^2 \theta} {d x^2} -H\cos \theta =0.$$ Such solutions are expressed as a set of elliptical functions [@Dz64] and describe a gradual expansion of the helicoid period with increased magnetic field (see the set of angular profiles $\theta(x)$ in Fig. \[spirals1\] (c)). In a sufficiently high magnetic field $H_H$ [@JMMM94] \[XI\] the helicoid infinitely expands and transforms into a system of isolated non-interacting 2$\pi$-domain walls (kinks) separating domains with the magnetization along the applied field [@Dz64; @JMMM94]. Non-dimensional value of this critical field is $$h_H=\frac{H_H}{H_D}=\frac{\pi^2}{8}=0.30843.
\label{Hhspiral}$$
*B. Solutions for the azimuthal angle $\psi$ in the helicoid*
Distribution of the polar angle $\theta(x) $ in magnetic field is common for helimagnets of all crystallographic classes. Azimuthal angle $\psi$, on the contrary, is fixed by the different forms of the Lifshitz invariants.
For cubic helimagnets as well as for magnets belonging to the crystallographic classes D$_{2d}$ and D$_n$ the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ rotates in the plane perpendicular to the propagation direction like in a common Bloch wall (Fig. \[spirals2\] (a)), i.e. $\psi=\pi/2$.
For helimagnets of C$_{nv}$ symmetry, the magnetization vector undertakes Néel-type rotation along the propagation direction and comprises cycloid (Fig. \[spirals2\] (b)), i.e. $\psi=0$.
For helicoids with competing DM interactions, angle $\psi$ is determined by the ratio of DM constants: $\psi=\arctan(-D_{\mu}/D_{\nu}),\,\nu=3,5;\,\mu=4,6$ (Fig. \[spirals2\] (c)).
![ \[spirals2\] Basic modulated structures: a) helicoid for systems with D$_{2d}$ and D$_{n}$ symmetry; b) cycloid for helimagnets with C$_{nv}$ symmetry. The plane of magnetization rotation (shown by red color) makes angle $\psi=\pi/2$ (a) and $\psi=0$ with the propagation direction $\mathbf{k}$. For the magnets of S$_4$ and C$_n$ crystallographic classes (c) angle $\psi$ is specified by the ratio of Dzyaloshinsky constants (see text for details). ](Spirals_4A.pdf){width="18cm"}
Cone \[ConeBHPhase\]
--------------------
A conical spiral is a solution of the functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ with propagation direction along the magnetic field in which the magnetization rotation retains single-harmonic character: $$\psi = \frac{z}{2L_D},\quad \cos \theta = \frac{|\mathbf{H}|}{2H_D}.
\label{cone1}$$ In such a helix the magnetization component along the applied field has a fixed value $$M_{\bot} = M \cos \theta = \frac{MH}{2H_D},$$ and the magnetization vector $\mathbf{M}$ rotates within a cone surface. The critical value $$h_d=2H_D$$ marks the saturation field of the cone phase.
The conical state combines properties of the homogeneous state and the flat spiral as a compromise between Zeeman and DM energies. This conical phase is the global minimum of functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ (\[DMdens1\]).
Note, that a conical spiral will propagate along direction of an applied magnetic field, if corresponding Lifshitz invariants are present along this direction.
Chiral localized skyrmions: the building blocks for skyrmionic textures \[ISBH\]
================================================================================
Equations
---------
{width="15cm"}
The equations minimizing functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ in (\[DMdens1\]) include solutions not only for one-dimensional helical states (section \[1DBH\]), but also for two-dimensional isolated skyrmions (IS) with magnetization written in spherical coordinates $\mathbf{M}= M (\sin \theta(\rho) \cos \psi(\varphi),\sin \theta(\rho) \sin \psi(\varphi), \cos \theta(\rho))$ and cylindrical coordinates used for the spatial variable $\mathbf{r}=(\rho \cos \varphi, \rho \sin \varphi,z)$. The equilibrium solutions $\theta=\theta(\rho)$ for isolated Skyrmions are common for helimagnets of all crystallographic classes. The dependences $\theta=\theta(\rho)$ are derived from the Euler equation [@JETP89; @JMMM94; @pss94; @JMMM99]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2 \theta}{d \rho ^2}
+ \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d \theta}{d \rho}
-\frac{\sin2 \theta}{2\rho ^2}
-\frac{\sin^2 \theta}{\rho}
- \frac{h}{2}\sin \theta =0
\label{OneD}\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\theta(0)=\pi,\, \theta(\infty)=0.
\label{boundaryBH}$$ The Euler equation (\[OneD\]) has been obtained by variation of $W_0(\mathbf{M})$. The non-dimensional units have been introduced in accordance with the section \[reducedUnits\] *B*. In the case of DM interactions with competing counterparts, however, the spatial coordinates have to be normalized by $$L_D=\frac{A}{\sqrt{D_{\mu}^2+D_{\nu}^2}},\,\nu=3,5;\,\mu=4,6.$$ Then DM energy contributions in reduced form can be parametrized by the relative ratios $$d_{\nu}=\frac{D_{\nu}}{\sqrt{D_{\nu}^2+D_{\mu}^2}},\, d_{\mu}=\frac{D_{\mu}}{\sqrt{D_{\nu}^2+D_{\mu}^2}},\,\sqrt{d_{\nu}^2+d_{\mu}^2}=1.$$
Azimuthal angle $\psi$, as in the case of helicoids (see Fig. \[spirals2\]), depends on the symmetry class of the corresponding helimagnet (Fig. \[Fig2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathrm{C}_{nv}:\,\psi=\varphi,\nonumber\\
& \mathrm{D}_n:\,\psi=\varphi-\pi/2,\nonumber\\
& \mathrm{D}_{2d}:\,\psi=-\varphi+\pi/2.
\label{psiBHPhase}\end{aligned}$$ For classes with competing DM interactions the functions $\psi(\varphi)$ are specified by the ratio of DM constants [@JETP89]: $$\psi(\varphi)=\varphi+\arctan{(-\frac{d_{\mu}}{d_{\nu}})}.$$
The total energy of an isolated skyrmion with respect to the homogeneous state can be written as $$E = \int\limits_0^{\infty} \varepsilon (\theta, \rho) d \rho,\,
\varepsilon (\theta, \rho) = 2\pi\rho\left[\left( \frac{d \theta}{d \rho } \right)^2 +\frac{\sin^2 \theta}{\rho^2}
+ h\,(1- \cos \theta) + \frac{d \theta}{d \rho } + \frac{\sin 2 \theta}{2\rho}\right]
\label{energy1}$$ where $\varepsilon (\theta, \rho)$ is an energy density.
Methods \[MethodsBHPhase\]
--------------------------
The most appropriate method to obtain solutions of (\[OneD\]) for isolated skyrmions is to solve the auxiliary Cauchy problems for these equations with the initial conditions [@JMMM94]: $$\theta(0)=\pi, \frac{d \theta } { d \rho}(0)=a_i.
\label{a}$$ For arbitrary values of $a_i$ the lines $\theta_{\rho}(\theta)$ normally end by spiraling around one of the attractors ($\theta_i,0$) where $\theta_i$ are specified by the magnetic field $h$. As an example in Fig. \[Fig22\] (b) two lines with $a_1=0.5$ and $a_3=2$ are plotted.
The curves end in the points ($2k \pi, 0$) with $k=1,2...$ only for certain discrete values of initial derivatives $a_i$. Then these particular trajectories chosen among all possible trajectories in *phase space* $(\theta, d \theta / d \rho)$ represent localized solutions of the boundary value problem (\[OneD\]).
In Fig. \[Fig22\] (b) such a *separatrix* solution corresponds to $(d \theta / d \rho)(0) =a_2= 1.088$. Note, that in magnetic fields applied opposite to the magnetization in the center of an isolated skyrmion, besides the ordinary skyrmions with $\Delta \theta = \theta(0)-\theta (\infty) = \pi$, also skyrmions with any odd number of half- turns $\Delta \theta $ = $3 \pi$, $5 \pi$ can exist [@JMMM99].
![ \[Fig22\] Isolated skyrmions: (a) cross-section through an isolated skyrmion shows axisymmetric distribution of the magnetization (shaded area indicates the core with the diameter $D_0$); (b) isolated skyrmions are homogeneously extended into the third dimension as skyrmionic filements; typical solutions of Eq. (\[OneD\]) for isolated skyrmions are shown as phase portraits (c) on the plane ($(\theta,\theta_{\rho})$) and magnetization profiles $\theta(\rho)$ (d). (e) Energy densities $\varepsilon(\theta,\rho)$ for different values of the applied magnetic field $h$. ](PhPor_v1){width="18cm"}
The set of profiles $\theta(\rho)$ for different values of the applied magnetic field is plotted in Fig. \[Fig22\] (d). As these profiles bear strongly localized character, a skyrmion core diameter $D_0$ can be defined in analogy to definitions for domain wall width [@Hubert98], i.e. as two times the value of $R_0$, which is the coordinate of the point where the tangent at the inflection point ($\rho_0, \theta_0$) intersects the $\rho$-axis (Fig. \[Fig22\] (a), (d)): $$D_0=2 (\rho_0-\theta_0(d\theta/d\rho)^{-1}_{\rho=\rho_0}).
\label{D0}$$ According to conventions of Refs. [@JMMM94; @pss94; @JETP89] such arrow-like solutions will be decomposed into skyrmionic cores with linear dependence $$\theta(\rho)=\pi(1-\frac{\rho}{R}),\, \rho \leq L_D$$ and exponential “tails” with $$\theta\propto \exp{[-\rho\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}}]},\,\rho \gg L_D .
\label{exponenta}$$ The exponential character of skyrmion asymptotics has been derived by solving the Euler equation (\[OneD\]) for $\rho\rightarrow\infty$: $$\frac{d^2\theta}{d\rho^2}-\frac{h\theta}{2}=0.$$
Therefore, a “nucleus” with a diameter $2R$ can be considered as a two-dimensional particle-like state as it accumulates almost all energy of the isolated skyrmion. At the same time the asymptotic exponential tails will be viewed as the “field” generated by the particle [@JETP95].
From subdivision of the skyrmion structure general features of two-dimensional localized skyrmions can be revealed.
Analytical results for the linear ansatz
----------------------------------------
Equilibrium radius $R$ of the skyrmion core can be found from substituting the linear ansatz into (\[energy1\]) and minimizing with respect to $R$. The skyrmion energy (\[energy1\]) is reduced to a quadratic potential $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz2}
E (R) = E_0 + \alpha R^2 - \frac{\pi}{2} R,
\quad
R_{min} = \frac{2.641}{h}, \quad E_{min}=E_0-\frac{2.074}{h}
\label{lineEnergy}\end{aligned}$$ where $$E_0 = 6.154$$ is the “internal” energy of the skyrmions, $$\alpha = 0.297\,h,$$ and the parabola vertex point $(R_{min},E_{min})$ determines the minimum of energy (\[lineEnergy\]).
This simplified model offers an important insight into physical mechanisms underlying the formation of the chiral skyrmions. The exchange energy $E_0$ does not depend on the skyrmion size and presents an amount of positive energy “trapped” within the skyrmion (see red-shaded positive peak of energy for solutions $\theta(\rho)$ in Fig. \[Fig22\] (e)) . The equilibrium skyrmion size arises as a result of the competition between chiral and Zeeman energies: $$R_{min}\propto \frac{|D|}{H}.$$ In centrosymmetric systems with $D=0$ localized solutions are radially unstable and collapse spontaneously under the influence of applied magnetic field [@JMMM94].
Inter-skyrmion interaction and condensation of isolated skyrmions into the lattice \[condensationBH\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asymptotic behaviour of the skyrmion solutions with $\theta \propto \exp{[-\rho\sqrt{h/2}]},\, \rho \rightarrow \infty$ is determined by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. It can be considered as a specific “field” generated by the particle [@JETP95] which causes the repulsive character of the inter-skyrmion potential: $$U(L)\propto\,\sqrt{L}\,\exp{[-L\sqrt{\frac{h}{2}}]}
\label{interactionBHIS}$$ where $L>>1$ is the distance between skyrmion cores.
The ensemble of repulsive particle-like isolated skyrmions can condense into a lattice if the value of an applied magnetic field is smaller than the critical value $h_{S}$. In this case negative energy density associated with DM interactions (blue-shaded area of energy distribution $\varepsilon(\theta,\rho)$, Fig. \[Fig22\] (e)) outweights the positive exchange contribution (red-shaded area), and the skyrmion strings tend to fill the whole space with some equilibrium radius $R_{min}$. For equation (\[OneD\]), $$h_{S}=0.400659.$$ The mechanism of lattice formation through nucleation and condensation of isolated skyrmions follows a classification introduced by DeGennes [@DeGennes75] for (continuous) transitions into incommensurate modulated phases.
Distinction of solutions for localized skyrmions from Belavin-Polyakov solitons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note, that solitonic solutions with the same boundary conditions $\theta(0)=\pi,\,\theta(\infty)=0$ as those for isolated skyrmions can be obtained also for isotropic centrosymmetric ferromagnets (well-known Belavin-Polyakov solutions for the nonlinear SO(3) $\sigma$-model [@BP75]). In this case for $h=\beta=0$ differential equation (\[OneD\]) has a manifold of analytical solutions: $$\theta(\rho)=2 \arctan{\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho_0}\right)^N},\, \psi(\varphi)=N\varphi+\alpha.
\label{BP}$$ described by the angle $\alpha$ and the parameter of integration $\rho_0$: $$\alpha \in [0,\pi],\,\rho_0\in [0,\infty)$$ In spite of the seeming similarity with isolated skyrmions considered before, Belavin-Polyakov (BP) solitons represent a distinct branch of solutions.
First, the solutions of Eq. (\[BP\]) are *achiral* localized structures with the energy $$E_0=4\pi N$$ independent of the sense of rotation, i.e. angle $\alpha$. On the contrary, the sense of rotation and the exact value of angle $\alpha$ in isolated skyrmions is dictated by the crystallographic symmetry and corresponding DM interactions (see formulas in section \[ISBH\]) and Fig. \[Fig2\]).
Second, solutions (\[BP\]) have no definite size. Their energy is invariant under scale transformation of the profiles $$\theta(\rho)\rightarrow\theta\left(\frac{\rho}{\lambda}\right),\, \lambda>0.$$ The solutions (\[BP\]) represent always separatrix lines in the phase portraits (Fig. \[Fig22\] (c)) which for any value of initial derivatives hit the point $\theta(\infty)=0$. Applied magnetic field and/or uniaxial anisotropy force Belavin-Polyakov solutions to end by spiraling around pole $(\pi/2,0)$ so that they never reach point $(0,0)$. From the analysis of energy (\[lineEnergy\]) it is seen that it has a parabolic dependence on size of the soliton with minimum for zero radius $R$. Thus applied magnetic field or internal anisotropic interactions lead to the spontaneous collapse of Belavin-Polyakov solutions. In chiral skyrmions the influence of DM interactions shifts the vertex of parabola describing the skyrmion energy (\[lineEnergy\]) into the region of finite skyrmion radii. On the phase plane $(\theta,d\theta/d\rho)$ only curves with appropriate initial derivatives will end in the point $(0,0)$ (Fig. \[Fig22\] (c)).
Third, asymptotic behaviour of Belavin-Polyakov solutions has a $1/\rho$-character defined by the exchange energy. In isolated chiral skyrmions $\theta\propto\exp[-\rho]$ which is caused by DM interactions. Moreover, energy density distributions $\varepsilon(\rho)$ (Fig. \[Fig22\] (e)) reveal two distinct regions: positive exchange-energy “bags” concentrated in the skyrmion center and extended areas with negative DM-energy density stretching up to infinity.
Properties of ideal skyrmion lattices: double twist versus compatibility \[PropertiesBHPhase\]
==============================================================================================
![ \[Condensation\] Hexagonal (a),(b) and square (c),(d) skyrmion lattices: (a) and (c) are unit cells with axisymmetric distribution of the magnetization near the center; (b) and (d) are fragments of the lattices. In (b) the replacement of the cell in the skyrmion lattice by the circle according to the method of circular cell approximation is shown as outline. (e) Below the critical field $h_{S}$ the energy of a skyrmion lattice has a minimum for some equilibrium cell size $R_{min}$. ](Condensation_1A){width="18cm"}
In early numerical approaches used in Refs. [@JMMM94; @JMMM99; @pss94] the circular cell approximation (CCA) had been used to derive equilibrium parameters of skyrmion lattices. In this method the lattice cell is replaced by a circle (Fig. \[Condensation\] (b)), and then Eq. (\[OneD\]) is integrated with boundary conditions $$\theta(0)=\pi,\, \theta(R)=0.$$ After that, the energy density of the lattice $$\begin{aligned}
W_{CCA} = \frac{1}{\pi R^2}\int_0^{R} \varepsilon (\theta, \rho) d\rho
\label{energyCCA}\end{aligned}$$ is minimized with respect to the cell radius $R$ (Fig. \[Condensation\] (e)) and the equilibrium size $R_{min}$ is found.
In real hexagonal (Fig. \[Condensation\] (a)) and/or square skyrmion lattices (Fig. \[Condensation\] (c), (d)), the axisymmetric distribution of the magnetization is preserved only near the center of lattice cell while the overlappping solutions $\theta(\rho)$ in the inter-skyrmion regions are distorted. Therefore, it is worthwhile to compare corresponding numerically rigorous solutions with those obtained from the circular-cell approximation.
Methods: numerical recipes \[NumericalRecipes\]
-----------------------------------------------
For two-dimensional skyrmions the Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the energy functional (\[DMdens1\]) are non-linear partial differential equations. These equations have been solved by numerical energy minimization procedure using finite-difference discretization on rectangular grids with adjustable grid spacings and periodic boundary conditions. Components $(m_x,m_y,m_z)$ of the magnetization vector $\mathbf{m}$ have been evaluated in the knots of the grid, and for the calculation of the energy density (\[DMdens1\]) I used finite-difference approximation of derivatives with different precision up to eight points as neighbours. To check the stability of the numerical routines I refined and coarsened the grids from $42\times72$ points up to $168\times288$. To avoid elliptical instability of the hexagonal skyrmion lattice I used grid spacings $\Delta_y\approx\Delta_x$ so that grids are approximately square in order to reduce the artificial anisotropy incurred by the discretization. The final equilibrium structure for the 2D baby-skyrmion hexagonal lattice was obtained according to the following iterative procedure of the energy minimization using simulated annealing and a single- step Monte- Carlo dynamics with the Metropolis algorithm [@Metropolis]:
\(i) The initial configuration of magnetization vectors in the grid knots for Monte-Carlo annealing is specified by the solutions from circular-cell approximation.
\(ii) A point $(x_n,y_n)$ on a grid is chosen randomly. Then, the magnetization vector in the point is rotated without change of its length. If the energy change $\Delta H_k$ associated with such a rotation is negative, the action is immediately accepted.
\(iii) However, if the new state’s energy is higher than the last, it is accepted probabilistically. The probability $P$ depends upon the energy and a kinetic cycle temperature $T_k$: $$P=\exp{\left[-\frac{\Delta H_k}{k_BT_k}\right]},$$ where $k_B$ is Boltzmann constant. Together with probability $P$ a random number $R_k\in [0,1]$ is generated. If $R_k<P$ new configuration accepted otherwise discarded (see, for example, [@MC]). Generally speaking, at high temperatures $T_k$, many states will be accepted, while at low temperatures, the majority of these probabilistic moves will be rejected. Therefore, one has to choose appropriate starting temperature for heating cycles to avoid transformation of metastable skyrmion textures into globally stable spiral states.
\(iv) The characteristic spacings $\Delta_x$ and $\Delta_y$ are also adjusted to lead to the energy relaxation. The procedure is stopped when no further reduction of energy is observed.
Features of ideal skyrmion lattices
-----------------------------------
![ \[Fig3\] Contour plots for $m_x$, $m_y$, and $m_z$ components of the magnetization on the plane $(x,y)$ for the hexagonal (a) and square (b) skyrmion lattices of a helimagnet with $D_{2d}$ symmetry. The white arrows show the corresponding distribution of the magnetization. ](Fig3_v6){width="15cm"}
While condensing into the lattice, isolated skyrmions can form either hexagonal or square skyrmion order (Fig. \[Condensation\] (a)-(d)). Contour plots for the components $m_x,\, m_y$, and $m_z$ of the magnetization vector $\mathbf{m}$ in both lattices are shown in Fig. \[Fig3\] (a), (b). Separate isolated skyrmions preserve axisymmetric distribution of the magnetization near the cell center while the overlap of solutions $\theta(\rho)$ (Fig. \[Fig22\] (d)) distorts the inter-skyrmion regions.
*A. Comparison of energy densities and surface areas of the lattice cells from circular-cell approximation and numerical simulations.*
Figure \[HT\] shows the distribution of the free-energy densities and magnetization profiles $\theta(\rho)$ for equilibrium hexagonal skyrmion lattice in the circular-cell approximation and from numerical simulations. Due to the denser packing of individual skyrmions, hexagonal lattices provides smaller energy density in comparison with square lattice.
The difference of energy densities in hexagonal cell and CCA cell for $h=0$ is $$\Delta W=\frac{W_{CCA}-W_{hexagon}}{W_{CCA}}=\frac{0.234-0.2312}{0.234}=0.012.$$ For the square cell the difference is larger, $$\Delta W=\frac{W_{CCA}-W_{square}}{W_{CCA}}=\frac{0.234-0.2235}{0.234}=0.0449.$$ The surface area of the cell in CCA is larger than the surface of the corresponding numerical hexagon, $$\Delta S=\frac{S_{CCA}-S_{hexagon}}{S_{CCA}}=0.0167,$$ whereas the surface area of square lattice cell is larger than the circle, $$\Delta S=\frac{S_{square}-S_{CCA}}{S_{CCA}}=0.0234.$$ Hence, the statement of the circular- cell approximation [@JMMM94], that surface areas of a circle and a hexagonal cell must coincide, is basically erroneous. However, the smallness of all the differences between CCA and rigorous numerical simulations for model (\[DMdens1\]) allows to consider circular-cell approximation as an excellent approach for the global properties of the hexagonal skyrmion lattice. In particular, CCA yields an exact value of the upper critical field $h_{S}$ as the skyrmions are located at big distances from each other and are independent on the detailed arrangement of individual filaments: $h_{S}$ is the same for square and hexagonal lattices.
The distortions of angular solutions near the border of hexagon lead to corresponding redistribution of exchange and DM energy density (Fig. \[HT\]): due to the increase of exchange energy density along the apothem of the hexagon (dotted blue line), the total energy density (dotted black line) has also higher value than corresponding CCA energy density (thin black line).
![ \[HT\] Distributions of exchange (blue lines), DM (red lines), and $\varepsilon_i(\rho)$ total energy densities in a hexagonal lattice for two particular directions $i$ through the cell (dotted line along apothem, dashed line along the diagonal of the hexagon) plotted together with the corresponding dependences for circular-cell approximation (solid thin lines); profiles $\theta_i(\rho)$ for circular-cell approximation (solid thin line) and numerical hexagon (dotted and dashed lines). ](HT_1A){width="12cm"}
*B. Expansion into the Fourier series of the $m_z$-component of the magnetization for the lattice from the rigorous calculations*
The Fourier expansion for $z$-component of the magnetization may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
m_z=\sum_{i,j =0}^{\infty}\lambda_{ij}[&a_{ij}\cos(\frac{2\pi ix}{R_1})\cos(\frac{2\pi jy}{R_2})+b_{ij}\sin(\frac{2\pi ix}{R_1})\cos(\frac{2\pi jy}{R_2})+\nonumber\\
+&c_{ij}\cos(\frac{2\pi ix}{R_1})\sin(\frac{2\pi jy}{R_2})+d_{ij}\sin(\frac{2\pi ix}{R_1})\sin(\frac{2\pi jy}{R_2})]
\label{FourierMz}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda_{00}=0.25,\, \lambda_{i0}=\lambda_{0j}=0.5, \, \lambda_{ij}=1,$$ $R_1$ and $R_2$ are characteristic sizes of the elementary lattice cell (Fig. \[Fig3\] (a)). With the present choice of origin of coordinates, coefficients $$b_{ij}=c_{ij}=d_{ij}=0.$$ The coefficients $a_{ij}$ may be represented graphically for different values of the applied magnetic field (Fig. \[Fourier\]). Due to axial arrangement of the core the amplitudes of higher harmonics have comparable values with those of leading lattice harmonics. Positive coefficients $c_{ij}$ of the expansion (\[FourierMz\]) are marked by red color, whereas negative coefficients - by blue. Multiplying the diameter of each circle by ten one can extract the value of the underlying coefficient.
![ \[Fourier\] Graphical representation of the coefficients of the Fourier expansion for $z$-component of the magnetization in the hexagonal skyrmion lattice for different values of the applied magnetic field $h=0$ (a), $h=0.2$ (b), $h=0.4$ (c). Positive coefficients are marked by red color, whereas negative - by blue. ](Furie_v2){width="9cm"}
In Ref. [@Muhlbauer09] a triple spin-spiral crystal is presented as a skeleton for such a skyrmion lattice in cubic chiral magnets. While the topology and rough geometry of these states is the same, this theoretical interpretation of the Skyrmion states of chiral magnets assumes that the skyrmionic states can be described by the first few harmonics of a hexagonal lattice. Skyrmions in this approach have triangular cores instead of radial cores. This point of view does not agree with the exact solutions and detailed demonstration of radial and localized solutions for skyrmions in the present chapter. The approach of [@Muhlbauer09] discounts the existence and relevance of the localized and radial nature of the skyrmion solutions. By virtue of the localized character of the skyrmion cores and its axial symmetry such an approximation by a number of Fourier modes is very poor as the convergence of the Fourier series is slow. Owing to the localization of the skyrmions their properties cannot be modeled, nor understood from a multi-Q ansatz with a finite number of Fourier components. In particular, the important transformation process of a Skyrmion lattice into an assembly of isolated skyrmion lines under an applied field cannot be described by the picture of a triple spin-spiral crystal.
Thus, the theoretical interpretation proposed in Ref. [@Muhlbauer09] is considered to be not correct.
*C. Rigorous solutions for skyrmion lattices with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions representing the weighted sum of Lifshitz invariants*
In the case of DM interactions (\[Cn\]), (\[S4\]) with competing counterparts, the skyrmions have a more complicated structure as shown in Fig. \[Fig6\] for particular case of $\mathrm{C}_n$ symmetry. For $d_1=0.2,\,d_2=0.9798$ angle $\psi=\phi+78^{\mathrm{o}}$, and the structure of skyrmions is slightly different from the “Bloch”-type skyrmion with D$_{n}$ symmetry (Fig. \[Fig2\] (b)). Note, that the cases $d_1=1,\,d_2=0$ and $d_1=0,\,d_2=1$ denote skyrmions with C$_{nv}$ (Fig. \[Fig2\] (a)) and D$_n$ (Fig. \[Fig2\] (b)) symmetry, correspondingly.
![ \[Fig6\] Contour plots of $m_x,\,m_y$, and $m_z$ components of the magnetization for helimagnets with $C_n$ symmetry ($h=\beta=0,\,d_1=0.2,\,d_2=0.9798$). ](Fig6_v3){width="15cm"}
Competition of skyrmions with helicoids within the isotropic phenomenological model \[competitionSkHel\]
========================================================================================================
From the previous calculations it is known [@Nature06] \[XI,XIV,XV\], that “double-twisted” rotation of the magnetization as in skyrmions yields an energetic advantage only at small distances from the skyrmion axis in comparison with “single-twisted” spiral phases [@Nature06]. Conversely, the energy density is larger at the outskirt of the skyrmion which is the consequence of an inherent frustration built into models with chiral couplings: the system cannot fill the whole space with the ideal, energetically most favoured double-twisted motifs. The equilibrium energy of the skyrmion cell at zero field $$\widetilde{w}_{S}(\zeta )=\frac{2}{\zeta^2}\int^{\zeta}_{0} \varepsilon(\rho)\rho d\rho$$ plotted as a function of the distance from the center $\zeta$ (Fig. \[field\] (a)) shows that an energy excess near the border outweighs the energy gain at the skyrmion center. As a result, the skyrmion states are metastable states in comparison with lower-energy helical phases.
At higher magnetic fields, however, the skyrmion lattice has lower energy than the helicoid. The first order transition between these two modulated states occurs at [@JMMM94] $$H_1 = 0.1084 H_D.$$ Properties of the skyrmion lattice solutions are collected in Fig. \[field\] and in Table \[table2\]. With increasing magnetic field, a gradual localization of the skyrmion core $D_0$ is accompanied by the expansion of the lattice period. The lattice transforms into the homogeneous state by infinite expansion of the period at the critical field $$H_S = 0.40066 H_D.$$ Remarkably, the skyrmion core retains a finite size, $D_0 (H_S) = 0.920 L_D$ and the lattice releases a set of *repulsive* isolated skyrmions at the transition field $H_S$, owing to their topological stability. These free skyrmions can exist far above $H_S$. On decreasing the field again below $H_S$, they can re-condense into a skyrmion lattice (Fig. \[field\] (b)). A similar type of sublimation and resublimation of particle-like textures occurs in helicoids at the critical field $h_H$ (Eq. (\[Hhspiral\])): the period infinitely expands and the helicoid splits into a set of isolated 2$\pi$ domain walls or kinks [@Dz64; @JMMM94].
![ \[field\] (a) Local energies $\widetilde{w}(\zeta)$ of the skyrmion lattice and helicoid at zero field (reproduced from [@Nature06]); (b) equilibrium sizes of the cell core ($D_0$, Eq. (\[D0\])) and lattice period $R$ compared to helicoid and cone periods. ](Field_v1){width="18cm"}
$H_1$ $H_{S}$
---------------------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------
Reduced magnetic field, $H/H_D \quad \quad $ $0$ $0.1084 \quad \quad$ $0.40066 \quad \quad$ 0.7
Lattice cell period, $L/L_D$ $1.376 \quad \quad$ 1.270 $\infty$ -
Core diameter, $D_0/L_D$ 1.362 1.226 0.920 0.461
Averaged magnetization, $m_{\small{S}}$ 0.124 0.278 1 1
: \[table2\] Critical fields and characteristic parameters of the hexagonal skyrmion lattice: $H_1$ transition field between the helicoid and skyrmion lattice; $H_S$ saturation field of the skyrmion lattice; last column gives properties of IS as excitations of the saturated state for an (arbitrary) high field $H/H_D=0.7$
For a negative magnetic field applied along the magnetization in the center of skyrmion strings, both the skyrmion cores and the lattice cell size expand. Near the critical field $h_H=-0.30843$ the vortex lattice consists of honeycomb-shaped cells separated from each other by narrow $360^{\circ}$ domain walls (Fig. \[Fig4\] (d)). Note, that for negative fields the honey-comb lattice is highly instable. It is hardly accessible and easily elongates into spiral state. For negative magnetic fields, isolated skyrmions do not exist.
![ \[Fig4\] Evolution of the hexagonal skyrmion lattice in magnetic field applied either opposite to the magnetization in the skyrmion center (b), (c) or parallel to it (d). The solutions are presented as angular profiles along diagonals of the hexagons (a), and contour plots for all components of the magnetization on the plane $(x,y)$: (b) $h=0.4$, (c) $h=0.3$, (d) $h=-0.2$. Inset of (a) shows the equilibrium characteristic size of the hexagonal lattice for both directions of the magnetic field: for positive values of the magnetic field the skyrmion lattice transforms into a system of isolated skyrmions with repulsive potential between them, whereas for negative magnetic field it turns into the homogeneous phase through a honeycomb structure with increasing lattice period (d). ](Fig4_v2){width="18cm"}
Thus, it can be concluded that for functional $W_0(\mathbf{M})$ (\[DMdens1\]) the cone phase is the global minimum in the whole range of the applied fields where the modulated states exist ($ 0 < h < h_d$). The helicoids and skyrmion lattices can exist only as metastable states. One has to look for additional energy contributions capable to stabilize skyrmion phase. In the next sections I consider some successful candidates for this role: uniaxial, cubic, and exchange anisotropy.
Stabilization of skyrmion textures by uniaxial distortions in non - centrosymmetric cubic helimagnets \[DistortionsBHphase\]
============================================================================================================================
From the numerical investigation of Eq. (\[DMdens1\]), I show now that a sufficiently strong magnetic anisotropy $K_u$ (\[additional\]) stabilizes skyrmionic textures in applied magnetic fields. The uniaxial anisotropy $K_u$ in cubic helimagnets can be imposed, for example, by surface/interface interactions in thin films or nanolayers and tuned by covering the surface with different non-magnetic materials.
In sufficiently thick magnetic layers, such induced anisotropy can be considered as a pure surface effect which distorts the uniform prolongation of skyrmion filaments perpendicularly to the surface and transforms them into convex shaped spherulites. In thin magnetic nanolayers surface-induced uniaxial anisotropy is uniformly distributed through the layer and can be considered as homogeneous uniaxial anisotropy with constant $K_u$. On the other side, the uniaxial anisotropy in cubic helimagnets may be induced by uniaxial strains in bulk systems.
By comparing the equilibrium energies of the conical phase, the helicoids, and the rigorous solutions for hexagonal skyrmion lattice, I have constructed the phase diagram of solutions (Fig. \[PDUA\]).
As in section \[ISBH\], I start analysis of the phase diagram from isolated skyrmions.
![ \[PDUA\] Magnetic phase diagram of the solutions for model (\[DMdens1\]) including uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_u$. Filled areas designate the regions of thermodynamical stability of corresponding modulated phases: I - conical phase (blue shading); II - skyrmion phase (red shading); III - helicoid (green shading). White shading stands for the region of isolated skyrmions and kinks. In the region with grey shading no modulated states are available. Hatching shows the existence region of helicoids. The conical phase exists within the area (a-d-B-f). For $\beta_u>0.0166$ corresponding to the point $A$ a skyrmion lattice can be stabilized in high magnetic fields. For $\beta_u>0.25$ corresponding to the point $f$ only helicoids and skyrmions can be realized as thermodynamic phases. Two insets show the magnifications of particular parts of the phase diagram: inset (i) exhibits the region $D-F-e$ where spiral state as only one modulated phase can exist; the inset (ii) shows the line (red dashed line) of skyrmion bursting $h_b$ in negative fields (see text for details). ](PDUA_v1){width="15cm"}
Isolated skyrmions in chiral helimagnets with uniaxial anisotropy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[ISUA\] (a) Angular profiles $\theta(\rho)$ for isolated skyrmions in zero magnetic field and for different values of easy-axis uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_u$ show the expansion of skyrmion cores while approaching the critical value of uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_{cr}=0.61685$. In (b) the size of the core of isolated skyrmions determined according to the Lilley’s definition (see section \[ISBH\]) is plotted in dependence on the uniaxial anisotropy constant $\beta_u$ for different values of the applied magnetic field (dashed blue line). Red solid lines in (b) show the size of the skyrmion core in a skyrmion lattice, green dotted lines - the size of the lattice cell. For constant value of the applied magnetic field and variable constant of uniaxial anisotropy the lattice releases the isolated skyrmions for some critical value of $\beta_u$. This corresponds to the intersection point of red and blue lines; the green lines tend to infinity; the characteristic size of the core of the skyrmions undergoes a sudden change. For $h=0$ there is no connection between the skyrmion lattice and isolated skyrmions. ](ISUA_v2){width="12cm"}
In cubic helimagnets with uniaxial anisotropy, isolated skyrmions are solutions of the Euler equation written in the reduced form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq}
\frac{d^2 \theta}{d \rho ^2}
+ \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d \theta}{d \rho}
-\frac{\sin2 \theta}{2\rho ^2}
-\frac{\sin^2 \theta}{\rho}
- \frac{h}{2}\sin \theta-\frac{\beta_u}{2}\sin 2\theta =0
\label{OneD2}\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\theta(0)=\pi,\, \theta(\infty)=0.$$
The region of metastable existence of simple $\pi$-skyrmions was calculated in Ref.[@pss94]. On the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDUA\]) it is marked by white color and expands over large values of positive magnetic field and easy-axis uniaxial anisotropy.
For $h=0$ and $$\beta_u>\beta_{cr}=\frac{\pi^2}{16}$$ isolated skyrmions exist as a separate branch of skyrmion solutions [@pss94]. With decreasing constant $\beta_u$ the cores of isolated skyrmions expand, and the localized skyrmions dissappear as a solution for the critical value $\beta_{cr}$ (Fig. \[ISUA\] (a)). The characteristic size $R_0$ of the Skyrmion core determined according to the Lilley definition (blue dashed lines in Fig. \[ISUA\] (b)) expands to infinity for $\beta_u=\beta_{cr}$.
In the applied magnetic field $h>0$, the isolated skyrmions can condense into the lattice with decreasing constant of uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_u$. The solid red and dotted green lines in Fig. \[ISUA\] (b) show dependences of the characteristic core and lattice cell sizes on the changing constant of uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_u$. In the point of intersection of red and blue lines, i.e. in the point of condensation of isolated skyrmions into the lattice, the skyrmion core undergoes a sudden leap, while the equilibrium lattice period expands unlimitedly.
For large values of uniaxial anisotropy $\pi$-skyrmions can exist even at negative fields (see inset (ii) of Fig. \[PDUA\]). The magnetization in the skyrmion core is then oriented along the field, while the surrounding matrix is magnetized in the opposite direction. Thus, the skyrmion size increases with increasing magnetic field. Finally, when $h$ reaches a certain critical value $h_{b}(\beta_u)$ (inset (ii) of Fig. \[PDUA\]) the skyrmion “bursts” into the homogeneous state with the magnetization parallel to the applied field. First such a behaviour of isolated skyrmions in a negative magnetic field was described in Ref.[@JMMM99]. Also the technique to explore skyrmion stability was elaborated.
In the following I exploit the methods of Ref. [@JMMM99] and present a comprehensive analysis of the structure and stability of all types of isolated skyrmions of the model (\[OneD2\]).
Localized skyrmions and the manifold of solutions of micromagnetic equations: the question of radial stability \[StabilityISBH\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to skyrmion solution of Eq. (\[OneD2\]) (Fig. \[all\] (a)) a family of specific vortex states with small values of derivative in the center $d\theta/d\rho(\rho=0)$ can be found.
The first vortex of this family is also of $\pi$-type, but has a larger core size (Fig. \[all\] (e)). The energy distribution in such a vortex (Fig. \[all\] (h)) looks qualitatively the same as for the common skyrmion (Fig. \[all\] (d)). This vortex can exist even for zero values of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction.
All other members of the vortex family (Fig. \[all\] (i), (m)) are characterized by the parts with a reverse rotation of the magnetization vector - nodes. Each sequential vortex has more nodes than preceding one and exhibits oscillations of the magnetization in the tail (Fig. \[all\] (i), (m)). The phase portraits for such vortices before hitting the point (0,0) round by turns the attractors in points (0,$\pm\pi/2$) (Fig. \[all\] (j), (n)).
The analysis of stability for all solutions of equation (\[OneD2\]) shows that only the skyrmion solution (Fig. \[all\] (a)) is stable with respect to small perturbations of the structure.
To check the stability of obtained skyrmion solutions I consider radial distortions of type $\xi(\rho)$ with constraint $$\xi(0)=\xi(\pi)=0.
\label{constraint}$$ Such distortions are the relevant leading instabilities of radial skyrmion structures $\theta(\rho)$. By inserting $\widetilde{\theta}(\rho)=\theta(\rho)+\xi(\rho)$ into the energy functional (\[energy1\]) with uniaxial anisotropy I obtain the perturbation energy $$E^{(2)}=\int^{\infty}_0\left[\left(\frac{d\xi}{d\rho}\right)^2+G(\rho)\xi^2\right]\rho d\rho
\label{PertEnergy}$$ with $$G(\rho)=\cos(2\theta)\left(\frac{1}{\rho^2}+\beta\right)+\frac{h}{2}\cos\theta-\frac{\sin(2\theta)}{\rho}.$$ Radial stability of the function $\theta(\rho)$ means that the functional $E^{(2)}$ is positive for all functions $\xi(\rho)$ which obey condition (\[constraint\]). Correspondingly, the solutions will be unstable, if there is a function $\xi(\rho)$ that leads to a negative energy (\[PertEnergy\]). Thus, the problem of radial stability is reduced to the solution of the spectral problem for functional (\[PertEnergy\]). I solve it by expanding $\xi(\rho)$ in a Fourier series: $$\xi(\rho)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}b_k\sin(k\theta(\rho))$$ Inserting this into Eq. (\[PertEnergy\]) reduces the perturbation energy to the following quadratic form: $$E^{(2)}=\sum_{l,k=1}^{\infty}A_{kl}b_kb_l$$ where $$A_{kl}=\int_0^{\infty}\left[kl\left(\frac{d\theta}{d\rho}\right)^2\cos(k\theta)\cos(l\theta)+G(\rho)\sin(k\theta)\sin(l\theta)\right]\rho d\rho.
\label{matrix}$$ To establish radial stability of a solution, one has to determine the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of the symmetric matrix $\mathbf{A}$ (\[matrix\]). If $\lambda_1$ is positive, the solution $\theta(\rho)$ is stable with respect to small radial perturbations. Otherwise it is unstable.
For our skyrmion solutions (Fig. \[all\] (c)) the eigenmode $\xi_n(\rho)$ corresponding to the *n*th eigenvalue ($\lambda_n$) consists mainly of the function $\sin(n\theta(\rho))$, with small admixtures of other harmonics. In particular, the eigenmode corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ can be written as $$\xi_1(\rho)=\sin(\theta(\rho))+\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}\varepsilon_k\sin(k\theta(\rho)),$$ where $\varepsilon_k<<1$ in most cases. The function $\xi_1(\rho)$ describes a displacement of the vortex front. Thus the lowest perturbation of the structure is connected with an expansion or compression of the profile. The calculations showed that in the region of existence of skyrmion solutions matrix (\[matrix\]) has only positive eigenvalues, and thus these solutions are radially stable.
The smallest eigenvalues of large $\pi$-vortices (Fig. \[all\] (e)) are always negative (Fig. \[all\] (g)). These vortices are unstable either with respect to infinite expansion of the core, or to a contraction into a common skyrmion [@JMMM99]. The solutions of the spectral problem for vortices with nodes (Fig. \[all\] (k), (o)) reveals their instability with respect to perturbations that remove the energetically disadvantageous humps.
![ \[all\] Different types of isolated skyrmions which can be found among the solutions of the Euler equation (\[OneD2\]) for negative magnetic field and easy axis uniaxial anisotropy. The first column (a), (e), (i), (m) shows the angular profiles $\theta(\rho)$. The second column (b), (f), (j), (n) exhibits the phase portraits. The eigenmodes plotted in the third column (c), (g), (k), (o) allow to deduce that all the solutions except skyrmions (c) are unstable. The distributions of the energy density for different types of localized solutions are plotted in the fourth column (d), (h), (l), (p). ](AllTypes){width="18cm"}
Transformation of hexagonal skyrmion lattice under influence of uniaxial anisotropy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[plane\] Zero-field solutions of skyrmion lattices for easy-plane (b) and easy axis (c) uniaxial anisotropy shown as radial profiles $\theta(\rho)$ (a) and surface plots of $m_z$-component of the magnetization. ](plane_v2){width="10cm"}
For $h=0$ the influence of uniaxial anisotropy on the skyrmion structure is rather weak for $|\beta_u|<0.25$, but then it becomes pronounced up to the critical value $|\beta_{cr}|=\pi^2/16$ where a second-order phase transition into the homogeneous state occurs.
Easy-plane type anisotropy, $\beta_u<0$, leads to the compression of the regions close to the skyrmion core and boundary (Fig. \[plane\] (a), red dashed lines in (c) and surface plot (b)). The easy-plane region of the lattice cell with $\theta(x,y)=\pi/2$ grows rapidly approaching critical value $\beta_{cr}$.
Easy axis anisotropy, $\beta_u>0$, on the contrary, expands the near-core region ($\theta=0$) and the skyrmionic outskirt with $\theta=\pi$ (Fig. \[plane\] (c), blue dotted lines in (a)).
Stabilization effect of uniaxial anisotropy on skyrmion states \[StabilizationUA\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For $\beta_u$ = 0 as it was noted in section \[competitionSkHel\], the conical phase is the globally stable state from zero field to the saturation field ($0< h < 0.5$),[@Bak80] (Fig. \[PDUA\] interval $(a-d)$). skyrmion lattices and helicoids are metastable solutions: skyrmions exist in the interval of magnetic fields from negative critical field with $H_H/H_D = \pi^2/16 = 0.3084$ (Fig. \[PDUA\] point $b$) to positive critical field with $ H_S/H_D = 0.4006 $ (Fig. \[PDUA\] point $c$); helicoids exist below the critical fields $H_H/H_D$ (Fig. \[PDUA\] point $b$).
A sufficiently strong uniaxial anisotropy $\beta_u$ suppresses the conical states. Cones can exist only in the triangular region $(a-d-f)$: within the region $(a-d-B-A)$ they are thermodynamically stable and flip into the saturated state by the second-order phase transition at the critical line $(d-B)$ when the conical structure closes. Within the region $(a-A-B-f)$ the conical phase is a metastable state, at the lines $(a-A)$ and $(A-B)$ it discontinuously transforms into helicoids and skyrmions, respectively.
Modulated states with the propagation vectors perpendicular to the applied field (helicoids and skyrmion lattices) can exist even for larger values of uniaxial anisotropy (up to the point $e$): helicoids occupy the area $(a-b-D-e)$ with the line $(b-D-e)$ of unwinding into homogeneous state, while skyrmions have the existing area $(a-c-B-D-e)$ for positive fields and $(a-b-e)$ for negative fields. The skyrmion lattice is the only modulated state that can exist in the triangular region $(B-E-D)$, and only helicoids exist in the region $(D-F-e)$ (see inset (i) of Fig. \[PDUA\]).
By comparing energies of corresponding modulated phases (Fig. \[curves\] (a)) one can conclude that skyrmions can be stabilized only with simultaneous influence of positive magnetic field and easy-axis uniaxial anisotropy. For easy-plane uniaxial anisotropy, the conical phase is always the global minimum of the system.
The skyrmion states are thermodynamically stable within a curvilinear triangle $(A-B-D)$ with vertices $(A) = (0.0166, 0.1197)$, $(B) = (0.0907, 0.3187)$, and $(D) = (0.47, 0.05)$) (Fig. \[PDUA\]). The phase diagram from present rigorous solutions very slightly differs from the calculations within the circular-cell approximation. Only point $(A) = (0.0125, 0.1079)$ has the slightly different coordinates \[XI\].
The solutions for helicoids exist within area ($a-A-D-e$) with the line $A-D$ of first-order phase transition into skyrmion lattice.
Thus, critical points $A$, $B$, $D$ separate the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDUA\]) into three distinct regions with thermodynamical stability of each of considered phases. Moreover, one can introduce different regimes of uniaxial anisotropy:
\(I) In the low anisotropy regime ($\beta_u < \beta_{uA} = 0.0166$) only helical states are realized as thermodynamically stable phases: at the line $a-A$ helicoids transform into cones;
\(II) For $\beta_{uA} < \beta_u < \beta_{uB} = 0.0907$ the skyrmion lattice becomes absolutely stable in a certain range of the applied field: at the line $A-D$, first, helicoid flips into skyrmion phase and then at the line $A-B$ skyrmions transforms into cones;
\(III) For $ \beta_{uB} < \beta_u < \beta_{uD} = 0.47$ there is only phase transition between helicoids and skyrmions at the line $A-D$;
\(IV) Finally for ( $\beta_{uD} < \beta_u < \beta_{ue}=\beta_{cr}$) the helicoids are thermodynamically stable in the whole region where modulated states exist.
Magnetization curves
--------------------
Fig. \[curves\] (b) shows the magnetization curves of all considered modulated structures for different values of uniaxial anisotropy.
For conical and helical phases, magnetization curves represent anhysteretic lines symmetric with respect to the field direction. In the region of helicoid existence, the magnetization changes linearly almost for all values of the applied magnetic field (except drastic increase near the field of saturation), but remains smaller in comparison to the linear magnetization increase of the conical phase.
Magnetization curves for skyrmion lattices bear pronounced hysteretic character with the mutual conversion of two critical fields $h_H$ and $h_{S}$ (points $b$ and $c$ in the Fig. \[PDUA\]). For instance, in large negative magnetic fields far beyond the disappearence of the honeycomb skyrmion texture, isolated skyrmions with the magnetization along $z$ axis (with $\theta(0)=0$) can be nucleated. These skyrmions condense into a lattice in accordance with the physical principles described previously. In positive magnetic field this skyrmion lattice becomes a honeycomb structure and transforms into the homogeneous state. Thus, exemplified magnetization curve is composed from three subloops with remanent magnetization in zero magnetic field (Fig. \[curves\] (b), inset).
![ \[curves\] (a) The energies of the skyrmion lattice (red dotted line), cone (dashed green lines) , and helicoid (solid blue lines) with respect to the homogeneous state plotted as functions of magnetic field for different values of uniaxial anisotropy $\beta$. For $\beta>0.25$ only helicoids and skyrmions can be realized. (b) Magnetization curves of all modulated states for different values of uniaxial distortions $\beta$: green dashed lines for conical phase, red dotted lines for skyrmion lattice, and blue solid lines for helicoid. Inset shows hysteretic magnetization process for skyrmion lattice (see text for details). ](curves2){width="12cm"}
Stabilization effect of exchange anisotropy on skyrmion states. Phase diagram of states \[exchangeAnisBHPhase\]
===============================================================================================================
![ \[EAIsolated\] (a) The contour plot for $m_z$-component of the magnetization in the isolated skyrmion for $h=0.5,\,b_{EA}=-0.5$. The isolated skyrmion aquires a square shape under influence of cubic exchange anisotropy. (b) Profiles $m_z$ plotted in dependence on the spatial coordinate $r$ in two cross-sections of the isolated skyrmion shown in inset. ](EAIsolated_v1){width="14cm"}
From the numerical investigation of Eq. (\[DMdens1\]) with an exchange anisotropy (Eq. (\[additional\])) I now show that skyrmion textures can be stabilized over conical phases even for relatively small values of $b_{EA}$.
The exchange anisotropy on the contrary to uniaxial anisotropy (section \[StabilizationUA\]), does not affect the one-dimensional conical phase, but deforms significantly the skyrmion states. With $$b_{EA}<0$$ it supplies the skyrmions with additional negative energy density. For some critical value of $b_{EA}^{(crit)}$ (I will distinguish between two values: $b_{EA}^{(crit1)}$ is the critical value of exchange anisotropy when the skyrmion lattice can be stabilized in an applied magnetic field; $b_{EA}^{(crit2)}$ is the value of EA when even in zero field the skyrmion lattice is the global minimum of the system; see phase diagram in Fig. \[EA\]) the amount of the additional energy is sufficient to make the skyrmions the global minimum of the system. In the following I will consider exactly this mentioned situation. The cones and skyrmions will be considered in the field applied along $<001>$ crystallographic direction.
Isolated skyrmions in the presence of exchange anisotropy assume a special character of the magnetization distribution: the double-twisted core retains its circular symmetry, but the boundary region is distorted into a square shape. It is clear that the numerical method in those cases, by the restriction to rectangular unit cells, is unable to reproduce the correct energy minimum if the lattice cell undergoes a distortion into parallelogram shape. I neglect this effect in the numerical calculations, because it is small. Thus, the solutions in Figs. \[EAIsolated\], \[EALattice\] and phase diagram in Fig. \[EA\] have to be considered as semi- quantitative approximations. In Fig. \[EAIsolated\] (a) such a square-like distribution of the magnetization is shown by contour plot of $z$-component of the magnetization for $b_{EA}=-0.5,\,h=0.5$. In Fig. \[EAIsolated\] (b) the profiles $m_z=m_z(r)$ are clearly different along the two cuts of the isolated skyrmions (see inset in Fig. \[EAIsolated\] (b)).
When isolated skyrmions condense into the lattice with the decreasing magnetic field, they are subject to the influence of two opposite mechanisms: from one side, they tend to form the densely packed lattice, from the other side however, the skyrmions try to keep this square symmetry imposed by the exchange anisotropy. As a result, the lattice of skyrmions is highly distorted. Rectangular lattices of this type have been calculated and relaxed according to the principles of section \[NumericalRecipes\]. In Fig. \[EALattice\] (b) I plotted the ratio $R_1/R_2$ ($R_1$ and $R_2$ are the sizes of the elementary cell along two perpendicular directions $x$ and $y$ shown in Fig. \[EALattice\] (a)) versus magnetic field for different values of the constant $b_{EA}$. As for perfect hexagonal lattice $$\frac{R_1}{R_2}=0.5773$$ (Fig. \[EALattice\] (b) stright line), the skyrmion lattice in the applied magnetic field shows the tendency of the deformation toward the square lattice with $$\frac{R_1}{R_2}=1$$ (especially for large values of $b_{EA}$, see the last curve in Fig. \[EALattice\] (b)). With increasing constant of exchange anisotropy the saturation field of the skyrmion lattice (that is the field when the lattice releases the free isolated skyrmions) also increases (dotted line in Fig. \[EALattice\] (b) and the line $h_S$ in Fig. \[EA\]).
![ \[EALattice\] (a) The contour plot for $m_z$-component of the magnetization in the skyrmion lattice for $h=0,\,b_{EA}=-0.5$. (b) The dependences of the ratios $R_1/R_2$ on the applied magnetic field for different values of the exchange anisotropy $b_{EA}$. The perfect hexagonal lattice corresponds to the ratio $R_1/R_2=0.5773$ (as for example for $b_{EA}=0$). The square lattice is characterized by $R_1/R_2$ and can be realized for large values of $b_{EA}$ in the field (as for example for $b_{EA}=-0.5$). ](EALattice_v1){width="15cm"}
In Fig. \[EA\] I plotted the phase diagram for cones and skyrmions depending on the constant of exchange anisotropy $b_{EA}$. For $$b_{EA}<b_{EA}^{(crit1)}=-0.13$$ the spacious pocket shows up in the applied magnetic field with the thermodynamically stable skyrmions. For $$b_{EA}<b_{EA}^{(crit2)}=-0.45$$ even in zero magnetic field the skyrmions have the lowest energy of all modulated phases considered in this chapter.
![ \[EA\] The phase diagram for conical and skyrmion states in the plane $(b_{EA},h)$. For $b_{EA}<b_{EA}^{(crit1)}$ the skyrmions are energetically favoured over cones in the interval of the applied magnetic field. For $b_{EA}<b_{EA}^{(crit2)}$ the skyrmions are energetically advantageous over cones even for $h=0$. ](EA_v2.pdf){width="15cm"}
Stabilization of skyrmion textures by cubic anisotropy \[StabilizationCubic\]
=============================================================================
![ \[ConusSketch\] The sketches of the magnetization rotation in the conical phase in the presence of cubic anisotropy with $k_c>0$ (a) and $k_c<0$ (b) are shown together with the schematic representation of the magnetization traces in a space (c). Depending on the orientation of the cone propagation direction ($z$) with respect to the easy (green arrows) and hard (red arrows) anisotropy axes and the applied magnetic field ($h||[001]$) the energy density of the cone can be increased or reduced (see text for details). ](Conus_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
In the present section I explicitly refer to the cubic anisotropy that can favour skyrmions over conical phases for suitable orientation of the applied magnetic field and skyrmion axes (as well as propagation direction of the cones and helicoids) with respect to the easy anisotropy axes. Results of this section give straightforward recommendations how to make skyrmionic spin textures the thermodynamically stable state of the system. Calculations for all modulated phases have been obtained rigorously using methods of section \[NumericalRecipes\].
The detailed analysis of chiral modulations in the presence of cubic anisotropy offers also practical recommendations to experimentalists under which circumstances to look for stable skyrmion states in bulk cubic helimagnets.
Distorted conical phase in the presence of cubic anisotropy \[ConeCubicDistorted\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it was noted in section \[DistortionsBHphase\], uniaxial anisotropy along the propagation direction suppresses the conical phase for the values of the anisotropy coefficient $\beta_{u}$ much smaller than it does for the skyrmion and helical phases (Fig. \[PDUA\]). After cones have been suppressed, skyrmions may become the thermodynamically stable state of the system in the applied magnetic field \[XI\].
Uniaxial anisotropy does not affect the ideal single-harmonic type of the magnetization rotation in the cone state, but just leads to the gradual closing of the cone. Cubic anisotropy, on the contrary, violates the ideal spin configuration of the conical phases: the magnetization deviates from the ideal conical surface trying to embrace the easy axes and to avoid the hard directions (Fig. \[ConusSketch\]).
Depending on the mutual arrangement of easy anisotropy axes and propagation direction of the cone the cubic anisotropy can either increase the energy of this phase or decrease it. Therefore, the rotation of the magnetization in the conical phase must be in tune with a complex landscape of the cubic anisotropy with various global and local minima.
The homogeneous states in a system with the cubic anisotropy in the applied magnetic field are described by the behaviour of the following energy functional: $$\Phi(\Theta,\Psi)=k_c(m_x^2m_y^2+mx^2m_z^2+m_y^2m_z^2)-\mathbf{h}\cdot\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{m}=(\sin\Theta\cos\Psi,\sin\Theta\sin\Psi,\cos\Theta)
\label{CubicHomo}$$ where angles $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ define the orientation of the magnetization in the spherical coordinate system. I introduce angles $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ for the magnetization in the homogeneous state to distinguish them from the angles $\theta$ and $\psi$ characterizing the distribution of the magnetization in skyrmion states.
Depending on the values of the coefficient $k_c$ and the components of magnetic fields different spatially homogeneous phases can be realized in the system. The basic principles how to handle such a type of functionals and to define the manifold of extrema in the applied magnetic field are given explicitly in chapter 2. Here, I will refer to the results of that chapter, while dealing with the modulated phases.
In the forthcoming calculations, the magnetic field $h$ is considered to be applied along $[001]$ crystallographic direction. The cases with $k_c>0$ and $k_c<0$ are discussed separately. Certainly, these two examples cannot address the problem of skyrmion stabilization over cones for random orientation of the magnetic field. But they represent the auxiliary cases consideration of which is instructive in the following. *A. Solutions for conical phase with $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$.*
In Fig. \[Homo100v2\] I have plotted the energy density $\Phi$ of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]) for some values of the applied magnetic field as surfaces in dependence on the angles $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ (Fig. \[Homo100v2\] panel (a)), three-dimensional polar plots (Fig. \[Homo100v2\] panel (b)), and their two-dimensional cuts (Fig. \[Homo100v2\] panel (c)). Two-dimensional cuts of energy surfaces of panel Fig. \[Homo100v2\] (a) are plotted in Fig. \[Homo100v1\] (b), (c) as $\Phi=\Phi(\Theta)$ for $\Psi=0$ and $h=0,\,0.2$. Fig. \[Homo100v1\] (a) represents the astroid plotted according to the conventions of the chapter 2. The lability (orange) lines have been obtained by solving the system of equation, $\Phi_{\Theta}=0,\,\Phi_{\Theta\Theta}=0$. The red lines are the lines of first-order phase transitions - the solutions with different orientations of the magnetization (global minima of the functional (\[CubicHomo\])) have equal energies along these lines. The present astroid corresponds to the two-dimensional case with $\Psi=0$. The field applied along \[001\] crystallographic direction has only $z$-component, i.e. in the following $h=h_z$. Although, any other directions of the applied magnetic field can be considered. From all these graphs the comprehensive analysis of the magnetization rotation in the conical phase can be carried out.
For $k_c>0$ and $h=0$ the equilibrium states of the magnetization correspond to the easy axes of cubic anisotropy oriented along $<001>$ crystallographic directions (green arrows in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (a) and blue circle in FIg. \[Homo100v1\] (b) marking the global minimum of $\Phi(\Theta,\Psi)$). Maxima of the functional (\[CubicHomo\]) are $<111>$ directions - the hard axes of cubic anisotropy (red arrows in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (a)). The equilibrium states of the magnetization in the homogeneous state have the orientations with $\Theta=k\pi/2,\,k=0,1,2...$. In Fig. \[Homo100v2\] (a), (b) these minima are marked by the yellow circles. In the panel (c) of Fig. \[Homo100v2\] the orientations of the magnetization are shown by the blue arrows.
For $h=0$ the magnetization in the conical phase rotates in the plane (001) (brown plane in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (a)). While rotating, the magnetization leaves one energy minimum corresponding to $<001>$ directions and, rotating through the saddle point between hard axes $<111>$, gets into another energy minimum with $<001>$ direction. The trace of the magnetization in the conical phase is shown by thick yellow line in Fig. \[Homo100v2\] (a),(b).
![ \[Homo100v1\] $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$. (a) The phase diagram in internal field components obtained according to the conventions of chapter 2. The orange lines are the lability lines bounding the region with plenty of local minima of energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]). On the red lines two different angular phases have the same energy density, i.e. these are lines of the first-order phase transitions. (b), (c) show the energy density $\Phi=\Phi(\Theta)$ (\[CubicHomo\]) for fixed value of the azimuthal angle $\Psi=0$ and different values of the applied magnetic field $h$. ](Homo100_v11.pdf){width="18cm"}
![ \[Homo100v2\] $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$. The energy density $\Phi$ (\[CubicHomo\]) plotted as two-dimensional surfaces in dependence on the angles $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ (a) and three-dimensional polar plots $A+B \Phi$ (b) where $A$ and $B$ are suitable scaling factors. In the present case $A=0.5,\,B=1$. The cuts of graphs in panel (b) with $\Psi=0$ are shown in panel (c). Path of the rotating magnetization in the conical phase is imaged by the yellow lines with yellow circles being the minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]). In the applied magnetic field the states of the magnetization in the cone correspond only to the local minima. ](Homo100_v12.pdf){width="18cm"}
In the applied magnetic field $h||[001]$ the energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]) has a global minimum corresponding to the state along the field and local minima for the states of the magnetization deflected from the plane (001). These minima disappear in the point $A_1$ of the astroid (Fig. \[Homo100v1\] (a)). The local minimum for the magnetization pointing against the field, $\Theta=\pi$, vanishes in the point $A_2$.
Rotation of the magnetization in the conical phase around the field sweeps the metastable states of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]) for $h<h(\mathrm{A}_1)$ and saddle points for $h>h(\mathrm{A}_1)$. The conical phase becomes the metastable solution in comparison with the skyrmion lattice (see the phase diagram of states in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)). In a critical field the conical phase by a first-order phase transition flips into the homogeneous state. In Fig. \[Conus100\] (a) I plotted the energy density of conical spiral with respect to the homogeneous state. The line $\varepsilon$ in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a) signifies the first-order phase transition when the energy difference of two phases is zero. The fields corresponding to jump of metastable conical phase with positive energy into homogeneous state are not shown on the phase diagram.
The magnetization curves for conical phase are depicted in Fig. \[Conus100\] (b). From the behavior of all components of the magnetization (Fig. \[Conus100\] (c)) in the applied magnetic field it can be concluded that the cones become more distorted in the high magnetic fields - the rotating magnetization tries to avoid the hard anisotropy axes $<111>$.
![ \[Conus100\] $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$. Solutions for the conical phase: (a) energy density of the conical phase with respect to the homogeneous state in dependence on the applied magnetic field $h$ for different values $k_c$ of the cubic anisotropy; (b) magnetization curves showing the component of the magnetization along the field, $m_z$. After reaching the hard cubic axes $<111>$ the magnetization jumps into the homogeneous state. (c) the components of the magnetization plotted along the propagation direction for different values of the applied magnetic field. ](Conus100_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
*B. Solutions for conical phase with $k_c<0,\,h||[001]$.*
![ \[Homo111v1\] $k_c<0,\,h||[001]$. (a) Astroid obtained according to the rules of chapter 2. The red lines are the lines of the first-order phase transitions. The orange lines (lability lines) bound the region with a multitude of local minima. Magnetic field is applied along $z$-direction, i.e. $h=h_z$. (b), (c) functional $\Phi=\Phi(\Theta)$ plotted with fixed azimuthal angle $\Psi=\pi/4$. The homogeneous states (global minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\])) swept by the rotating magnetization in the conical state are marked by blue circles in (b) and (c). ](Homo111_v11.pdf){width="18cm"}
![ \[Homo111v2\] $k_c<0,\,h||[001]$. The energy density (\[CubicHomo\]) plotted as two-dimensional surfaces in dependence on the angles $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ (a) and three-dimensional polar plots (b). The cuts of panel (a) with $\Psi=\pi/4$ are shown in panel (c). Path of the rotating magnetization in the conical phase is shown by the yellow lines with yellow circles being the minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]). In the applied magnetic field the magnetization in the cones rotates to sweep the global minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]). ](Homo111_v12.pdf){width="18cm"}
For $k_c<0$ and $h=0$ the equilibrium states of the energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]) correspond to the easy axes of cubic anisotropy oriented along $<111>$ crystallographic directions (green arrows in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (b)). The angle of these easy direction with respect to the field $h||[001]$ is $70.5^{\circ}$. Maxima of the functional (\[CubicHomo\]) are $<001>$ directions - the hard axes of cubic anisotropy (red arrows in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (b)).
The magnetization in the conical phase performs such a rotation to sweep the easy directions $<111>$ (Fig. \[Homo111v2\] (a), (b)). Even in zero field the conical phase has non-zero component of the magnetization along the field (Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (b)).
In the applied magnetic field the global minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]) gradually approach the field direction. For $h>h(\mathrm{B}_2)$ (see the astroid in Fig. \[Homo111v1\] (a)) only the states with the magnetization along the field can exist. In the intermediate point $\mathrm{B}_1$ the local minima of those $<111>$ axes dissappear that make angles more than $90^{\circ}$ with the field, i.e. the easy axes under the brown plane in Fig. \[ConusSketch\] (b).
In Fig. \[Conus111\] (a) I plotted the energy density of the conical phase with respect to the homogeneous state for different values of cubic anisotropy $k_c$ in dependence on the field $h$. The magnetization curves for conical phase (Fig. \[Conus111\] (b)) display the non-zero $m_z$-component of the magnetization in zero field as described earlier. From the behavior of all components of the magnetization (Fig. \[Conus111\] (c)) in the applied magnetic field it can be concluded that the cones undergo the greatest deformation of their $m_z$-component in zero magnetic field.
![ \[Conus111\] $k_c<0,\,h||[001]$. Solutions for the conical phase: (a) energy density of the conical phase with respect to the homogeneous state in dependence on the applied magnetic field $h$ for different values $k_c$ of the cubic anisotropy; by the second-order phase transitions cones transform into the homogeneous state with the magnetization along the field. (b) Magnetization curves showing the component of the magnetization along the field, $m_z$. Even in zero magnetic field the magnetization has non-zero $z$- components. (c) The components of the magnetization plotted along the propagation direction for different values of the applied magnetic field. ](Conus111_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
Distorted helicoid in the presence of cubic anisotropy \[HelicoidDistortedCubic\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the section \[helicoidsBH\] I introduced the following definition for the helicoid: helicoid is a spiral state with the propagation direction perpendicular to the applied magnetic field. (Fig. \[spirals1\] (a)). In the presence of cubic anisotropy such a definition must be generalized to include arbitrary orientations of the applied magnetic field and propagation directions of helicoids.
Both the spin arrangements and the corresponding propagation directions in the helicoid are found to be extremely sensitive to the orientation and strength of the applied magnetic field as well as to the sign and value of the anisotropic constant $k_c$. Perturbations of the uniform rotation for the helicoid are related to the shape of potential profiles of homogeneous states (Figs. \[Homo100v2\], \[Homo111v1\], \[Homo111v2\]).
In a general case, there is a multitude of solutions for helicoids characterized by variable directions of propagation vectors. In the following, helicoids are defined as states with vectors $\mathbf{k}$ oblique to the field. Conical phase (see section \[ConeCubicDistorted\]) in the present definition can be considered as one of the helicoids with the propagation direction along the field.
*A. Solutions for helicoids with $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$.*
![ \[Helicoid100\] $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$. Solutions for the helicoid: (a) sketch showing the plane of the magnetization rotation (yellow plane), easy (green arrows) and hard (red arrows) directions of the cubic anisotropy, the directions of the applied magnetic field $h$ and the helicoid propagation direction $\mathbf{k}$. The projections of hard anisotropy axes onto the plane of rotation are shown by dotted red lines. (b) $m_z$-component of the magnetization in dependence on the coordinate $y$ for different values of the field. With increasing magnetic field parts of the curves with the magnetization along the field widen. (c) Polar plot for the component of the magnetization perpendicular to $\mathbf{k}$ for $h=0.2$. The densest distribution of the magnetic vectors corresponds to $\theta=0$ although the local minima can be distinguished also for $\theta=\pm\pi/2$. ](HelicoidCubic100_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
For the case with $k_c>0,\,h||[001]$ the helicoids propagate in the plane (001) along one of the easy axes $<001>$ of cubic anisotropy (Fig. \[Helicoid100\]). Magnetic field is applied perpendicularly to the vector $\mathbf{k}$ as it was considered for helicoids of isotropic functional $W_0$ (section \[helicoidsBH\]). Deviation of the propagation direction from the plane (001) as well as from the easy cubic axis in the plane increases the energy of the helicoid.
The plane of the magnetization rotation in the helicoid contains the easy anisotropy axes $<001>$ (green arrows in Fig. \[Helicoid100\] (a) including the easy axis $[001]||h$) and the projections of the hard anisotropy direction $<111>$ onto this plane (red dotted lines in Fig. \[Helicoid100\] (a)). Already for $h=0$ the helicoid accomplishes an inhomogeneous rotation disturbed by anisotropic interactions.
Increasing magnetic field leads to slow rotation of the magnetization in the vicinity of the axis $[001]$ and acceleration of the rotation for the directions opposite to the field. In Fig. \[Helicoid100\] (c) the polar plot is shown for the component of the magnetization perpendicular to the vector $\mathbf{k}$. Distribution of the magnetic moments is densest for $\theta=0$. The angular phases obtained by deflecting the inplane magnetization with $\theta=\pm\pi/2$ correspond to the local minima of Eq. (\[CubicHomo\]) and also lead to the denser distribution of the magnetic moments (see Fig. \[Homo100v2\]). Described solutions are depicted in Fig. \[Helicoid100\] (c) by red arrows. In Fig. \[Helicoid100\] (b) I have plotted $m_z$ component of the helicoid in dependence on the spatial coordinate $y$ along the propagation direction for different values of the applied magnetic field. For some critical value of the field the helicoid transforms into the homogeneous state with the magnetization along the field. This transition is signalled by an unlimited growth of the period for the helicoid and leads to the set of isolated domain walls with infinite separation between them. The line of these critical fields on the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)) has a label $\eta$ (green dashed line). The energy density of the helicoid with respect to the homogeneous state is shown in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b) (solid blue line).
*B. Solutions for helicoids with $k_c<0,\,h||[001]$.*
For the case $k_c<0,\,h||<001>$ the energy of the helicoid must be minimized with respect to the orientation of the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ relative to the applied magnetic field. The equilibrium solutions for helicoids are directly related to the energy landscape of cubic anisotropy (see Fig. \[Homo111v2\]).
For $h=0$, the propagation direction of a helicoid was found to point to $<111>$ crystallographic directions. For definiteness in the following calculations, I assume $\mathbf{k}||[111]$, $\mathbf{h} || [00\overline{1}]$ (see sketch in Fig. \[Helicoid111\] (a)). The magnetization in the helicoid rotates in the plane $(11\overline{2})$ (grey shaded triangle in Fig. \[Helicoid111\] (a)). The plane of the magnetization rotation contains the projections of easy anisotropy axes $<111>$. I marked the easy directions under the plane of rotation by blue color and above the plane - by red. Also all easy directions have been numbered. Rotating magnetization deviates from the plane $(11\overline{2})$ and sweeps these easy exes. The $m_z$-component of the magnetization shown in Fig. \[Helicoid111\] (b) is negative for the crystallographic directions $[\overline{1}1\overline{1}[$ (marked as 1), $[1\overline{1}\overline{1}]$ (3), $[\overline{1}\overline{1}1]$ (5), and positive for $[11\overline{1}]$ (2), $[1\overline{1}1]$ (4), $[\overline{1}11]$ (6).
For $h=0$ the helicoid has lower energy in comparison with the cones with $\mathbf{k}||[00\overline{1}]$. While conical phase is able to sweep four easy anisotropy axes (see section \[ConeCubicDistorted\] *B*), the rotating magnetization in the helicoid meets six easy anisotropy directions on its way (Fig. \[Helicoid111\] (a)).
Applied magnetic field $\mathbf{h}||[00\overline{1}]$ leads to the significant distortions of the helicoid structure. The field destroys the degeneracy of energy minima of cubic anisotropy: easy axes 1,2, and 3 have lower energy in comparison with metastable directions 4, 5, and 6. During this complex magnetization process the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ of the helicoid is directed along the metastable minimum $[111]$ with slight change of its orientation in the applied magnetic field. The distribution of the magnetic vectors in the plane perpendicular to the propagation direction becomes denser in the lower part of the polar plot in Fig. \[Helicoid111\] (d).
In Fig. \[PDCubic\] (d) I plotted the energy density of the cone (blue line) and helicoid (green line) versus $h$. For some critical value of the magnetic field (point $\beta$ in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (d)) conical phase becomes energetically more favourable than the helicoid. This point indicates the first-order phase transition between these one-dimensional modulated phases. The critical fields have been plotted in the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (c)) for different values of the cubic anisotropy constant $k_c$. Note, that in the present geometry the cone sweeps easy axes 1,2,3 as well as the axis $[\overline{1}\overline{1}\overline{1}]$ perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the helicoid. As soon as the metastable minima 4,5,6 dissappear, the helicoid transforms into the conical phase (see the third plot in panel (a) of Fig. \[Helicoid111\]).
![ \[Helicoid111\] $k_c<0,\,h||[00\overline{1}]$. Solutions for the helicoid with $\mathbf{k}||[111]$: (a) sketch showing the plane of the magnetization rotation (grey triangular plane), easy directions of the cubic anisotropy (blue straight lines), the directions of the applied magnetic field $h$ and the helicoid propagation direction $\mathbf{k}$, and the coordinate axes (red arrows) related to the helicoid. The projections of the easy anisotropy axes onto the plane of the magnetization rotation are numbered and marked by blue (the axes are above the plane) and red (the axes are under the plane) color. (b) $m_x$ (red line), $m_y$ (black line), and $m_z$ (blue line) components of the magnetization in dependence on the coordinate $z||\mathbf{k}$ for $h=0$. The maxima and minima of the $m_z$-component correspond to the deviations toward easy anisotropy directions. (c) Polar plot for the component of the magnetization perpendicular to $\mathbf{k}$ for $h=0.2$. The densest distribution of the magnetic vectors corresponds to the lower part of the plot: the rotating magnetization spans the easy direction in the direct vicinity of the applied magnetic field. ](HelicoidCubic111_v1.pdf){width="18cm"}
Transformation of the hexagonal skyrmion lattice in the presence of cubic anisotropy \[SkyrmionCubicTransformation\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[SkyrmionCubic\] Contour plots for components of the magnetization in skyrmion lattices for both signs of the cubic anisotropy constant $k_c$: (a), (b) contour plots for $m_z$-components of the magnetization with the axis of the skyrmion lattices directed along the field, i.e. along \[001\]. Axes $<100>$ of cubic anisotropy are shown as white arrows. In (a) with $k_c>0$, these axes are easy directions, whereas in (b) with $k_c<0$ - they are hard anisotropy axes. (c) Contour plot for $m_z$-component of the magnetization in the skyrmion lattice with the axis along \[111\] crystallographic direction. Dotted white arrows indicate the projections of anisotropy axes $<111>$ onto the plane of skyrmion lattice. (d) Contour plots for $m_x$, $m_y$, and $m_z$ components of the magnetization in a case when axes of skyrmions do not point to the equilibrium state of the functional (\[CubicHomo\]). The cores of the skyrmions are shifted from the center of the lattice cell, but the lattice retains the stability against transformation into helicoids. ](SkyrmionCubic_v1.pdf){width="15cm"}
Alongside with the drastic influence on the conical phases and helicoids (see sections \[ConeCubicDistorted\] and \[HelicoidDistortedCubic\]), cubic anisotropy distorts significantly skyrmion states: the symmetry of the skyrmion cores reflects the underlying energy landscape of the cubic anisotropy (Figs. \[Homo100v2\], \[Homo111v2\]) and undergoes the respective transformation (Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\]).
In the calculations according to the methods of section \[NumericalRecipes\], the direction of the skyrmion axes have been tuned with respect to the field and easy anisotropy axes in the search of the states with the lowest energy (the same minimization of the energy had been done in the section \[HelicoidDistortedCubic\] *B* for helicoids). For $k_c>0$ the equilibrium position of the skyrmion axis is codirectional with the applied magnetic field. For $k_c<0$ the skyrmion axis has been found to follow the global minimum of the cubic anisotropy (Eq. (\[CubicHomo\])), i.e. for $h=0$ the skyrmion axis is directed along the easy cubic axes $<111>$, but in the field it starts to move toward the field.
In Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (a)-(c) I have plotted the contour plots for $m_z$-components of the magnetization in skyrmion lattices for both signs of the cubic anisotropy $k_c$. In Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (a) and (b) the axes of skyrmion lattices are directed along the field; the cores of skyrmions become square shaped with the tendency either to elongate or to shorten along particular directions.
The skyrmion lattice of Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (a) can be stabilized only in the applied magnetic field. The field localizes the skyrmion cores and prevents skyrmions from the transformation into helicoids. For the field lower than some critical value (in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b) this field is marked by $\gamma_0$) the easy axes of the cubic anisotropy in the plane of the skyrmion lattice induce the instability of skyrmions with respect to helicoids. By numerical means used in the present thesis it is hardly possible to obtain the solutions of the skyrmion lattice for zero and small magnetic fields. The easy directions of the cubic anisotropy are shown by the white arrows in Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (a).
For another critical value of the field the skyrmion lattice releases the free isolated skyrmions. In Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a) these fields are depicted as the line $\gamma$ (dashed red line). The energy density of skyrmion lattice is plotted in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b) (red solid line for $k_c=0.5$). With increasing value of the constant $k_c$ the interval between two critical fields (i.e. between the points $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma$) decreases. For the constants $k_c>k_c(E)$ (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)) the skyrmion lattice is highly unstable.
The skyrmion lattice plotted in Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (b) has the larger energy in comparison with the lattice directed along the $<111>$ crystallographic directions (Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (c)). White (solid) arrows in this case with $k_c<0$ indicate hard axes of the cubic anisotropy. White dotted arrows are projections of the easy axes $<111>$ onto the plane $(001)$ of the skyrmion lattice. In the present calculations such a lattice was used as a cross-check of calculations: the energies of two skyrmion lattices coincide, when the angular phases of the functional (\[CubicHomo\]) are aligned along the field.
In Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (c) the axis of the skyrmion lattice points to the crystallographic direction $[111]$. In this case the dotted white arrows show the projections of the cubic easy axes $<111>$ onto the plane $(11\overline{2})$. The core of the lattice acquires the shape of a curvilinear triangle. With increasing magnetic field such a lattice gradually rotates keeping its axis parallel to an equilibrium state of the energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]). In the panel (d) of Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] I plotted the skyrmion lattice in the applied magnetic field, but with the axis directed along $[111]$ axis. The figure shows that the skyrmion lattice is essentially robust against the transformation into the helicoid even if its core is displaced from the central position in the lattice cell. Energy density of the skyrmion lattice is plotted in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (d) (red solid line). The skyrmions are only metastable states in comparison with cones and helicoids.
The phase diagrams of states in the presence of magnetocrystalline cubic anisotropy \[CubicPDAll\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phase diagrams of states for both signs of cubic anisotropy constant $k_c$ and the field applied along $[001]$ are plotted in Figs. \[PDCubic\] (a), (c). Further, I analyse each of these phase diagrams and give some qualitative recommendations as far the thermodynamical stability of skyrmions with respect to conical phases is concerned.
*A. Phase diagram of states for $k_c>0,\,\mathbf{h}||[001]$.*
Cones as modulated states with negative energy relative to the homogeneous state exist below the line d-A-B-C (dashed blue line $\varepsilon$ in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)). At this line cones flip into the saturated state by a first-order phase transition as described in section \[ConeCubicDistorted\] *A*. Nevertheless, above this line cones still exist as states with positive energy. Only within the region filled with a blue color (0-d-A-D or region I) they are thermodynamically stable. In the remaining part the cones are metastable states. At the lines $\nu$ (red solid line A-D in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)) and $\kappa$ (green solid line) cones transform discontinuously into skyrmions (red-colored area II) and helicoids (green colored region III), respectively. Dotted lines mark the phase transitions between the metastable states: $\delta$ is the line of first-order phase transition between skyrmions and helicoids (blue line a-D), for $k_c=0$ the point ’a’ corresponds to this transition in the isotropic case; line D-B (green dotted line) stands for the transition between metastable cones and helicoids in the region where skyrmions are thermodynamically stable states; line D-C (dotted red line) is the line of the first-order phase transition between skyrmions and cones in the region of stability of helicoids.
As it is seen from the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)), the skyrmion states are thermodynamically stable within a curvilinear triangle (A - D - E) with vertices (A) = (0.047, 0.379), (D) = (0.233, 0.264), and (E) = (0.613, 0.203)). At the line D-E they transform into helicoids, and at c-A-E-C (red dashed line $\gamma$) - into the homogeneous state with the magnetization along the field. (C)=(0.651,0.176) is the point of intersection of the lability lines for cones (blue dashed lines) and skyrmions; in the point E the lability lines for skyrmions and helicoids cross each other. Point B has the coordinates (0.269,0.253). For $k_c>k_c(\mathrm{C})$ helicoids and cones can exist for much larger values of the applied magnetic field than skyrmions; skyrmions undergo the elongation into the helicoids in this region (see also section \[SkyrmionCubicTransformation\]).
The solutions for helicoids exist below the line b-B-E (green dashed line) where they turn into the homogeneous state. In the region III of the phase diagram (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a)) helicoids are the thermodynamically stable states of the system. Due to the strong influence of the cubic anisotropy on the conical phase, helicoids can exist in higher fields than cones for $k_c>k_c(\mathrm{B})$.
The present phase diagram has been built by comparing energies of corresponding modulated phases. In Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b) the energies of the skyrmion lattice (red line), helicoid (green line), and cone (blue line) are plotted in dependence on the applied magnetic field $h$ for $k_c=0.4$. In zero field the conical phase is the state with the minimal energy. Then, in the point $\kappa$ the cone transforms into the helicoid. Points $\delta$ and $\nu$ indicate the transitions to skyrmions from helicoids and to skyrmions from cones, respectively. These transitions demand the closer look at them. For $k_c=0.3$, $h(\delta)<h(\nu)$, but for $k_c=0.4$, $h(\delta)<h(\nu)$ (see inset of Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b)). For $h<h(\gamma_0)$ the skyrmion lattice may elongate into the helicoid (see section \[SkyrmionCubicTransformation\] for details). The skyrmion cores become instable with respect to elliptic distortions. Numerically, such a transformation is accompanied by the drastic increase of the grid spacings ($\Delta_y>>\Delta_x$ or $\Delta_x>>\Delta_y$) along one of the spatial directions $y$ or $x$ (see section \[NumericalRecipes\] for the introduction into the numerical recipes of the present calculations).
*B. Phase diagram of states for $k_c<0,\,\mathbf{h}||[001]$.*
For $k_c<0$ and the field $\mathbf{h}||[001]$ only one-dimensional chiral modulations are present in the phase diagram as thermodynamically stable states of the system (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (c)). At zero field the helicoid (green line) has lower energy in comparison with the cone (blue line in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (d)). The reason of this is explicitly explained in the section \[HelicoidDistortedCubic\] *B*: rotating magnetization in the helicoid sweeps 6 easy axes of cubic anisotropy, while the conical phase - only 4. The situation is drastically changed in the applied magnetic field: point $\beta$ signifies transformation of the helicoid into the cone by the first-order phase transition.
Skyrmions are metastable solutions. Points $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ of the transitions to skyrmions from cones and to skyrmions from helicoids are characterized by the higher energy densities comparing with the energy of the global helical and conical phases, respectively. Therefore, these transitions are hidden. In this connection the influence of the higher-order anisotropy terms may have significant influence on the skyrmion states.
*C. General remarks how to stabilize skyrmion states in the presence of cubic anisotropy*
Considered phase diagrams of states (Figs. \[PDCubic\] (a), (c)) allow to deduce some qualitative recommendations how to stabilize skyrmions over conical phases in the presence of cubic anisotropy. Such phase diagrams, however, cannot be considered as complete, since I did not considered possible three-dimensional states realized in the system. Moreover, competition of different small anisotropic contributions will also distort the stability regions of different modulated phases. (i) As it was concluded in section \[ConeCubicDistorted\], cubic anisotropy effectively suppresses conical phases for $k_c>0$ and $\mathbf{h}||[001]$. Rotating magnetization of the conical phase in this case sweeps the metastable directions of the energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]). The same effect may be achieved for the field $\mathbf{h}||<111>$ and $k_c<0$. In this case, the hard axes $<100>$ of the cubic anisotropy impair the ideal harmonic rotation of the magnetization in the conical phase. The phase diagram of states looks qualitatively similar to the phase diagram in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a), but with slightly different coordinates for all critical points. Therefore, the suppression of the cone depends on the sign of the cubic anisotropy constant $k_c$: for $k_c>0$ the field must be applied along $<001>$, for $k_c<0$ - along $<111>$. The cubic anisotropy $k_c$ must be larger than some threshold value corresponding to the point A in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a).
For $k_c<0$, $\mathbf{h}||[001]$, and $h>h(\beta)$, the conical phase is the thermodynamically stable state of the system (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (c)). The rotating magnetization in a cone sweeps the global minima of energy functional (\[CubicHomo\]). The same situation will be also realized for $k_c>0$ and $\mathbf{h}||<111>$, when the magnetization spans easy anisotropy axes <100>. The skyrmions will form only metastable states in these situations.
\(ii) At the same time the constant $k_c$ of cubic anisotropy must not be larger than the critical value $k_c(\mathrm{E})$. Otherwise, the skyrmions will tend to elongate into spirals (see for details section \[SkyrmionCubicTransformation\]). Such an instability of skyrmions is related to the easy anisotropy axes <100> in the plane of the skyrmion lattice (Fig. \[SkyrmionCubic\] (a)). Skyrmions can be stabilized only in the applied magnetic field $h>h(\gamma_0)$ (Fig. \[PDCubic\] (b)). For $k_c<0,\,\mathbf{h}||<111>$ the skyrmions will suffer from instability toward helicoids with $\mathbf{k}||<111>$ as easy cubic axes $<111>$ make some angle with the skyrmion plane.
![ \[PDCubic\] Phase diagrams of states for $k_c>0$ (a) and $k_c<0$ (c). Magnetic field $\mathbf{h}$ is applied along \[001\]. The regions of the thermodynamical stability are colored by red (skyrmions), blue (cones), and green (helicoids). The detailed description of the phase transitions between modulated phases is given explicitly in the text. (b), (d) The energy densities of the modulated phases in dependence on the field for fixed value of $k_c$ (see section \[CubicPDAll\] for details). ](PDCubic_v2.pdf){width="18cm"}
Candidate materials for experimental observation of skyrmion textures
=====================================================================
From the general phenomenological point of view, the choice of materials that will show skyrmion lattices as low-temperature states in applied fields is dictated only by symmetry requirements and a magnetic ordering transition. Therefore, many different magnetic crystals from classes D$_{2d}$ and C$_{nv}$ could be listed as promising objects of pointed searches for skyrmion lattice phases in their magnetic phase diagrams. Here, I mention only very few of them, where clear indications of non-collinear magnetic states are known from early experiments.
[*Defect spinel structure magnets*]{} GaM$_4$X$_8$. The magnetic phase diagram of GaMo$_4$X$_8$ shows a clear intermediate phase between ground-state and field saturated state [@Rastogi87]. The material behaves as almost a ferromagnet, and Rastogi and Wohlfahrt [@Rastogi87] pointed out the similarity with the behavior of MnSi and the possibility of a twisted non-collinear spin-structure.
[*CeTMSn magnets.*]{} The examplary CeCuSn exists in two modifications, $\alpha$- and $\beta$-CeCuSn. Only the $\beta$-variant is non-centrosymmetric with space-group P6$_3$mc belonging to Laue class C$_{6v}$ and displays a series of marked anomalies in the magnetization data $M(H)$, while the centrosymmetric variant behaves apparently as a simpler magnetic systems. The direct comparison of the two different crystallographic states suggests an important role of chiral DM interactions [@Sebastian06].
In Ref.[@JMMM94] two tetragonal materials Tb$_3$Al$_2$ and Dy$_3$Al$_3$ were proposed as suitable candidates for the observation of chiral skyrmions and spiral structures. Both crystals belong to the space group C$_{4v}^4$ ; Tb$_3$Al$_2$ has a Curie temperature $T_C$ = 100 K, and for Dy$_3$Al$_3$, $T_C$ = 190 K has been measured [@Barbara68; @Barbara71]. At high temperatures they have rather complicated easy-axis type magnetic structures. At a transition temperature $T_t$ they seem to switch to an easy-plane structure. This transition was found at $T_t$ = 10 K for Tb$_3$Al$_2$ and at $T_t$ = 20 K for Dy$_3$Al$_3$. Up to now modulated magnetic structures have not been identified in these materials, but in view of the magnetic symmetry they could be present, particularly near T$_t$, where the uniaxial anisotropy constant is small and conditions for the realization of a magnetic mixed state are favourable.
The cubic materials MnSi, FeGe, Fe$_x$Co$_{1-x}$Si, and Co$_x$Mn$_{1-x}$Si belong to another group where skyrmions are believed to induce anomalies of phase diagram near the ordering transition. In these compounds spiral structures related to the Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions are well known [@Ishikawa76; @Wilkinson76; @Beille83]. The helix pitch $L_D=2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|$ is in general large in these compounds: it is 18 $\mathrm{nm}$ in the case of MnSi or even larger (>230 nm) for Fe$_{0.8}$Co$_{0.2}$Si (see also some examples in the Table \[table1\]).
Compound MnSi FeGe Fe$_{0.3}$Co$_{0.7}$Si Fe$_{0.5}$Co$_{0.5}$Si Fe$_{0.8}$Co$_{0.2}$Si
-------------- ------ ------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------
$T_N$ \[K\] 29.5 278.7 8.8 43.5 32.2
$L_D$ \[nm\] 18.0 68.3- 70.0 230 90.0 29.5
$H_D$ \[T\] 0.62 0.2 (6.0 $\pm$ 1.5)$\cdot 10^{-3}$ (4.0 $\pm$ 0.5)$\cdot 10^{-2}$ 0.18
: Néel temperatures ($T_N$), helix periods ($L_D$), and saturation fields ($H_D$)\
for some cubic helimagnets, data from Ref. [@Lebech89]. \[table1\]
The skyrmion states in the present magnets can be easily stabilized by the small cubic anisotropy with easy axes along $<001>$ crystallographic directions and the applied magnetic field directed along $<001>$ as shown in section \[StabilizationCubic\]. The main effect of the cubic anisotropy in this case is suppression of the conical phase. The phase diagram depicted in Fig. \[PDCubic\] (a) will be qualitatively the same for easy axes of cubic anisotropy along $<111>$ and the field parallel to one of these directions.
The skyrmion states may be stabilized over cones and helicoids also by the uniaxial anisotropy. The results of section \[StabilizationUA\] may help to clarify the role of small uniaxial distortions in high-pressure experiments in MnSi - an important and unsolved problem, which continues to attract widespread attention. For example for MnSi, earlier experiments [@FranusMuir84] and analysis [@PlumerWalker82] of magnetoelastic couplings allow a quantitative estimate of strain-induced uniaxial anisotropy. The magnetoelastic coupling with uniaxial strains $u_{zz}$ is given by $w_{me}=b \,u_{zz}\,(M_z/M_S)^2$, where $M_S=$ 50.9 A/m is the saturation magnetization [@Bloch75] and $b=$ 7.4 GPa is a magnetoelastic coefficient derived from the magnetostriction data in Ref. [@FranusMuir84]. Using exchange constant $A=$ 0.11 pJ/m, as estimated from the spin-wave stiffness reported in Ref. [@Grigoriev05], and $D=2\,q_0\,A=$ 0.86 $\mu$J/m$^2$ for MnSi [@Nature06] one has $K_0\simeq$ 17 kJ/m$^3$ and a dimensionless scale $b/K_0\simeq$ 44 for the induced anisotropy. Thus, a modest strain $u_{zz}=$ 0.0024 is sufficient to reach an induced anisotropy $K/K_0=$ 0.1 which is enough to stabilize the skyrmion lattice in magnetic field. This strain corresponds to a tensile stress $\sigma_{zz}$= 680 MPa for MnSi by using the elastic constant $c_{11}$= 283 GPa.[@Stishov08] The rather low uniaxial stress necessary to stabilize the skyrmion lattice is particularly relevant for pressure experiments with a uniaxial disbalance of the applied stresses, but it could also be achieved in epitaxial films.
Additional uniaxial anisotropy may be also of surface-induced nature. In magnetic nanosystems surface/interface interactions provide additional stabilization mechanism of skyrmion states. As recently the skyrmion states were observed in thin magnetic layers of Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$Si and FeGe [@Yu10; @Yu10a], this might have the significant contribution.
Conclusions
===========
In non-centrosymmetric magnetic materials, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya exchange based on the relativistic spin-orbit couplings stabilizes helical one- dimensional modulations, as well as solitonic textures, i.e., localized topologically non- trivial baby- skyrmions - repulsive particle-like spin textures imbedded into homogeneously magnetized “parental” state. These isolated skyrmion excitations can be manipulated as particle-like entities. Their relevant length scale can be tuned by the competition between direct and chiral DM exchange and may range from few atomic spacings up to microns. Theoretical results for the basic phenomenological continuum theory of chiral magnets demonstrate that localized spin-textures with constant value of the magnetization modulus may form extended regular states. The formation of skyrmionic textures is determined by the stability of the localized solitonic cores and their geometrical incompatibility that frustrates homogeneous space-filling. On the contrary to the circular-cell approximation, used as a method of choice to obtain approximate solutions for skyrmion lattices in early papers of A. N. Bogdanov et al. [@JMMM94; @pss94; @JMMM99], the rigorous solution for skyrmion states in this chapter are derived by the direct energy minimization for phenomenological models of non-centrosymmetric helimagnets from different crystallographic classes. These numerical results provide a comprehensive description of the structure of the skyrmion lattice and its evolution in the applied magnetic field directed either opposite or along the magnetization in the center of the skyrmion cell. Differences of lattice parameters from circular- cell approximation and from numerical calculations lie within 2% and, therefore, demonstrate that CCA is a good approximation.
It is shown that for crystals from Laue classes D$_{2d}$ and C$_{nv}$ skyrmion lattices are stable with respect to one-dimensional helices in the applied magnetic field. As the transition between spiral and skyrmion states is a first- order phase transition, domains of coexisting phases may be formed. For cubic helimagnets and other systems with Lifshitz invariants attached to three spatial directions, additional anisotropic contributions suppressing conical phase must be considered. Skyrmion lattices can be stabilized in a broad range of thermodynamical parameters in the presence of uniaxial anisotropy. Skyrmion stability demands the combined effect of uniaxial anisotropy and magnetic field. These findings demonstrate that distorted cubic helimagnets are very promising objects for investigations of skyrmion states. On the other hand, skyrmion states may be stabilized over cones by small cubic anisotropy itself. To achieve this goal the applied magnetic field must point along particular crystallographic directions strongly deforming the conical state.
[00]{}
A. N. Bogdanov and D. A. Yablonsky, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**9**5]{}, 178 (1989) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 68, 101 (1989)\].
A. Bogdanov, A. Hubert, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**138**]{}, 255 (1994).
U. K. Rößler, A. N. Bogdanov, C. Pfleiderer, Nature **442**, 797 (2006).
A. Bogdanov, A. Hubert, phys. stat. sol. (b) [**186**]{}, 527 (1994).
I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, J. Sov. Phys. JETP-USSR [**19**]{}, 960 (1964).
X. Z. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa *et al.*, Nature, [**465**]{}, 901 (2010).
X. Z. Yu, N. Kanazawa, Y. Onose *et al.*, Nature Mater. **10**, 106 (2011).
I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP [**5**]{}, 1259 (1957).
T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. [**120**]{}, 91 (1960).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Statistical Physics. Course of Theoretical Physics* (Pergamon, Oxford, 1997), Vol. V.
M. Bode, M. Heide, K. von Bergmann, P. Ferriani *et al.*, Nature [**447**]{}, 190 (2007).
S. Heinze *et al.*, accepted to Nature Physics (2011) (see also APS March Meeting 2010, March 15-19,2010, abstract L34.014).
A. B. Butenko et al. Phys. Rev. B **80**, 134410 (2009).
Yu. A. Izyumov, Sov. Phys. Usp. [**27**]{}, 845 (1984). A. N. Bogdanov, U. K. Rößler, M. Wolf, and K. -H. Müller, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 214410 (2002).
P. G. De Gennes and J. Prost, *The Physics of Liquid Crystals* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993), 2nd ed. E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **58**, 1465 (1995).
E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 054506 (2003).
A. Boganov, A. Hubert, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**195**]{}, 182 (1999).
A. Hubert, R. Sch[ä]{}fer, *Magnetic Domains* (Springer, Berlin 1998).
A. Bogdanov, JETP Lett. [**6**2]{}, 247 (1995).
P. G. de Gennes, in *Fluctuations, Instabilities, and Phase transitions*, ed. T. Riste, NATO ASI Ser. B, vol. 2 (Plenum, New York, 1975).
A. A. Belavin, and A. M. Polyakov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **22**, 503 (1975) \[JETP Lett. **22**, 245 (1975)\].
N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. of Chem. Phys. **21**, 1087 (1953).
K. Binder, D. W. Heerman, *Monte Carlo Simulation in Statistical Physics* (Springer, Berlin 1992), 2nd ed.
S. Mühlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz *et al.*, Science, [**323**]{}, 915 (2009).
P. Bak and M. H. Jensen, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**1**3]{}, L881 (1980).
A. K. Rastogi, E. P. Wohlfarth, phys. stat. sol. (b) **142**, 569 (1987). C. P. Sebastian *et al.*, arXiv: 0612225 (2006). B. Barbara, C. Bécle, J.-L. Feron, R. Lemaire, and R. Pauthenet, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris **267**B, 244 (1968).
B. Barbara, C. Bécle, R. Lemaire, and D. Paccard, J. Physique **32**, C1-299 (1971).
Y. Ishikawa, K. Tajima, D. Bloch, and M. Roth, Solid State Comm. [**19**]{}, 525 (1976).
C. Wilkinson, F. Sinclair, and J. B. Forsyth, 5th Conf. on Solid Compounds of Transition Elements. Extended Abstracts, Uppsala 1976, p. 158.
J. Beille, J. Voiron, M. Roth, Sol. State Comm. **47**, 399 (1983).
B. Lebech, J. Bernhard, and T. Freltoft, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**1**]{}, 6105 (1989).
E. Franus-Muir, M. L. Plumer, and E. Fawcett, J. Phys. C **17**, 1107 (1984). M. L. Plumer and M. B. Walker, J. Phys. C **15**, 7181 (1982).
D. Bloch, J. Voiron, V. Jaccarino, and J. H. Wernick, Phys. Lett. A **51**, 259 (1975). S. V. Grigoriev, S. V. Maleyev, A. I. Okorokov, Y. O. Chetverikov, R. Georgii, P. Böni, D. Lamago, H. Eckerlebe, and K. Pranzas, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 134420 (2005).
S. M. Stishov, A. E. Petrova, S. Khasanov *et al.*, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. **20**, 235222 (2008).
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We discuss collective excitations of a trapped dilute Fermi gas within a hydrodynamic approximation. Analytical results are derived for both high- and low-temperature limits and are applied to $^{40}$K and $^6$Li systems of current experimental interest. We identify spectral signatures which can be used to detect the onset of Fermi degeneracy. Also, we find an interesting class of internal excitations with an unusual spectrum. Some of our results are relevant to the case of trapped bosons as well. Our analysis suggests several experiments which address fundamental problems of collective motion in quantum fluids.'
address: 'Electron and Optical Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, US Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8410'
author:
- 'Georg M. Bruun and Charles W. Clark'
title: Hydrodynamic Excitations of Trapped Fermi Gases
---
A new era in low-temperature physics was heralded by the production in 1995 of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in the alkali gases $^{87}$Rb, $^{23}$Na, and $^7$Li. [@BEC] These dilute-gas systems are governed by atomic interactions that are very well characterized, so they provide systems in which quantum many-body physics can be explored from first principles. They have also been used for a remarkable variety of experiments on coherent matter wave generation and propagation, and have stimulated much experimental and theoretical work.[@Edwards1]
Recently, impressive experimental results concerning the quantum degenerate regime of a dilute gas of trapped fermionic $^{40}$K atoms have been presented [@DeMarcoScience] thereby enabling fundamental investigations of quantum-degenerate Fermi systems with controlled particle interactions. Furthermore, reports of magneto-optical trapping of $^6$Li have been presented recently.[@Mewescon] Several theoretical results concerning the equilibrium properties of such a gas have been presented. [@Butts; @Schneider; @BruunN; @StoofBCS; @BruunBCS]
In the present paper, we examine the spectroscopy of collective modes of excitation of the Fermi gas. The study of this spectrum has been fruitful in studies of BEC. These modes correspond to sound waves in a homogeneous gas, but for a confined gas their spectrum is discrete. They can be observed as shape oscillations of the atomic cloud, induced by perturbations of the trapping potential. Such measurements have been carried out for Bose gases, for cases of a nearly pure condensate [@Jin; @Mewes], for a partially-condensed gas at temperatures comparable to the BEC transition temperature $T_0$, [@JILAfinite; @StamperKurn] and in the normal state [@StamperKurn]. For $T < 0.6 T_0$ the observed collective excitation frequencies are in good agreement with predictions of first–principles mean field theory [@Edwards2; @Dodd1], and, for gases with more than a few thousand atoms, they agree well with the predictions of a simpler hydrodynamic theory, [@Stringari; @CastinDum] which resembles the approach we develop in this paper.
As is well known [@Pines], the collective modes of a quantum fluid admit simple descriptions in the collisionless and the hydrodynamic regimes. When the lifetime $\tau$ of the quasiparticles is much longer than the characteristic period of motion ([*[i.e.]{}*]{} $\omega\tau\gg 1$ for atoms in a trap of frequency $\omega$), there are few scattering events per sound oscillation, and the restoring force is due the self-consistent mean field of the gas. Wave motion encountered in this limit is designated ”zero sound”. For the hydrodynamic regime $\omega\tau\ll 1$, on the other hand, collisions ensure local thermodynamic equilibrium. To attain the hydrodynamic regime in an ultracold gas of fermionic atoms, it is necessary to trap at least two different hyperfine states, since the ($p$-wave) interaction between atoms in the same hyperfine state is completely suppressed below $T\simeq 100\mu$K. [@DeMarco] Experimentally, trapping two hyperfine states has been found to provide the mechanism for collisional rethermalization needed for evaporative cooling. [@DeMarcoScience] This paper treats the case of a two-component Fermi gas in the hydrodynamic regime. We present a systematic analysis of the modes in the Fermi degenerate regime $T\ll T_{\rm F}$ and in the classical limit $T\ge{\mathcal{O}}(T_{\rm F})$. Our analytical results for the density dependence of collective excitation frequencies suggest a means of detecting the onset of Fermi degeneracy in the gas at low $T$. We relate our results to current experiments on $^{40}$K and $^6$Li.
The problem of collective modes of spatially confined two-component Fermi systems is well-known in the field of nuclear physics. However, due to the relatively few nucleons in a typical nucleus, these systems tend to be most appropriately described in the zero sound limit contrary to the situation described by the present paper. [@Goeke]
In the limit of low energy/long wavelength excitations, one can treat the dynamics of a quantum gas by a semiclassical approximation, via the Boltzmann equation for the function $f({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{p}},t)$, which describes the distribution of particles of mass $m$ with position ${\mathbf{r}}$ and momentum ${\mathbf{p}}$. In the hydrodynamic regime, collisions ensure local equilibrium with a given mean velocity ${\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$, temperature $T({\mathbf{r}},t)$, and mass density $\rho({\mathbf{r}},t)$, since they conserve net momentum, energy and particle number. Assuming that the gas is otherwise ideal, we look for solutions to the Boltzmann equation that yield the Fermi-Dirac distribution $f({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{p}},t)=\{\exp[\beta({\mathbf{r}},t)\xi({\mathbf{r}},t)]+1\}^{-1}$ with $\xi({\mathbf{r}},t)=[{\mathbf{p}}-m{\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)]^2/2m-
\mu_{\rm F} ({\mathbf{r}},t)$ and $\beta({\mathbf{r}},t)=1/k_{\rm B} T({\mathbf{r}},t)$. In this limit, the linearized momentum and energy conservation laws are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pconservation}
\rho_0 ({\mathbf{r}})\partial_t {\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)=
-\nabla P({\mathbf{r}},t)+
\rho({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{p}},t) {\mathbf{f}} \\ \label{Econservation}
\partial_t P({\mathbf{r}},t)=-\frac{5}{3}\nabla[P_0({\mathbf{r}})
{\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)]+
\frac{2}{3}\rho_0 ({\mathbf{r}})
{\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t){\mathbf{f}}.\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathbf{f}}=-\nabla V_{pot}({\mathbf{r}})/m$. Here, $V_{pot}({\mathbf{r}})$ is the trapping potential and $\rho({\mathbf{r}},t)=\rho_0 ({\mathbf{r}})+\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}},t)$, $P({\mathbf{r}},t)=P_0 ({\mathbf{r}})+\delta P({\mathbf{r}},t)$ with $\rho_0 ({\mathbf{r}})$ and $P_0 ({\mathbf{r}})$ being the equilibrium mass density and pressure respectively. As we are interested in modes for which the densities of the two states oscillate in phase, we have defined the total density $\rho ({\mathbf{r}},t)\equiv\sum_\sigma\int d^3k/(2\pi)^3f({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{p}},t)=
\Sigma_\sigma\rho_\sigma({\mathbf{r}})$ where $\sum_\sigma$ denotes the sum over the two trapped hyperfine states. Likewise, $P({\mathbf{r}},t)$ and ${\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ denote the total pressure and mean velocity associated with both species. We take the number of atoms in each hyperfine state to be the same, so that there is a single chemical potential and $\rho({\mathbf{r}})=2\rho_\sigma({\mathbf{r}})$. The “spin”-modes, for which the two components of the gas do not move in phase, will be purely diffusive in the hydrodynamic regime, as the collisions suppress any difference in the local velocity of the two components. [@Vichi] Using the continuity equation, $\partial_t\rho({\mathbf{r}},t)=-\nabla[\rho({\mathbf{r}},t)
{\mathbf{u}}({\mathbf{r}},t)]$, Eqs. (\[Pconservation\])-(\[Econservation\]) can be written as a closed equation for the velocity field [@Griffin]: $$\label{uequation}
\partial^2_t{\mathbf{u}}=\frac{5P_0}{3\rho_0}\nabla(\nabla{\mathbf{u}})
+\nabla({\mathbf{uf}})+\frac{2}{3}{\mathbf{f}}(\nabla{\mathbf{u}}).$$ Hereafter, we take the trap to be an isotropic harmonic oscillator, i.e. $V_{pot}=m\omega^2r^2/2$. The hydrodynamic equations are then solved in several limiting cases. We first consider the limit $T\ll T_{\rm F}$, where the pressure is a function only of the density and we invoke the semiclassical (Thomas-Fermi) approximation to the equilibrium density distribution, [@Butts] $$\rho_0(r) = \frac{8Nm}{\pi^2 r_{\rm F}^6}
\left(r_{\rm F}^2-r^2\right)^{3/2},
\label{scdensity}$$ where $N$ is the total number of atoms in the trap, and $r_{\rm F} =
\sqrt{2\mu_{\rm F}/m\omega^2}$, with $\mu_{\rm F} = (3N)^{1/3}\hbar\omega$. From Eq.(\[Econservation\]) we obtain $P_0/\rho_0=\omega^2(r_{\rm F}^2-r^2)/5$, so Eq.(\[uequation\]) becomes $$\partial_t^2{\mathbf{u}}=
\frac{\omega^2}{3}\nabla\left[(r_{\rm F}^2-r^2)\nabla{\mathbf{u}}\right]-
\omega^2\nabla({\mathbf{ur}}).$$ As the right hand side of this equation is a pure gradient, the sound modes can be found by considering potential flow. Equation (\[Pconservation\]) and the continuity equation then decouple, to yield $$\label{zeroTeqn}
\partial^2_t\delta\rho=\omega^2\left[
1-\frac{r}{3}\partial_r + \frac{1}{3}(r_{\rm F}^2 -
r^2)\nabla^2\right]\delta\rho.$$ Eq.(\[zeroTeqn\]) clearly separates in spherical polar coordinates ($r,\theta,\phi$), so we invoke the eigenfunction expansion, $$\label{separation}
\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}, t)=
\sum_{nlm}e^{i\omega_{nl}t}
\delta\rho_{nl}(r) Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi) ,$$ where $n$ is an eigenvalue index, $\omega_{nl}$ a sound eigenfrequency, and $\delta\rho_{nl}(r)$ the corresponding density fluctuation eigenfunction (with a normalization to be determined by boundary conditions). Substituting Eq.(\[separation\]) into Eq.(\[zeroTeqn\]) gives an ordinary differential equation with three regular singular points, and the condition that $\delta\rho_{nl}(r)$ be finite at all $r$ yields the eigenfrequencies [@Amoruso] $$\omega_s=\frac{2\omega}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{n^2+2n+ln+3l/4}
\label{spectrum}$$ and the (unnormalized) eigenfunctions $$\delta\rho_{nl}(r) =
r^l \sqrt{r_{\rm F}^2 - r^2}\ _2F_1[-n, l+2+n, l+3/2; (r/r_F)^2]
\label{normalmodes}$$ where $n = 0, 1, 2, . . .,$ and $_2F_1$ is the usual hypergeometric function [@Abramowitz], which is equivalent to the Jacobi polynomial $P_n^{(l+1/2,1/2)}$. For $l=0$, the solutions reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\rho(r)_{n0}\propto\sin[(2n+2)\arccos(r/r_F)]/r\nonumber\\
\propto\sqrt{1-r^2/r_F^2}U_{2n+1}(r/r_F)/r\end{aligned}$$ with $U_n(x)$ being the Chebyshev polynomials. Note that the zero-frequency solution, $\omega_{00}=0$, is associated with a mode, $\delta\rho_{00}(r) = (1-r^2/r_F^2)^{1/2}$, which corresponds to an infinitesimal change in the number of particles in the system \[see Eq.(\[scdensity\])\]. It is therefore not a physical sound mode. All other modes described by Eqs.(\[spectrum\]-\[normalmodes\]) are particle conserving \[i.e. $\int d^3r\delta\rho_n(r)=0$\], as required. The lowest frequency for a given $l$ is $\omega_{l0}=\sqrt{l}\omega$, a result first derived by Griffin *et al*. [@Griffin] The $\omega_{10}=\omega$ mode corresponds to the lowest center-of-mass oscillation. As noted by Griffin *et al.*[@Griffin], only modes for which $\nabla {\mathbf{u}}\neq constant$ depend on the statistics (i.e. $P_0/\rho_0$) of the atoms as can be seen directly from Eq.(\[uequation\]). By calculating the complete sound spectrum, we have found these modes. From $\nabla^2[r^lY_{lm}(\theta,\phi)]=0$, we see that for any angular momentum, the lowest observed mode does not depend on the statistics of the gas whereas the higher ones ($n>1$ for $l=0$ and $n>0$ for $l>0$) do.
We now consider the high $T$ regime where the de Broglie wavelength is much smaller than the interparticle spacing and the gas approaches the classical limit. However, we assume sufficiently low temperatures such that the density is high enough for the hydrodynamic approximation to be valid. To find the sound modes in this regime, we need to return to Eq.(\[uequation\]) as the pressure is now not related to the density in a simple way. For $l=0$, the velocity field is irrotational and we write ${\mathbf{u}}=\nabla [p_n(x)]$, where $p_n$ is a polynomial in $x=r/r_{\rm TF}$ with $r_{\rm TF}=\sqrt{k_{\rm B}T/m\omega^2}$. Using $P_0/\rho_0=k_{\rm B}T/m$, we find the sound frequencies $$\label{classical}
\omega_{0n}=\omega\sqrt{10n/3+4}$$ with $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. The corresponding density fluctuations are given by $$\delta\rho(r)\propto (2/r+\partial_r)[e^{-\beta
m\omega^2r^2/2}\partial_rp_n(r/r_F)]$$ where $\partial_xp_n(x)=x[b_0+b_2x^2+\ldots+b_{2n}x^{2n}]$. As expected, we recover the $\omega_s=2\omega$ mode which, since $\nabla {\mathbf{u}}=constant$, is independent of the particular form of $P_0/\rho_0$. However, the higher modes ($\nabla {\mathbf{u}}\neq constant$) do depend on the statistics as can be seen by comparing Eq.(\[spectrum\]) with $l=0$ and Eq.(\[classical\]). For general angular momentum $l$, the analysis is somewhat complicated by the fact that the velocity modes are not irrotational. Writing ${\mathbf{u}}=-\nabla\psi+\nabla\times{\mathbf{A}}$ and $2{\mathbf{r}}\nabla{\mathbf{u}}/3=-\nabla\tilde{\psi}+\nabla\times\tilde{{\mathbf{A}}}$, we obtain from Eq.(\[uequation\]) the coupled equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t^2\psi&=&\frac{5k_{\rm
B}T}{3m}\nabla^2\psi-\omega^2(\nabla\psi-\nabla\times{\mathbf{A}})
{\mathbf{r}}-\omega^2\tilde{\psi}\\
\partial_t^2(\nabla\times{\mathbf{A}})&=&-\omega^2\nabla\times\tilde{{\mathbf{A}}}.\end{aligned}$$ They are solved by writing $\psi_{nl}=p_{nl}(x)x^lY_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$ with $p_{nl}=a_{0l}+a_{2l}x^2+\ldots+a_{2nl}x^{2n}$. The spectrum is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{classicall}
\frac{\omega_s^2}{\omega^2}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{5}{3}(l+2n+2/5)\right.\nonumber\\
&\pm&\left. \sqrt{(l+2n+2/5)^225/9-l(l+1)8/3}\phantom{\frac{5}{3}}\right]\end{aligned}$$ with $n=0,1,2,\dots$. The result $\omega_s=\sqrt{l}\omega$ for the lowest mode for a given $l$ independent of statistics is recovered as expected. Again, by comparing Eq.(\[spectrum\]) and Eq.(\[classicall\]) we see that the higher modes depend on the functional form of the density profile. The corresponding density fluctuations obtained from the continuity equation are $\delta\rho_{nl}\propto\exp(-x^2/2)
x^l[\tilde{a}_{0l}+\tilde{a}_{2l}x^2+\ldots+\tilde{a}_{2nl}x^{2n}]Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$. Using this, it is easy to show that the density fluctuations are particle conserving. The high $T$ sound frequencies are independent of $T$ which is a special property of the harmonic trap. One should note that the hydrodynamic approximation starts to break down for the high lying modes ($n$ large) when the characteristic wavelength of these modes becomes comparable to the mean free path.
The eigenfrequencies given by subtracting the square root in Eq.(\[classicall\]) (for $n\ge 1$) represent an interesting class of solutions. These modes have *decreasing* frequency with increasing wave number which is characteristic for the so-called internal waves. Internal waves are present in general when the equilibrium density profile is stratified by an external force. They are, contrary to ordinary sound, essentially driven by the external force giving rise to the unusual relation between frequency and wave number. [@Lighthill] A detection of these modes would be a very useful experimental verification of a general result in the theory of hydrodynamics.
We will now turn to possible experimental implications of the results presented. As mentioned above, in order to achieve the hydrodynamic limit $\omega\tau\ll 1$ one should trap the relevant fermionic atoms in two hyperfine states. We need to examine the effect of the Fermi blocking on the scattering rate of the atoms. In the presence of a Fermi sea, the low energy lifetime $\tau$ of a quasiparticle for low temperatures is $\tau_{class}/\tau\propto (T/T_{\rm F})^2$ where $\tau_{class}^{-1}\simeq \rho_\sigma\sigma_0\langle v\rangle/m$ is the classical scattering rate, $T_F=\mu_F/k_B$, and $\langle v\rangle$ is the thermal velocity of the atoms. For the energies relevant for the present problem, only $s-$wave scattering between atoms in different hyperfine states is important and $\sigma_0=4\pi a^2$ where $a$ is the $s-$wave scattering length. The $(T/T_{\rm F})^2$ factor reflects the increasing Fermi blocking of the scattering states with decreasing temperature. [@Pines] For $T\ge\mathcal{O}(T_F)$, the Fermi blocking becomes negligible, and $\tau^{-1}\simeq\tau^{-1}_{class}$. As $\langle v\rangle\propto T^{1/2}$ and $\rho(0)\propto T^{-3/2}$, we have $\tau^{-1}_{class}\propto T^{-1}$. Thus, both for $T\rightarrow 0$ and $T\rightarrow \infty$ the gas is in the collisionless regime and we need to examine in which region of the phase diagram the hydrodynamic description presented in this paper is valid. We will concentrate on the two atoms $^6$Li and $^{40}$K and assume a trapping frequency of $\nu=\omega/2\pi=144$Hz approximating typical experimental conditions. Of course, by altering the trapping frequency one can change the regions where the hydrodynamic approximation is valid.
For $^6$Li, the scattering length is $a\simeq -2160a_0$ where $a_0$ is the Bohr radius. [@Abraham] This large value should mean that the hydrodynamic description is valid in large regions of the phase diagram. Indeed, using $\nu=144$Hz and assuming that there is $10^6$ particles trapped in each hyperfine state, we obtain that the hydrodynamic approximation is accurate down to temperatures $T\sim 0.1T_{\rm F}$. For such low temperatures, the gas is in the Fermi degenerate regime and we expect Eqs.(\[spectrum\]-\[normalmodes\]) to give a good description of the sound modes. As $T$ is increased to $T\sim T_F$, $P_0/\rho_0$ approaches the classical form and the sound spectrum is given by Eq.(\[classicall\]). Since the scattering length for $^6$Li is so large, the collisionless limit is only reached for a relatively low density ( $T\gg T_F$ for N=$2\times 10^6$). Thus, for a wide temperature range the hydrodynamic approximation is valid and the sound spectrum should be independent of $T$ and given by Eq.(\[classicall\]). The onset of Fermi degeneracy for $T<T_F$ should show up in a $T$ dependence of the sound spectrum as it changes from Eq.(\[classicall\]) to Eq.(\[spectrum\]) with decreasing $T$ reflecting the change in the functional form of $P_0/\rho_0$. Eventually, for $T\gg T_F$ we have $\omega\tau\sim 1$ and the damping of the modes becomes large [@Pines; @Guery; @Kavoulakis]. For higher $T$, the gas is in the collisionless regime. In this regime, the frequencies approach the single particle spectrum, e.g. $\omega_s\simeq 2n\omega$ for $l=0$, as the effect of the interactions decrease with decreasing density [@Vichi]. Of course, by trapping more/fewer atoms one can increase/decrease the temperature region where the hydrodynamic description is valid.
The spectrum given by Eq.(\[spectrum\]) coincide with the $T=0$ collective mode spectrum in the BCS state. [@Baranov] Thus, the density-fluctuation spectrum in the hydrodynamic limit of the normal phase and in the superfluid phase is the same. This generalizes the well-known result for homogeneous systems, [@Schrieffer] to the case of trapped systems. The effect of the superfluid correlations on the various collective modes in general has been examined in detail for homogeneous systems. [@Vaks]
For $^{40}$K, the situation is very different since the scattering length $152a_0\leq a\leq542a_0$ is much smaller. [@Bohn] Therefore, in order to reach the hydrodynamic regime one needs to trap at least $\sim 10^8$ atoms in each hyperfine state. Alternatively, one could increase the scattering rate by adjusting an external magnetic field to achieve a Feshbach resonance. This latter procedure is also expected to be necessary to obtain a large and negative scattering length in order to get an experimentally realistic transition temperature $T_c$ for the BCS transition. Therefore, although the treatment of the sound modes put forward in this paper does not describe the present experimental situation for $^{40}$K, one might expect it to be relevant for future experiments.
Of course, Eq.(\[classical\]) and Eq.(\[classicall\]) are still valid for high temperatures for a bosonic gas in the hydrodynamic regime. As an additional result, we therefore suggest that one should also be able to observe the transition from the classical to the quantum regime for a Bose gas by looking at the change in the sound spectrum. The modes for high $T$ are presented in this paper whereas the modes in the BEC limit are described in ref. [@Stringari].
For an anisotropic gas, a calculation of the higher ($\nabla{\mathbf{u}}\neq constant$) modes is somewhat cumbersome algebraically. However, although the spectrum will be different, the qualitative behavior is the same as for the isotropic case presented here: the modes are still independent of $T$ in the classical limit and one should be able to detect the onset of Fermi degeneracy by looking for a $T$-dependence of the modes. Thus, the main conclusions of the paper remain valid for the anisotropic case.
In conclusion, we have analyzed the collective modes of a dilute trapped Fermi gas in the hydrodynamic limit. Analytical results both in the low and high $T$ limit for modes which depend on the density profile of the cloud were presented. This lead to the proposal of a straightforward method to detect the onset of Fermi degeneracy. We found an interesting class of internal modes which have decreasing frequency for increasing wave number. Furthermore, the analysis presented for the high $T$ spectrum should also be valid for the case of trapped bosons. Our analysis should have direct relevance to current experiments on $^6$Li atoms and to possible future experiments on $^{40}$K.
We appreciate useful discussions with D. J. Allwright, H. Ockendon, and D. S. Jin.
[99]{} M. H. Anderson *et al*., Science **269**, 198 (1995); K. B. Davis *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 3969 (1995); C. C. Bradley *et al*., *ibid*. **78**, 985 (1997). see *e.g.* F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringary, Rev. Mod. Phys. **71**, 463 (1999); the Georgia Southern University BEC Home Page, amo.phy.gasou.edu/bec.html B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, Science **285**, 1703 (1999) M.-O. Mewes, G. Ferrari, F. Schreck, A. Sinatra, and C. Salomon, physics/9909007 (September 6, 1999) D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. A **55**, 4346 (1997) J. Schneider and H. Wallis, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 1253 (1998) G. M. Bruun and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A **58**, 2427 (1998) H. T. C. Stoof, M. Houbiers, C. A. Sackett, and R.G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 10 (1996) G. M. Bruun, Y. Castin, R. Dum, and K. Burnett, Eur. Phys. J. D **7**, 433 (1999) D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 420 (1996) M.-O. Mewes *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett.**77**, 988 (1996) D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 764 (1997) D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, S. Inouye, M.R. Andrews, and W. Ketterlee, Phys. Rev. Lett.**81**, 500 (1998) M. Edwards, P. A. Ruprecht, K. Burnett, R. J. Dodd, and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 1671 (1996) R. J. Dodd, M. Edwards, C. W. Clark, and K.Burnett, Phys. Rev. A **57**, R32 (1998) S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 2360 (1996) Y. Castin and R. Dum, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 5315 (1996) D. Pines and P. Nozières, *The Theory of Quantum Liquids* (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1966), Vol. 1 B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. A **58**, 4267 (1998) K. Goeke and J. Speth, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. **32**, 65 (1982); G. F. Bertsch, P. F. Bortignon, and R. A. Broglia, Rev. Mod. Phys. **55**, 287 (1983) L. Vichi and S. Stringari, cond-mat/9905154 Very recently, this result was derived independently by M. Amoruso, I. Meccoli, A. Minguzzi, and M. P. Tosi, Eur. Phys. J. D **7**, 441 (1999) A. Griffin, W.-C. Wu, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev.Lett. **78**, 1838 (1997) M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Editors), *Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1964) J. Lighthill, *Waves in Fluids*, Chapter 4 (Cambridge University Press, 1978) E. R. I. Abraham, W. I. McAlexander, J. M. Gerton, R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A **55**, R3299 (1997) G. M. Kavoulakis, C. J. Pethick, and H. Smith, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 2938 (1998) M. A. Baranov and P. S. Petrov, cond-mat/9901108 J. R. Schrieffer, *Theory of Superconductivity* (Benjamin, New York, 1964) See for example, V. G. Vaks, V. M. Galitskii, and A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP **14**, 1177 (1962); A. J. Legget, Phys. Rev. **147**, 119 (1966) J. L. Bohn *et al*., Phys. Rev. A **59**, 3660 (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$, the extended Morava stabilizer group. Let $E_n$ be the Lubin-Tate spectrum, $X$ an arbitrary spectrum with trivial $G$-action, and let ${\hat{L}}=L_{K(n)}$. We prove that ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum with homotopy fixed point spectrum $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG},$ defined with respect to the continuous action. Also, we construct a descent spectral sequence whose abutment is $\pi_\ast (({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}).$ We show that the homotopy fixed points of ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ come from the $K(n)$-localization of the homotopy fixed points of the spectrum $(F_n \wedge X)$.'
author:
- 'Daniel G. Davis$\sp *$'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'January 12, 2005'
title: 'Homotopy fixed points for $L_{K(n)}(E_n \wedge X)$ using the continuous action'
---
Introduction {#first}
============
Let $E_n$ be the Lubin-Tate spectrum with $E_{n \ast}=W{[\negthinspace[}u_1,...,u_{n-1} {]\negthinspace]}[u^{\pm 1}]$, where the degree of $u$ is $-2$, and the complete power series ring over the Witt vectors $W =W(\mathbb{F}_{p^n})$ is in degree zero. Let $S_n$ denote the $n$th Morava stabilizer group, the automorphism group of the Honda formal group law $\Gamma_n$ of height $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Then let $G_n=S_n\rtimes\mathrm{Gal},$ where $\mathrm{Gal}$ is the Galois group $\mathrm{Gal}(\mathbb{F}_{p^n}/{\mathbb{F}_p})$, and let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$. Morava’s change of rings theorem yields a spectral sequence $$\label{ss}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}H^\ast_c(G_n;\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge X))\Rightarrow\pi_\ast {\hat{L}}(X),$$ where the $E_2$-term is continuous cohomology, $X$ is a finite spectrum, and ${\hat{L}}$ is Bousfield localization with respect to $K(n)_\ast = \mathbb{F}_p[v_n, v_n^{-1}],$ where $K(n)$ is Morava $K$-theory (see [@HMS Prop. 7.4], [@Morava]). Using the $G_n$-action on $E_n$ by maps of commutative $S$-algebras (work of Goerss and Hopkins ([@AndreQuillen], [@Pgg/Hop0]), and Hopkins and Miller [@Rezk]), Devinatz and Hopkins [@DH] construct spectra $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ with strongly convergent spectral sequences $$\label{lastlabel}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}H^s_c(G;\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}\wedge
X).$$ Also, they show that $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G_n}
\simeq {\hat{L}}(S^0),$ so that $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G_n} \wedge X
\simeq {\hat{L}}(X).$
We recall from [@DH Rk. 1.3] the definition of the continuous cohomology that appears above (see also Lemma \[help2\]). Let $I_n = (p, u_1, ..., u_{n-1})
\subset
E_{n \ast}$. The isomorphism $\pi_t(E_n \wedge X) =
\mathrm{lim} \, _k \,
\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)/{I_n^k\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)}$ presents $\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)$ as the inverse limit of finite discrete $G$-modules. Then the above continuous cohomology is defined by $$H^s_c(G;\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)) = \mathrm{lim} \, _k \,
H^s_c(G;\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)/{I_n^k\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)}).$$
We compare the spectrum $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ and spectral sequence (\[lastlabel\]) with constructions for homotopy fixed point spectra. When $K$ is a discrete group and $Y$ is a $K$-spectrum of topological spaces, there is a homotopy fixed point spectrum $Y^{hK}=\mathrm{Map}_K(EK_+, Y),$ where $EK$ is a free contractible $K$-space. Also, there is a descent spectral sequence $$E_2^{s,t} =
H^s(K;\pi_t(Y)) \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(Y^{hK}),$$ where the $E_2$-term is group cohomology [@Mitchell §1.1].
Now let $K$ be a profinite group. If $S$ is a $K$-set, then $S$ is a [*discrete $K$-set*]{} if the action map $K \times S
\rightarrow S$ is continuous, where $S$ is given the discrete topology. Then, a [*discrete $K$-spectrum*]{} $Y$ is a $K$-spectrum of simplicial sets, such that each simplicial set $Y_k$ is a simplicial discrete $K$-set (that is, for each $l \geq 0$, $Y_{k,l}$ is a discrete $K$-set, and all the face and degeneracy maps are $K$-equivariant). Then, due to work of Jardine and Thomason, as explained in Sections \[disdef\] and \[hfps\], there is a homotopy fixed point spectrum $Y^{hK}$ defined with respect to the continuous action of $K$, and, in nice situations, a descent spectral sequence $$H^s_c(K; \pi_t(Y)) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(Y^{hK}),$$ where the $E_2$-term is the continuous cohomology of $K$ with coefficients in the discrete $K$-module $\pi_t(Y)$.
Notice that we use the notation $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ for the construction of Devinatz and Hopkins, and $(-)^{hK}$ for homotopy fixed points with respect to a continuous action, although henceforth, when $K$ is finite and $Y$ is a $K$-spectrum of topological spaces, we write $Y^{h'K}$ for $\mathrm{holim}
\, _K \, Y$, which is an equivalent definition of the homotopy fixed point spectrum $\mathrm{Map}_K(EK_+, Y)$.
After comparing the spectral sequence for $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}
\wedge X$ with the descent spectral sequence for $Y^{hK}$, $E_n
\wedge X$ appears to be a continuous $G_n$-spectrum with “descent” spectral sequences for “homotopy fixed point spectra” $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}\wedge X.$ Indeed, we apply [@DH] to show that $E_n \wedge X$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum; that is, $E_n \wedge X$ is the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrant discrete $G_n$-spectra. Using this continuous action, we define the homotopy fixed point spectrum $(E_n\wedge X)^{hG}$ and construct its descent spectral sequence.
In more detail, the $K(n)$-local spectrum $E_n$ has an action by the profinite group $G_n$ through maps of commutative $S$-algebras. The spectrum $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$, a $K(n)$-local commutative $S$-algebra, is referred to as a “homotopy fixed point spectrum” because it has the following desired properties: (a) for any finite spectrum $X$, there exists spectral sequence (\[lastlabel\]), which has the form of a descent spectral sequence; (b) when $G$ is finite, there is a weak equivalence $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G} \rightarrow E_n^{h'G},$ and the descent spectral sequence for $E_n^{h'G}$ is isomorphic to spectral sequence (\[lastlabel\]) (when $X=S^0$) [@DH Thm. 3]; and (c) $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ is an $N(G)/G$-spectrum, where $N(G)$ is the normalizer of $G$ in $G_n$ [@DH pg. 5]. Thus, their constructions strongly suggest that $G_n$ acts on $E_n$ in a continuous sense.
However, in [@DH], the action of $G_n$ on $E_n$ is not proven to be continuous, and $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ is not defined with respect to a continuous $G$-action. Also, when $G$ is profinite, homotopy fixed points should always be the total right derived functor of fixed points, in some sense, and, in [@DH], it is not shown that the “homotopy fixed point spectrum” $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ can be obtained through such a total right derived functor.
After introducing some notation, we state the main results of this paper. Let $BP$ be the Brown-Peterson spectrum with $BP_\ast =
{\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}[v_1, v_2, ...]$, where the degree of $v_i$ is $2(p^i-1).$ The ideal $(p^{i_0}, v_1^{i_1},
..., v_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}) \subset BP_\ast$ is denoted by $I$; $M_I$ is the corresponding generalized Moore spectrum $M(p^{i_0}, v_1^{i_1}, ..., v_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}),$ a trivial $G_n$-spectrum. Given an ideal $I$, $M_I$ need not exist; however, enough exist for our constructions. The spectrum $M_I$ is a finite type $n$ spectrum with $BP_\ast(M_I) \cong BP_\ast/I.$ The set $\{i_0, ..., i_{n-1}\}$ of superscripts varies so that there is a family of ideals $\{I\}$. ([@Moravamodules §4], [@HS §4], and [@Mahowald/Sadofsky Prop. 3.7] provide details for our statements about the spectra $M_I$.) The map $r \:
BP_\ast \rightarrow E_{n \ast}$ - defined by $r(v_i) =
u_iu^{1-p^i}$, where $u_n=1$ and $u_i = 0$, when $i > n$ - makes $E_{n \ast}$ a $BP_\ast$-module. Then, by the Landweber exact functor theorem for $BP$, $\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge M_I) \cong
E_{n \ast}/I.$
The collection $\{I\}$ contains a descending chain of ideals $\{I_0 \supset I_1 \supset I_2 \supset \cdots \}$, such that there exists a corresponding tower of generalized Moore spectra $\{M_{I_0} \leftarrow M_{I_1} \leftarrow M_{I_2} \leftarrow
\cdots\}.$ In what follows, the functors $\mathrm{lim} \, _I$ and $\mathrm{holim} \, _I$ are always taken over the tower of ideals $\{I_i\},$ so that $\mathrm{lim} \, _I$ and $\mathrm{holim} \, _I$ are really $\mathrm{lim} \, _{I_i}$ and $\mathrm{holim} \, _{I_i},$ respectively. Also, in this paper, the homotopy limit of spectra, holim, is constructed levelwise in $\mathcal{S}$, the category of simplicial sets, as defined in [@Bousfield/Kan] and [@Thomason 5.6].
As in [@DH (1.4)], let ${G_n}= U_0 \gneq U_1 \gneq \cdots
\gneq
U_i \gneq \cdots$ be a descending chain of open normal subgroups, such that $\bigcap \hspace{.25pt} _{i} \, U_i = \{e\}$ and the canonical map ${G_n}\rightarrow \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, {G_n}/{U_i}$ is a homeomorphism. We define $$F_n =
\mathrm{colim} \, _i \, E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}.$$ Then the key to getting our work started is knowing that $$E_n \wedge M_I \simeq F_n \wedge M_I,$$ and thus, $E_n \wedge
M_I$ has the homotopy type of the discrete $G_n$-spectrum $F_n \wedge M_I.$ This result (Corollary \[Rezk\]) is not difficult, thanks to the work of Devinatz and Hopkins.
Given a tower $\{Z_I\}$ of discrete $G_n$-spectra, there is a tower $\{(Z_I)_f\},$ with $G_n$-equivariant maps $Z_I \rightarrow
(Z_I)_f$ that are weak equivalences, and $(Z_I)_f$ is a fibrant discrete $G_n$-spectrum (see Def. \[fibrep\]). For the remainder of this section, $X$ is any spectrum with trivial $G_n$-action. We use $\cong$ to denote an isomorphism in the stable homotopy category.
\[theorem\]\[m1\] As the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrant discrete $G_n$-spectra, $E_n \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge
M_I)_f$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum. Also, for any spectrum $X$, ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) \cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)_f$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
Using the hypercohomology spectra of Thomason [@Thomason], and the theory of pre- sheaves of spectra on a site and globally fibrant models, developed by Jardine (e.g. [@Jardinejpaa], [@Jardinecanada], [@Jardine], [@Jardinesummary]), we present the theory of homotopy fixed points for discrete $G$-spectra by considering the site of finite discrete $G$-sets. Using the fact that $G_n$ has finite virtual cohomological dimension, Thomason’s hypercohomology spectrum gives a concrete model for the homotopy fixed points that makes building the descent spectral sequence easy. We apply this theory to define homotopy fixed points for towers of discrete $G$-spectra.
We point out that much of the theory described above (in Sections 3, 5, 7, and 8, through Remark \[l-adic\]) is already known, in some form, especially in the work of Jardine mentioned above, in the excellent article [@Mitchell], by Mitchell (see also the opening remark of [@hypercohomology §5]), and in Goerss’s paper [@hGal]. However, since the above theory has not been explained in detail before, using the language of homotopy fixed points for discrete $G$-spectra, we give a presentation of it.
After defining homotopy fixed points for towers of discrete $G$-spectra, we show that these homotopy fixed points are the total right derived functor of fixed points in the appropriate sense, and we construct the associated descent spectral sequence. This enables us to define the homotopy fixed point spectrum $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$, using the continuous $G_n$-action, and construct its descent spectral sequence. More specifically, we have the following results.
Given a profinite group $G$, let $\mathcal{O}_G$ be the [ *orbit category*]{} of $G$. The objects of $\mathcal{O}_G$ are the continuous left $G$-spaces $G/K$, for all $K$ closed in $G$, and the morphisms are the continuous $G$-equivariant maps. Note that each object in $\mathcal{O}_G$ is a profinite space.
We use ${Sp}$ to denote the model category $\mathrm{(spectra)}^\mathrm{stable}$ of Bousfield-Friedlander spectra.
\[m2\] There is a functor $$P \: (\mathcal{O}_{G_n})^\mathrm{op}
\rightarrow Sp, \ \ \ P(G_n/G) = E_n^{hG},$$ where $G$ is any closed subgroup of $G_n$.
We also show that the $G$-homotopy fixed points of ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ can be obtained by taking the $K(n)$-localization of the $G$-homotopy fixed points of the discrete $G$-spectrum $(F_n \wedge X)$. This result shows that the spectrum $F_n$ is an interesting spectrum that is worth further study.
\[m3\] For any closed subgroup $G$ and any spectrum $X$, there is an isomorphism $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} \cong {\hat{L}}((F_n \wedge X )^{hG})$$ in the stable homotopy category. In particular, $E_n^{hG} \cong {\hat{L}}(F_n^{hG})$.
\[m4\] Let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$ and let $X$ be any spectrum. Then there is a conditionally convergent descent spectral sequence $$\label{nice2}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}E_2^{s,t} \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}).$$ If the tower of abelian groups $\{\pi_t(E_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)\}_I$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, for each $t \in
{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $$E_2^{s,t} \cong H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\pi_t({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge
X))),$$ the cohomology of continuous cochains. If $X$ is a finite spectrum, then (\[nice2\]) has the form $$\label{nice}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}H^s_c(G;
\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)) \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}((E_n \wedge
X)^{hG}),$$ where the $E_2$-term is the continuous cohomology of $\mathrm{(}\ref{lastlabel}\mathrm{)}$.
Also, Theorem \[final\] shows that, when $X$ is finite, $(E_n \wedge X)^{hG} \cong E_n^{hG} \wedge X$, so that descent spectral sequence (\[nice\]) has the same form as spectral sequence (\[lastlabel\]). It is natural to wonder if these two spectral sequences are isomorphic to each other. Also, the spectra $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ and $E_n^{hG}$ should be the same. We plan to say more about the relationship between $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ and $E_n^{hG}$ and their associated spectral sequences in future work.
It is important to note that the model given here for $E_n$ as a continuous ${G_n}$-spectrum is not completely satisfactory, since the continuous action is by morphisms that are just maps of spectra. Because there are models for $E_n$ where the ${G_n}$-action is by $A_\infty$- and $E_\infty$-maps of ring spectra, we would like to know that such structured actions are actually continuous.
We outline the contents of this paper. In Section 2, after establishing some notation and terminology, we provide some background material and recall useful facts. In Section 3, we study the model category of discrete $G$-spectra. In Section 4, we study towers of discrete $G$-spectra and we give a definition of continuous $G$-spectrum. In Section 5, we define homotopy fixed points for discrete $G$-spectra and state some basic facts about this concept. Section 6 shows that $E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum, proving the first half of Theorem \[m1\]. Section 7 constructs two useful models of the $G$-homotopy fixed point spectrum, when $G$ has finite virtual cohomological dimension. Section 8 defines homotopy fixed points for towers of discrete $G$-spectra, builds a descent spectral sequence in this setting, and shows that these homotopy fixed points are a total right derived functor, in the appropriate sense. Section 9 completes the proof of Theorem \[m1\], studies $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$, and proves Theorems \[m2\] and \[m3\]. Section 10 considers the descent spectral sequence for $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$ and proves Theorem \[m4\].
**Acknowledgements.** This paper is a development of part of my thesis. I am very grateful to my thesis advisor, Paul Goerss, for many helpful conversations and useful suggestions regarding this paper. Also, I thank Ethan Devinatz for very helpful answers to my questions about his work [@DH] with Mike Hopkins. I am grateful to Halvard Fausk, Christian Haesemeyer, Rick Jardine, and Charles Rezk for useful conversations.
Notation, Terminology, and Preliminaries {#prelims}
========================================
We begin by establishing some notation and terminology that will be used throughout the paper. $\mathbf{Ab}$ is the category of abelian groups. Outside of $\mathbf{Ab}$, all groups are assumed to be profinite, unless stated otherwise. For a group $G$, we write $G \cong
\mathrm{lim} \, _{N} \, G/{N}$, the inverse limit over the open normal subgroups. The notation $H < _c G$ means that $H$ is a closed subgroup of $G$. We use $G$ to denote arbitrary profinite groups and, specifically, closed subgroups of $G_n$.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category. A tower $\{C_i\}$ of objects in $\mathcal{C}$ is a diagram in $\mathcal{C}$ of the form $\cdots
\rightarrow C_i \rightarrow C_{i-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow
C_1 \rightarrow C_0.$ We always use Bousfield-Friedlander spectra [@BF], except when another category of spectra is specified. If $\mathcal{C}$ is a model category, then $\mathrm{Ho}(\mathcal{C})$ is its homotopy category. The phrase “stable category” always refers to $\mathrm{Ho}(Sp)$.
In $\mathcal{S}$, the category of simplicial sets, $S^n =
\Delta^n/{\partial \Delta^n}$ is the $n$-sphere. Given a spectrum $X$, $X^{(0)}=S^0$, and for $j\geq 1$, $X^{(j)} = X \wedge X \wedge
\cdots
\wedge X,$ with $j$ factors. $L_n$ denotes Bousfield localization with respect to $E(n)_\ast
\negthinspace = \negthinspace
{\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}[v_1, ..., v_{n-1}][v_n,v_n^{-1}]$.
[@Hoveybook Def. 1.3.1] Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ be model categories. The functor $F \: \mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is a [ *left Quillen functor*]{} if $F$ is a left adjoint that preserves cofibrations and trivial cofibrations. The functor $P \:
\mathcal{D} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ is a [*right Quillen functor*]{} if $P$ is a right adjoint that preserves fibrations and trivial fibrations. Also, if $F$ and $P$ are an adjoint pair and left and right Quillen functors, respectively, then $(F,P)$ is a [ *Quillen pair*]{} for the model categories $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})$.
Recall [@Hoveybook Lemma 1.3.10] that a Quillen pair $(F,P)$ yields total left and right derived functors $\mathbf{L}F$ and $\mathbf{R}P$, respectively, which give an adjunction between the homotopy categories $\mathrm{Ho}(\mathcal{C})$ and $\mathrm{Ho}(\mathcal{D})$.
We use $\mathrm{Map}_c(G, A) = \Gamma_G(A)$ to denote the set of continuous maps from $G$ to the topological space $A$, where $A$ is often a set, equipped with the discrete topology, or a discrete abelian group. Instead of $\Gamma_G (A)$, sometimes we write just $\Gamma (A)$, when the $G$ is understood from context. Let $(\Gamma_G)^k (A)$ denote $(\Gamma_G \, \Gamma_G
\cdots \Gamma_G)(A)$, the application of $\Gamma_G$ to $A$, iteratively, $k+1$ times, where $k \geq 0$. Let $G^k$ be the $k$-fold product of $G$ and let $G^0=\ast$. Then, if $A$ is a discrete set or a discrete abelian group, there is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism $(\Gamma_G)^k(A) \cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k+1},A)$ of discrete $G$-sets (modules), where $\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k+1},M)$ has $G$-action defined by $$(g' \cdot
f)(g_1, ..., g_{k+1}) = f(g_1g', g_2, g_3, ..., g_{k+1}).$$ Also, we often write $\Gamma_G^k(A)$, or $\Gamma^k A$, for $\mathrm{Map}_c(G^k,A).$
Let $A$ be a discrete abelian group. Then $\mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^k,A)$ is the discrete $G_n$-module of continuous maps $G_n^k \rightarrow A$ with action defined by $$(g' \cdot
f)(g_1, ..., g_k) = f((g')^{-1}g_1, g_2, g_3, ..., g_k).$$ It is helpful to note that there is a $G_n$-equivariant isomorphism of discrete $G_n$-modules $$p \: \mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^k,A)
\rightarrow
\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^k,A), \ \ p(f)(g_1, g_2, ..., g_k) =
f(g_1^{-1},g_2, ..., g_k).$$ $\mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^k,A)$ is also defined when $A$ is an inverse limit of discrete abelian groups.
By a [*topological $G$-module*]{}, we mean an abelian Hausdorff topological group that is a $G$-module, with a continuous $G$-action. Note that if $M = \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, M_i$ is the inverse limit of a tower $\{M_i\}$ of discrete $G$-modules, then $M$ is a topological $G$-module.
For the remainder of this section, we recall some frequently used facts and discuss background material, to help get our work started.
In [@DH], Devinatz and Hopkins, using work by Goerss and Hopkins ([@AndreQuillen], [@Pgg/Hop0]), and Hopkins and Miller [@Rezk], show that the action of ${G_n}$ on $E_n$ is by maps of commutative $S$-algebras. Previously, Hopkins and Miller had shown that $G_n$ acts on $E_n$ by maps of $A_\infty$-ring spectra. However, the continuous action presented here is not structured. As already mentioned, the starting point for the continuous action is the spectrum $F_n \wedge M_I$, which is not known to be an $A_\infty$-ring object in the category of discrete $G_n$-spectra. Thus, we work in the unstructured category $Sp$ of Bousfield-Friedlander spectra of simplicial sets, and the continuous action is simply by maps of spectra.
As mentioned above, [@DH] is written using $E_\infty$, the category of commutative $S$-algebras, and $\mathcal{M}_S$, the category of $S$-modules (see [@EKMM]). However, [@HSS §4.2], [@mmss §14, §19], and [@Schwede pp. 529-530] show that $\mathcal{M}_S$ and $Sp$ are Quillen equivalent model categories [@Hoveybook §1.3.3]. Thus, we can import the results of Devinatz and Hopkins from $\mathcal{M}_S$ into $Sp$. For example, [@DH Thm. 1] implies the following result, where $R^+_{{G_n}}$ is the category whose objects are finite discrete left ${G_n}$-sets and $G_n$ itself (a continuous profinite left ${G_n}$-space), and whose morphisms are continuous ${G_n}$-equivariant maps.
There is a presheaf of spectra $$F \colon
(R^+_{{G_n}})^{\mathrm{op}}
\rightarrow Sp,$$ such that (a) for each $S \in R^+_{{G_n}}$, $F(S)$ is $K(n)$-local; (b) $F({G_n}) = E_n$; (c) for $U$ an open subgroup of ${G_n}$, $E_n^{\mathtt{h}U} := F({G_n}/U)$; and (d) $F(\ast) = E_n^{\mathtt{h}{G_n}} \simeq {\hat{L}}S^0.$
Now we define a spectrum that is essential to our constructions.
\[center\] Let $F_n = \mathrm{colim} \, _i \,
E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i},$ where the direct limit is in $Sp$. Because $\mathrm{Hom}_{G_n}(G_n/{U_i}, G_n/{U_i}) \cong G_n/{U_i},$ $F$ makes $E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}$ a $G_n/{U_i}$-spectrum. Thus, $F_n$ is a $G_n$-spectrum, and the canonical map $\eta \: F_n
\rightarrow
E_n$ is $G_n$-equivariant.
Note that $F_n$ is the stalk of the presheaf of spectra ${F}|_{(G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df})^\mathrm{op}}$, at the unique point of the Grothendieck topos (see §\[spt\]). The following useful fact is stated in [@DH pg. 9] (see also [@Str Lemma 14]).
\[powers\] For $j \geq 0,$ let $X$ be a finite spectrum and regard ${\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)} \wedge X)$ as a $G_n$-spectrum, where $G_n$ acts only on the leftmost factor of the smash product. Then there is a $G_n$-equivariant isomorphism $$\pi_\ast({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)} \wedge X)) \cong
\mathrm{Map}^\ell_c(G_n^j,\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge X)).$$
We review some frequently used facts about the functor $L_n$ and homotopy limits of spectra. First, $L_n$ is smashing, e.g. $L_n X \simeq X \wedge L_n S^0,$ for any spectrum $X$, and $E(n)$-localization commutes with homotopy direct limits [@Ravenelorange Thms. 7.5.6, 8.2.2]. Note that this implies that $F_n$ is $E(n)$-local.
If $\ \cdots \rightarrow X_i \rightarrow X_{i-1} \rightarrow
\cdots \rightarrow X_1 \rightarrow X_0$ is a tower of spectra such that each $X_i$ is fibrant in $Sp$, then $\{X_i\}$ is a [*tower of fibrant spectra*]{}.
If $\{X_i\}$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, then there is a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}^1 \, _i
\, \pi_{m+1}(X_i) \rightarrow \pi_m(\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, X_i)
\rightarrow \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, \pi_m(X_i) \rightarrow 0.$$ Also, if each map in the tower is a fibration, the map $\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, X_i \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
X_i$ is a weak equivalence. If $J$ is a small category and the functor $P \: J \rightarrow Sp$ is a diagram of spectra, such that $P_j$ is fibrant for each $j \in J$, then $\mathrm{holim}
\, _j \, P_j$ is a fibrant spectrum.
There is a functor $(-)_\mathtt{f} \: Sp \rightarrow Sp,$ such that, given $Y$ in $Sp$, $Y_\mathtt{f}$ is a fibrant spectrum, and there is a natural transformation $\mathrm{id}_{Sp}
\rightarrow (-)_\mathtt{f}$, such that, for any $Y$, the map $Y
\rightarrow Y_\mathtt{f}$ is a trivial cofibration. For example, if $Y$ is a $G$-spectrum, then $Y_\mathtt{f}$ is also a $G$-spectrum, and the map $Y
\rightarrow Y_\mathtt{f}$ is $G$-equivariant.
The following statement says that smashing with a finite spectrum commutes with homotopy limits.
\[commute\] Let $J$ be a small category, $\{Z_j\}$ a $J$-shaped diagram of fibrant spectra, and let $Y$ be a finite spectrum. Then the composition $$(\mathrm{holim} \, _j \,
Z_j) \wedge Y \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _j \, (Z_j \wedge Y)
\rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _j \, (Z_j \wedge
Y)_\mathtt{f}$$ is a weak equivalence.
We recall the result that is used to build towers of discrete $G$-spectra.
\[veryneat\] If $X$ is an $E(n)$-local spectrum, then, in the stable category, there is an isomorphism $${\hat{L}}X \cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (X \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}.$$
If $X$ is any spectrum, and $Y$ is a finite spectrum of type $n$, then ${\hat{L}}(X
\wedge Y) \simeq {\hat{L}}(X)
\wedge Y \simeq L_n(X) \wedge Y.$
We recall some useful facts about compact $p$-adic analytic groups. Since $S_n$ is compact $p$-adic analytic, and ${G_n}$ is an extension of ${S}_n$ by the Galois group, ${G_n}$ is a compact $p$-adic analytic group [@Serrep Cor. of Thm. 2]. Any closed subgroup of a compact $p$-adic analytic group is also compact $p$-adic analytic [@Dixon Thm. 9.6]. Also, since the subgroup in $S_n$ of strict automorphisms is finitely generated and pro-$p$, [@Ribes pp. 76, 124] implies that all subgroups in $G_n$ of finite index are open.
Let the profinite group $G$ be a compact $p$-adic analytic group. Then $G$ contains an open subgroup $H$, such that $H$ is a pro-$p$ group with finite cohomological $p$-dimension; that is, $\mathrm{cd}_p(H)=m$, for some non-negative integer $m$ (see [@Lazard 2.4.9] or the exposition in [@Symonds]). Since $H$ is pro-$p$, $\mathrm{cd}_q(H)=0$, whenever $q$ is a prime different from $p$ [@Wilson Prop. 11.1.4]. Also, if $M$ is a discrete $H$-module, then, for $s \geq 1$, $H^s_c(H;M)$ is a torsion abelian group [@Ribes Cor. 6.7.4]. These facts imply that, for any discrete $H$-module $M$, $H^s_c(H;M)=0$, whenever $s>m+1$. We express this conclusion by saying that $G$ has finite virtual cohomological dimension and we write $\mathrm{vcd}(G) \leq m$. Also, if $K$ is a closed subgroup of $G$, $H \cap K$ is an open pro-$p$ subgroup of $K$ with $\mathrm{cd}_p(H \cap K) \leq m$, so that $\mathrm{vcd}(K) \leq m$, and thus, $m$ is a uniform bound independent of $K$.
Now we state various results related to towers of abelian groups and continuous cohomology. The lemma below follows from the fact that a tower of abelian groups satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition if and only if the tower is pro-isomorphic to a tower of epimorphisms [@Jannsen (1.14)].
\[mittag\] Let $F \: \mathbf{Ab} \rightarrow \mathbf{Ab}$ be an exact additive functor. If $\{A_i\}_{i \geq 0}$ is a tower of abelian groups that satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, then so does the tower $\{F(A_i)\}.$
\[mittagrk\] Let $G$ be a profinite group. Then the functor $$\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-) \: \mathbf{Ab} \rightarrow \mathbf{Ab},
\ \ \ A \mapsto \mathrm{Map}_c(G,A),$$ is defined by giving $A$ the discrete topology. The isomorphism $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,A) \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \prod
\, _{G/N} \, A$ shows that $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-)$ is an exact additive functor. Later, we will use Lemma \[mittag\] with this functor.
The next lemma is a consequence of the fact that limits in $\mathbf{Ab}$ and in topological spaces are created in $\mathbf{Sets}$.
Let $M = \mathrm{lim} \, _\alpha \, M_\alpha$ be an inverse limit of discrete abelian groups, so that $M$ is an abelian topological group. Let $H$ be any profinite group. Then $\mathrm{Map}_c(H,M) \rightarrow \textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}
\, _\alpha \,
\mathrm{Map}_c(H, M_\alpha)$ is an isomorphism of abelian groups.
\[finite\] If $X$ is a finite spectrum, $G<_c G_n$, and $t$ any integer, then the abelian group $\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)$ is finite.
The starting point is the fact that $\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I)
\cong \pi_t(E_n)/I$ is finite. In the stable homotopy category of CW-spectra, since $X$ is a finite spectrum, there exists some $m$ such that $X_l = \Sigma^{l-m}
X_m$ whenever $l \geq m,$ and $X_m$ is a finite complex. Since $\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge X) \cong
\pi_{t-m}(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge X_m)$ and $X_m$ can be built out of a finite number of cofiber sequences, the result follows.
\[finite2\] If $X$ is a finite spectrum, then $\pi_t(E_n \wedge
X) \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _I \, \pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge
X).$
We recall the definition of a second version of continuous cohomology. If $M$ is a topological $G$-module, then $H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;M)$ is the $s$th cohomology group of the cochain complex $M \rightarrow \mathrm{Map}_c(G,M) \rightarrow
\mathrm{Map}_c(G^2,M) \rightarrow \cdots$ of continuous cochains for a profinite group $G$ with coefficients in $M$ (see [@Tate §2]). If $M$ is a discrete $G$-module, this is the usual continuous cohomology $H^s_c(G;M)$. There is the following useful relationship between these cohomology theories.
\[ses\] Let $\{M_n\}_{n \geq 0}$ be a tower of discrete $G$-modules satisfying the Mittag-Leffler condition and let $M =
\mathrm{lim} \, _n \, M_n$ as a topological $G$-module. Then, for each $s \geq 0$, there is a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow
\textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}^1 \, _n \, H^{s-1}_c(G; M_n)
\rightarrow H^{s}_\mathrm{cts}(G;
M) \rightarrow \mathrm{lim} \, _n \, H^{s}_c(G;
M_n) \rightarrow 0,$$ where $H^{-1}_c(G;-)=0.$
The next result is from [@DH Rk. 1.3] and is due to the fact that, when $X$ is a finite spectrum, $\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)
\cong \mathrm{lim} \, _k \, \pi_t(E_n \wedge X)/{I_n^k\pi_t(E_n
\wedge X)}$ is a profinite continuous ${\mathbb{Z}}_p {[\negthinspace[}G
{]\negthinspace]}$-module.
\[help2\] If $G$ is closed in $G_n$ and $X$ is a finite spectrum, then, for $s \geq
0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)) & \cong
\mathrm{lim} \, _k \,
H^s_c(G; \pi_t(E_n \wedge X)/{I_n^k\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)}) \\ & =
H^s_c(G; \pi_t(E_n \wedge X)).\end{aligned}$$
We make a few remarks about the functorial smash product in $Sp$, defined in [@Jardine Chps. 1, 2].
Given spectra $X$ and $Y$, their smash product $X \wedge Y$ is given by $(X \wedge Y)_{2k} = X_k \wedge Y_k$ and $(X \wedge Y)_{2k+1} = X_k \wedge Y_{k+1},$ where, for example, $X_k \in \mathcal{S}_\ast$, the category of pointed simplicial sets.
Since $K \wedge (-) \: \mathcal{S}_\ast \rightarrow
\mathcal{S}_\ast$ is a left adjoint, for any $K$ in $\mathcal{S}_\ast$, smashing with any spectrum in either variable commutes with colimits in ${Sp}.$
The model category of discrete $G$-spectra {#spt}
==========================================
A pointed simplicial discrete $G$-set is a pointed simplicial set that is a simplicial discrete $G$-set, such that the $G$-action fixes the basepoint.
A [*discrete $G$-spectrum*]{} $X$ is a spectrum of pointed simplicial sets $X_k$, for $k \geq 0$, such that each simplicial set $X_k$ is a pointed simplicial discrete $G$-set, and each bonding map $S^1 \wedge X_k
\rightarrow
X_{k+1}$ is $G$-equivariant ($S^1$ has trivial $G$-action). Let $Sp_G$ denote the category of discrete $G$-spectra, where the morphisms are $G$-equivariant maps of spectra.
As with discrete $G$-sets, if $X \in Sp_G$, there is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism $X \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
X^N$. Also, a discrete $G$-spectrum $X$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum since, for all $k, l \geq 0$, the set $X_{k,l}$ is a continuous $G$-space with the discrete topology, and all the face and degeneracy maps are (trivially) continuous.
As in [@Jardine §6.2], let $G\negthinspace -
\negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ be the canonical site of finite discrete $G$-sets. The pretopology of $G\negthinspace -
\negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ is given by covering families of the form $\{f_\alpha \: S_\alpha \rightarrow S \}$, a finite set of $G$-equivariant functions in $G\negthinspace -
\negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ for a fixed $S \in G
\negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$, such that $\coprod \, _\alpha \, S_\alpha \rightarrow S$ is a surjection.
We use $\mathbf{Shv}$ to denote the category of sheaves of sets on the site $G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df}$. Also, $T_G$ signifies the category of discrete $G$-sets, and, as in [@hGal], $S_G$ is the category of simplicial objects in $T_G$. The Grothendieck topos $\mathbf{Shv}$ has a unique point $u \: \mathbf{Sets} \rightarrow
\mathbf{Shv}.$ The left adjoint of the topos morphism $u$ is $$u^\ast \: \mathbf{Shv}
\rightarrow \mathbf{Sets}, \ \ \ \mathcal{F} \mapsto
\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \mathcal{F}(G/{N}),$$ with right adjoint $$u_\ast \: \mathbf{Sets} \rightarrow \mathbf{Shv},
\ \ \ X \mapsto \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X))$$ [@Jardine Rk. 6.25]. The $G$-action on the discrete $G$-set $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X)$ is defined by $(g
\cdot f)(g') = f(g'g)$, for $g, g'$ in $G$, and $f$ a continuous map $G \rightarrow
X$, where $X$ is given the discrete topology.
The functor $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-) \: \mathbf{Sets} \rightarrow T_G$ prolongs to the functor $$\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-) \: Sp \rightarrow
Sp_G.$$ Thus, if $X$ is a spectrum, then $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X)
\cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \prod \, _{G/N} \, X$ is the discrete $G$-spectrum with $(\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X))_k =
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X_k),$ where $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X_k)$ is a pointed simplicial set, with $l$-simplices $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X_{k,l})$ and basepoint $G
\rightarrow \ast,$ where $X_{k,l}$ is regarded as a discrete set. The $G$-action on $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X)$ is defined by the $G$-action on the sets $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X_{k,l})$.
It is not hard to see that $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-)$ is right adjoint to the forgetful functor $U \: Sp_G \rightarrow Sp$. Note that if $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, then there is a contravariant functor (presheaf) $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X) \: (G\negthinspace -
\negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df})^\mathrm{op} \rightarrow Sp,$ where, for any $S \in G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df},$ $\mathrm{Hom}_G(S,X)$ is the spectrum with $(\mathrm{Hom}_G(S,X))_{k,l} = \mathrm{Hom}_G(S,X_{k,l}),$ a pointed set with basepoint $S \rightarrow \ast.$
Let $\mathbf{ShvSpt}$ be the category of sheaves of spectra on the site $G\negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$. A sheaf of spectra $\mathcal{F}$ is a presheaf $\mathcal{F} \:
(G\negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df})^\mathrm{op}
\rightarrow
Sp,$ such that, for any $S \in G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ and any covering family $\{f_\alpha \:
S_\alpha \rightarrow S \}$, the usual diagram (of spectra) is an equalizer. Equivalently, a sheaf of spectra $\mathcal{F}$ consists of pointed simplicial sheaves $\mathcal{F}^n$, together with pointed maps of simplicial presheaves $\sigma \: S^1 \wedge
\mathcal{F}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{F}^{n+1},$ for $n \geq 0,$ where $S^1$ is the constant simplicial presheaf. A morphism between sheaves of spectra is a natural transformation between the underlying presheaves.
The category $\mathbf{PreSpt}$ of presheaves of spectra on the site $G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ has the following “stable” model category structure ([@Jardinecanada], [@Jardine §2.3]). A map $h \:
\mathcal{F}
\rightarrow \mathcal{G}$ of presheaves of spectra is a weak equivalence if and only if the associated map of stalks ${\mathrm{colim}}\, _N \, \mathcal{F}(G/{N})
\rightarrow {\mathrm{colim}}\, _N \, \mathcal{G}(G/{N})$ is a weak equivalence of spectra. Recall that a map $k$ of simplicial presheaves is a cofibration if, for each $S \in G\negthinspace -
\negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df},$ $k(S)$ is a monomorphism of simplicial sets. Then $h$ is a cofibration of presheaves of spectra if the following two conditions hold:
1. the map $h^0 \: \mathcal{F}^0 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}^0$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves; and
2. for each $n \geq 0$, the canonical map $(S^1 \wedge
\mathcal{G}^n) \cup_{S^1 \wedge \mathcal{F}^n}\mathcal{F}^{n+1}
\rightarrow \mathcal{G}^{n+1}$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves.
Fibrations are those maps with the right lifting property with respect to trivial cofibrations.
In the stable model category structure, fibrant presheaves are often referred to as [*globally fibrant*]{}, and if $\mathcal{F} \rightarrow
\mathcal{G}$ is a weak equivalence of presheaves, with $\mathcal{G}$ globally fibrant, then $\mathcal{G}$ is a [ *globally fibrant model*]{} for $\mathcal{F}$. We often use $\mathbf{G}\mathcal{F}$ to denote such a globally fibrant model.
We recall the following fact, which is especially useful when $S =\ast$.
\[Kan\] Let $S \in G\negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$. The $S$-sections functor $\mathbf{PreSpt} \rightarrow
Sp$, defined by $\mathcal{F} \mapsto \mathcal{F}(S)$, preserves fibrations, trivial fibrations, and weak equivalences between fibrant objects.
The $S$-sections functor has a left adjoint, obtained by left Kan extension, that preserves cofibrations and weak equivalences. See [@Jardine pg. 60] and [@Mitchell Cor. 3.16] for the details.
We use $\mathcal{L}^2$ to denote the sheafification functor for presheaves of sets, simplicial presheaves, and presheaves of spectra. Let $i \: \mathbf{ShvSpt} \rightarrow
\mathbf{PreSpt}$ be the inclusion functor, which is right adjoint to $\mathcal{L}^2$. In [@GJlocal Rk. 3.11], $\mathbf{ShvSpt}$ is given the following model category structure. A map $h \: \mathcal{F}
\rightarrow \mathcal{G}$ of sheaves of spectra is a weak equivalence (fibration) if and only if $i(f)$ is a weak equivalence (fibration) of presheaves. Also, $h$ is a cofibration of sheaves of spectra if the following two conditions hold:
1. the map $h^0 \: \mathcal{F}^0 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}^0$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves; and
2. for each $n \geq 0$, the canonical map $\mathcal{L}^2((S^1 \wedge
\mathcal{G}^n) \cup_{S^1 \wedge \mathcal{F}^n}\mathcal{F}^{n+1})
\rightarrow \mathcal{G}^{n+1}$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves.
Since $i$ preserves weak equivalences and fibrations between sheaves of spectra, $\mathcal{L}^2$ preserves cofibrations, trivial cofibrations, and weak equivalences between cofibrant objects, and $(\mathcal{L}^2,
i)$ is a Quillen pair for $(\mathbf{PreSpt},\mathbf{ShvSpt})$. By [@Jardine Cor. 6.22], if $\mathcal{F}$ is a presheaf of sets, a simplicial presheaf, or a presheaf of spectra, then $$\label{formula}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}\mathcal{L}^2\mathcal{F}
\cong \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \mathcal{F}(G/N)).$$ This implies that, for any presheaf of spectra $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{F} \rightarrow
\mathcal{L}^2 \mathcal{F}$ is a weak equivalence, and thus, $\mathrm{Ho}(\mathbf{PreSpt}) \cong \mathrm{Ho}(\mathbf{ShvSpt})$ is a Quillen equivalence.
There is an equivalence of categories $\mathbf{ShvSpt} \cong
Sp_G$, via the functors $$L \: \mathbf{ShvSpt} \rightarrow
Sp_G, \ \ \ L(\mathcal{F}) = \mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
\mathcal{F}(G/N), \ \ \ \mathrm{and}$$ $$R \: Sp_G \rightarrow
\mathbf{ShvSpt}, \ \ \ R(X)= \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, X).$$ It is not hard to verify this equivalence, since it is an extension to spectra of the fact that $\mathbf{Shv}$ and $T_G$ are equivalent categories (see [@Jardine Prop. 6.20], [@Maclane III-9, Thm. 1]).
Exploiting this equivalence, we make $Sp_G$ a model category in the following way. Define a map $f$ of discrete $G$-spectra to be a weak equivalence (fibration) if and only if $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,f)$ is a weak equivalence (fibration) of sheaves of spectra. Also, define $f$ to be a cofibration if and only if $f$ has the left lifting property with respect to all trivial fibrations. Thus, $f$ is a cofibration if and only if $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,f)$ is a cofibration in $\mathbf{ShvSpt}$. Using this, it is easy to show that $Sp_G$ is a model category, and there is a Quillen equivalence $\mathrm{Ho}(\mathbf{ShvSpt}) \cong
\mathrm{Ho}(Sp_G).$
Formula (\[formula\]) allows us to define the model category structure of $Sp_G$ without reference to sheaves of spectra, in the theorem below, extending the model category structure on the category $S_G$, given in [@hGal Thm. 1.12], to $Sp_G$.
\[finally\] Let $f \: X \rightarrow Y$ be a map in $Sp_G$. Then $f$ is a weak equivalence (cofibration) in $Sp_G$ if and only if $f$ is a weak equivalence (cofibration) in $Sp$.
For weak equivalences, the statement is clearly true. Assume that $f$ is a cofibration in $Sp_G$. Since $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X_0)
\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,Y_0)$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves, evaluation at $G/N$ implies that $X_0^N \rightarrow
Y_0^N$ is a cofibration of simplicial sets. Thus, $X_0 \cong
\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, X_0^N \rightarrow \mathrm{colim} \, _N
\, Y_0^N \cong Y_0$ is a cofibration of simplicial sets.
By (\[formula\]) and the fact that colimits commute with pushouts, $$\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,(S^1 \wedge Y_n) \cup_{S^1 \wedge
X_n}X_{n+1}) \rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,Y_{n+1})$$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves, and hence, the map of simplicial sets $\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, ((S^1 \wedge Y_n)
\cup_{S^1 \wedge X_n}X_{n+1})^N \rightarrow Y_{n+1}$ is a cofibration.
Let $W$ be a simplicial pointed discrete $G$-set. Then $S^1
\wedge W \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, (S^1 \wedge W^N)$, so that $S^1 \wedge W$ is also a simplicial pointed discrete $G$-set. Since the forgetful functor $U \: T_G \rightarrow
\mathbf{Sets}$ is a left adjoint, pushouts in $T_G$ are formed in $\mathbf{Sets}$, and thus, there is an isomorphism $$\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, ((S^1 \wedge Y_n) \cup_{S^1
\wedge X_n}X_{n+1})^N \cong (S^1 \wedge Y_n) \cup_{S^1
\wedge X_n}X_{n+1}$$ of simplicial discrete $G$-sets. Hence, $(S^1 \wedge Y_n) \cup_{S^1 \wedge X_n}X_{n+1} \rightarrow
Y_{n+1}$ is a cofibration in $\mathcal{S}$, and $f$ is a cofibration in $Sp$.
The converse follows from the fact that if $W \rightarrow Z$ is an injection of simplicial discrete $G$-sets, then $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,W) \rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,Z)$ is a cofibration of simplicial presheaves.
\[U\] The functors $(U, \mathrm{Map}_c(G, \negthinspace -
))$ are a Quillen pair for $(Sp_G,Sp)$.
Let $\mathrm{t} \: Sp \rightarrow Sp_G$ give a spectrum trivial $G$-action, so that $\mathrm{t}(X)=X$. The right adjoint of $\mathrm{t}$ is the fixed points functor $(-)^G$. Clearly, $\mathrm{t}$ preserves all weak equivalences and cofibrations, giving the next result.
\[cof\] The functors $(\mathrm{t},(-)^G)$ are a Quillen pair for $(Sp, Sp_G)$.
We conclude this section with a few more useful facts about discrete $G$-spectra.
\[fibrant\] If $f \: X \rightarrow Y$ is a fibration in $Sp_G$, then it is a fibration in $Sp$. In particular, if $X$ is fibrant as a discrete $G$-spectrum, then $X$ is fibrant as a spectrum.
Since $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,f)$ is a fibration of presheaves of spectra, $\mathrm{Hom}_G(G/N,f)$ is a fibration of spectra for each open normal subgroup $N$. This implies that $\mathrm{colim}
\, _N \,
\mathrm{Hom}_G(G/N,f)$ is a fibration of spectra. Then the lemma follows from factoring $f$ as $X \cong \mathrm{colim}
\, _N \, X^N \rightarrow
\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, Y^N \cong Y.$
The next lemma and its corollary show that the homotopy groups of a discrete $G$-spectrum are discrete $G$-modules, as expected.
If $X$ is a pointed Kan complex and a simplicial discrete $G$-set, then $\pi_n(X)$ is a discrete $G$-module, for all $n \geq 2$.
Let $f \: S^n \rightarrow X$ be a pointed map. Since $S^n$ has only two non-degenerate simplices, the basepoint $\ast$ and the fundamental class $\iota_n \in (S^n)_n$, the map $f$ is determined by $f(\iota_n)$. The action of $G$ on $\pi_n(X)$ is defined as follows: $g \cdot [f]$ is the homotopy class of the pointed map $h \: S^n \rightarrow X$ defined by $h(\iota_n) =
g\cdot f(\iota_n)$. To show that the action is continuous, it suffices to show that, for any $[f] \in \pi_n(X)$, the stabilizer $G_{[f]}$ of $[f]$ is an open subgroup of $G$, and this is elementary.
\[pie\] If $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, then $\pi_n(X)$ is a discrete $G$-module for any integer $n$.
Let $X \rightarrow X_f$ be a trivial cofibration with $X_f$ fibrant, all in $Sp_G$. Then $$\pi_n(X) \cong \pi_n(X_f) \cong
\mathrm{colim} \, _{m \, \geq \, \mathrm{max}(2-n,0)} \,
\pi_{m+n}((X_f)_{m})$$ is a discrete $G$-module, since each $\pi_{m+n}((X_f)_m)$ is one.
The following observation says that certain elementary constructions with discrete $G$-spectra yield discrete $G$-spectra.
Given a profinite group $G \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _N \, G/N$, let $\{X_N\}_N$ be a directed system of spectra, such that each $X_N$ is a $G/N$-spectrum and the maps are $G$-equivariant. Then $\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, X_N$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum. If $Y$ is a trivial $G$-spectrum, then $(\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, X_N) \wedge Y
\cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, (X_N \wedge Y)$ is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism of discrete $G$-spectra. Thus, if $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, then $X \wedge Y$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum.
The corollary below is very useful later.
The spectra $F_n$, $F_n \wedge M_I$, and $F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X$, for any spectrum $X$, are discrete $G_n$-spectra.
Towers of discrete $G$-spectra and continuous $G$-spectra
=========================================================
Let $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ be the category where a typical object $\{X_i\}$ is a tower $$\cdots \rightarrow X_i \rightarrow X_{i-1}
\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow X_1 \rightarrow X_0$$ in $Sp_G$. The morphisms are natural transformations $\{X_i\} \rightarrow \{Y_i\}$, such that each $X_i \rightarrow Y_i$ is $G$-equivariant. Since $Sp_G$ is a simplicial model category, [@GJ VI, Prop. 1.3] shows that $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is also a simplicial model category, where $\{f_i\}$ is a weak equivalence (cofibration) if and only if each $f_i$ is a weak equivalence (cofibration) in $Sp_G$. By [@GJ VI, Rk. 1.5], if $\{X_i\}$ is fibrant in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$, then each map $X_i \rightarrow
X_{i-1}$ in the tower is a fibration and each $X_i$ is fibrant, all in $Sp_G$.
\[fibrep\] Let $\{X_i\}$ be in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$. Then $\{X'_i\}$ denotes the target of a trivial cofibration $\{X_i\} \rightarrow
\{X'_i\},$ with $\{{X'_i}\}$ fibrant, in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G).$
Let $\{X_\alpha\}$ be a diagram in $Sp_G$. Since there is an isomorphism $\mathrm{lim}\, ^{Sp_G} _\alpha \, X_\alpha \cong
\mathrm{colim} \, _N
\, (\mathrm{lim} \, ^{Sp} _\alpha \, X_\alpha)^N,$ limits in $Sp_G$ are not formed in $Sp$. In everything that follows, $\mathrm{lim}$ and $\mathrm{holim}$ are always in $Sp$.
The functor $\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, (-)^G \:
\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G) \rightarrow Sp,$ given by $\{X_i\} \mapsto
\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, X_i^G,$ is right adjoint to the functor $\underline{\mathrm{t}} \: Sp \rightarrow
\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ that sends a spectrum $X$ to the constant diagram $\{X\},$ where $X$ has trivial $G$-action. Since $\underline{\mathrm{t}}$ preserves all weak equivalences and cofibrations, we have the following fact.
\[helpful\] The functors $(\underline{\mathrm{t}}, \mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(-)^G)$ are a Quillen pair for the categories $(Sp,\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)).$
This Lemma implies the existence of the total right derived functor $$\mathbf{R}(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, (-)^G) \:
\mathrm{Ho}(\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)) \rightarrow
\mathrm{Ho}(Sp), \ \ \ \{X_i\} \mapsto \mathrm{lim} \,
_i \, ({X'_i})^G.$$
\[ctsspt\] If $\{X_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, then there are weak equivalences $\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, X_i \overset{p}{\longrightarrow} \mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, X'_i \overset{q}{\longleftarrow} \mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
X'_i.$
Since each $X_i \rightarrow X'_i$ is a weak equivalence between fibrant spectra, $p$ is a weak equivalence. Since $X'_i
\rightarrow X'_{i-1}$ is a fibration in $Sp$, for $i \geq 1$, $q$ is a weak equivalence.
We use this lemma to define the continuous $G$-spectra that we will study.
\[ctsdef\] If $\{X_i\}$ is in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$, then the inverse limit $\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, X_i$ is a [*continuous $G$-spectrum*]{}. Also, if $\{X_i\} \in \mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, we call $\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, X_i$ a [*continuous $G$-spectrum*]{}, due to the zigzag of Lemma \[ctsspt\] that relates $\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, X_i$ to the continuous $G$-spectrum $\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, X'_i.$ Notice that if $X \in Sp_G$, then, using the constant tower on $X$, $X \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, X$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum.
\[loose\] Sometimes we will use the term “continuous $G$-spectrum” more loosely. Let $X$ be a continuous $G$-spectrum, as in Definition \[ctsdef\]. If $Y$ is a $G$-spectrum that is isomorphic to $X$, in the stable category, with compatible $G$-actions, then we call $Y$ a continuous $G$-spectrum.
We make a few comments about Definition \[ctsdef\]. Though the definition is not as general as it could be, it is sufficient for our applications. The inverse limit is central to the definition since the inverse limit of a tower of discrete $G$-sets is a topological $G$-space.
Given any tower $X_\ast = \{X_i\}$ in $Sp_G$, $$\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, X_i = \mathrm{Tot}(\textstyle{\prod}^\ast X_\ast) \cong
\mathrm{lim} \, _n \, \mathrm{T}(n),$$ where $\mathrm{T}(n) =
\mathrm{Tot}_n(\prod^\ast X_\ast).$ (See §\[disdef\] for the definition of $\prod^\ast X_\ast$, and [@Bousfield/Kan] is a reference for any undefined notation in this paragraph.) Then it is natural to ask if $T(n)$ is in $Sp_G$, so that $\mathrm{holim}
\, _i \, X_i$ is canonically a continuous $G$-spectrum. For this to be true, it must be that, for any $m \geq 0$, the simplicial set $\mathrm{T}(n)_m = \mathrm{Map}_{c\mathcal{S}}(\mathrm{sk}_n
\Delta[-], \prod^\ast (X_\ast)_m)$ belongs to $\mathcal{S}_G$. If, for all $s \geq 0$, $\prod^s (X_\ast)_m \in \mathcal{S}_G$, then $\mathrm{T}(n)_m \in \mathcal{S}_G$, by [@hGal pg. 212]. However, the infinite product $\prod^s (X_\ast)_m$ need not be in $\mathcal{S}_G$, and thus, in general, $\mathrm{T}(n) \notin
Sp_G$. Therefore, $\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, X_i$ is not always identifiable with a continuous $G$-spectrum, in the above way.
Homotopy fixed points for discrete $G$-spectra {#disdef}
==============================================
In this section, we define the homotopy fixed point spectrum for $X \in Sp_G$. We begin by recalling the homotopy spectral sequence, since we use it often.
If $J$ is a small category, $P \: J
\rightarrow Sp$ a diagram of fibrant spectra, and $Z$ any spectrum, then there is a conditionally convergent spectral sequence $$\label{intobkss}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}E_2^{s,t} = \mathrm{lim}^s \,
_J \, [Z,P]_{t} \Rightarrow [Z, \mathrm{holim} \, _J \,
P]_{t-s},$$ where $\mathrm{lim}^s$ is the $s$th right derived functor of $\mathrm{lim} \,
_J \: \mathbf{Ab}^J \rightarrow \mathbf{Ab}$ [@Thomason Prop. 5.13, Lem. 5.31].
Associated to $P$ is the cosimplicial spectrum $\prod^\ast P$, with $\textstyle{\prod}^n P =
\textstyle{\prod} \, _{(B\Delta)_n} \, P({j_n}),$ where the $n$-simplices of the nerve $B\Delta$ consist of all strings $[j_0] \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow [j_n]$ of $n$ morphisms in $\Delta$. For any $k \geq 0$, $(\textstyle{\prod}^\ast P)_k$ is a fibrant cosimplicial pointed simplicial set, and $\mathrm{holim} \, _J \,
P = \mathrm{Tot}(\textstyle{\prod}^\ast P).$
If $P$ is a cosimplicial diagram of fibrant spectra (a [*cosimplicial fibrant spectrum*]{}), then $E_2^{s,t} = \pi^s
[Z,P]_t,$ the $s$th cohomotopy group of the cosimplicial abelian group $[Z,P]_t$.
\[profinite\] Given a discrete $G$-spectrum $X$, $X^{hG}$ denotes the [ *homotopy fixed point spectrum*]{} of $X$ with respect to the continuous action of $G$. We define $X^{hG} = (X_{f,G})^G,$ where $X \rightarrow
X_{f,G}$ is a trivial cofibration and $X_{f,G}$ is fibrant, in $Sp_G$. We write $X_f$ instead of $X_{f,G}$ when doing so causes no confusion.
Note that $X^{hG} = \mathrm{Hom}_G(\ast,X_{f,G})$, the global sections of the presheaf of spectra $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X_{f,G}).$ This definition has been developed in other categories: see [@hGal] for simplicial discrete $G$-sets, [@Jardinejpaa] for simplicial presheaves, and [@Jardine Ch. 6] for presheaves of spectra.
As expected, the definition of homotopy fixed points for a profinite group generalizes the definition for a finite group. Let $G$ be a finite group, $X$ a $G$-spectrum, and let $X \rightarrow X_\mathtt{f}$ be a weak equivalence that is $G$-equivariant, with $X_\mathtt{f}$ a fibrant spectrum. Then, since $G$ is finite, the homotopy fixed point spectrum $X^{h'G} = \mathrm{Map}_G(EG_+,X_\mathtt{f})$ can be defined to be $\mathrm{holim} \, _G \, X_\mathtt{f}$ (as in the Introduction). Note that there is a descent spectral sequence $$E_2^{s,t} =
\textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}^s \, _G \, \pi_t(X) \cong
H^s(G;\pi_t(X)) \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(X^{h'G}).$$ Since $G$ is profinite, $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, and $X_{f,G}$ is a fibrant spectrum, so that $X^{h'G} = \mathrm{holim} \, _G \,
X_f.$ Then, by [@Jardine Prop. 6.39], the canonical map $X^{hG} =
\mathrm{lim} \, _G \, X_f \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _G \, X_f
= X^{h'G}$ is a weak equivalence, as desired.
We point out several properties of homotopy fixed points that follow from Corollary \[cof\].
\[tright\] The homotopy fixed points functor $(-)^{hG} \: \mathrm{Ho}(Sp_G)
\rightarrow \mathrm{Ho}(Sp)$ is the total right derived functor of the fixed points functor $(-)^G \: Sp_G \rightarrow
Sp.$ In particular, if $X \rightarrow Y$ is a weak equivalence of discrete $G$-spectra, then $X^{hG} \rightarrow
Y^{hG}$ is a weak equivalence.
Given two globally fibrant models $\mathbf{G}\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathbf{G'}\mathcal{F}$ for a presheaf of spectra $\mathcal{F}$, there need not be a weak equivalence $\mathbf{G}\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbf{G'}\mathcal{F},$ since not every presheaf of spectra is cofibrant. Also, a cofibration of sheaves of spectra can fail to be a cofibration of presheaves. Given these limitations, there is the following relationship between homotopy fixed points and the global sections of globally fibrant models, due to the left lifting property of trivial cofibrations with respect to fibrations.
Let $X \in Sp_G$. Then $X^{hG} \overset{\simeq}{\longleftarrow}
\mathcal{F}(\ast)
\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
\mathbf{G}\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)(\ast),$ where $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)
\rightarrow \mathcal{F}$ is a trivial cofibration of presheaves, with $\mathcal{F}$ globally fibrant. Thus, $X^{hG}$ and $\mathbf{G}\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)(\ast)$ have the same stable homotopy type.
$E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum {#7}
====================================
We show that $E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum by successively eliminating simpler ways of constructing a continuous action, and by applying the theory of the previous section.
First of all, since the profinite ring $\pi_0(E_n)$ is not a discrete $G_n$-module, Corollary \[pie\] implies the following observation.
$E_n$ is not a discrete $G_n$-spectrum.
However, note that, for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\pi_{2k}(E_n \wedge M_I)$ is a finite discrete $G_n$-module so that the action factors through a finite quotient $G_n/{U_I}$, where $U_I$ is some open normal subgroup (see [@Ribes Lem. 1.1.16]). Thus, $\pi_{2k}(E_n \wedge M_I)$ is a $G_n/{U_I}$-module, and one is led to ask if $E_n \wedge M_I$ is a $G_n/{U_I}$-spectrum. If so, then $E_n \wedge M_I$ is a discrete $G_n$-spectrum, and $E_n$ is easily seen to be a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
However, $E_n \wedge M_I$ is not a $G_n/U$-spectrum for all open normal subgroups $U$ of $G_n$, as the following observation shows. As far as the author knows, this observation is due to Mike Hopkins; the author learned the proof from Hal Sadofsky.
\[Sadofsky\] There is no open normal subgroup $U$ of ${G_n}$ such that the ${G_n}$-action on $E_n \wedge M_I$ factors through ${G_n}/U$.
Suppose the ${G_n}$-spectrum $E_n \wedge M_I$ is a ${G_n}/U$-spectrum. Then the ${G_n}$-action on the middle factor of $E_n \wedge E_n \wedge M_I$ factors through ${G_n}/U$, so that $\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge E_n \wedge M_I)$ is a ${G_n}/U$-module. Note that $\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge E_n \wedge
M_I) \cong \mathrm{Map}^\ell_c({G_n},E_{n \ast}/I)$.
Since the ${G_n}$-module $\mathrm{Map}^\ell_c({G_n},E_{n \ast}/I)$ is a ${G_n}/U$-module, there is an isomorphism of sets $\mathrm{Map}^\ell_c({G_n},E_{n,0}/I) =
\mathrm{Map}^\ell_c({G_n},E_{n,0}/I)^U \cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G_n/U,
E_{n,0}/I).$ But the first set is infinite and the last is finite, a contradiction.
Since $\pi_\ast(E_n \wedge
M_I)$ is a discrete ${G_n}$-module, one can still hope for a spectrum $E_n/I \simeq E_n \wedge M_I$, such that $E_n/I$ is a discrete ${G_n}$-spectrum.
To produce $E_n/I$, we make the following observation. By [@Jardine Remark 6.26], since $U_i$ is an open normal subgroup of $G_n$, the presheaf $\mathrm{Hom}_{U_i}(-,(E_n/I)_{f,G_n})$ is fibrant in the model category of presheaves of spectra on the site $U_i \negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$. Thus, for each $i$, the map $E_n/I \rightarrow (E_n/I)_{f,G_n}$ is a trivial cofibration, with fibrant target, all in $Sp_{U_i}$, so that $((E_n/I)_{f,G_n})^{U_i} = (E_n/I)^{hU_i}.$
Combining this observation with the idea, discussed in §1, that $E_n \wedge M_I$ has homotopy fixed point spectra $(E_n \wedge M_I)^{hU_i} \simeq E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}
\wedge M_I \simeq (E_n/I)^{hU_i},$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
E_n/I & \simeq (E_n/I)_{f,G_n} \cong \mathrm{colim}
\, _i \, ((E_n/I)_{f,G_n})^{U_i} = \mathrm{colim} \, _i \,
(E_n/I)^{hU_i} \\ & \simeq \mathrm{colim} \, _i \,
(E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i} \wedge M_I) \cong F_n \wedge M_I.\end{aligned}$$ This argument suggests that $E_n \wedge M_I$ has the homotopy type of the discrete $G_n$-spectrum $F_n \wedge M_I$. To show that this is indeed the case, we consider the spectrum $F_n$ in more detail. The key result is the following theorem, due to Devinatz and Hopkins.
\[central\] There is a weak equivalence $E_n \simeq {\hat{L}}(F_n).$
By [@DH Thm. 3], $E_n^{h'\{e\}}
\simeq E_n^{\mathtt{h}\{e\}}.$ (We remark that this weak equivalence is far from obvious.) By [@DH Definition 1.5], $E_n^{\mathtt{h}\{e\}} = {\hat{L}}(\mathrm{hocolim} \, _i \, E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}),$ where the homotopy colimit is in the category $E_\infty$. Then, by [@DH Remark 1.6, Lemma 6.2], $\mathrm{hocolim} \, _i \, E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}
\simeq \mathrm{colim} \, _i \, E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i},$ where the colimit is in $\mathcal{M}_S.$ Thus, as spectra in $Sp$, $E_n^{\mathtt{h}\{e\}} \simeq {\hat{L}}(F_n)$, so that $E_n \simeq E_n^{h'\{e\}} \simeq {\hat{L}}(F_n).$
\[key\] In the stable category, there are isomorphisms $$E_n
\cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}
\cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (E_n \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}.$$
The following result, a proof of which was first shown to me by Charles Rezk, shows that $E_n \wedge M_I \simeq F_n
\wedge M_I$. This weak equivalence and $\mathrm{vcd}(G_n) <
\infty$ are the main facts that make it possible to construct the homotopy fixed point spectra of $E_n$.
\[Rezk\] If $Y$ is a finite spectrum of type $n$, then the $G_n$-equivariant map $F_n \wedge Y
\rightarrow E_n \wedge Y$ is a weak equivalence. In particular, $E_n \wedge M_I \simeq F_n \wedge M_I$.
We have $E_n \wedge Y \simeq {\hat{L}}(F_n)
\wedge Y \simeq L_n(F_n) \wedge Y \simeq F_n \wedge Y.$
Now we show that $E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
\[wonder\] There is an isomorphism $E_n \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}$. Thus, $E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
By Corollary \[key\], $E_n \cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}$. By functorial fibrant replacement, the map of towers $\{F_n \wedge M_I\} \rightarrow \{(F_n
\wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}\}$ induces a map of towers $\{(F_n \wedge
M_I)_\mathtt{f}\} \rightarrow
\{((F_n \wedge M_I)_{f,G_n})_\mathtt{f}\}$ and, hence, weak equivalences $$\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)_{f,G_n} \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
((F_n
\wedge M_I)_{f,G_n})_\mathtt{f} \leftarrow \mathrm{holim}
\, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}.$$ Thus, $\mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
(F_n \wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{holim}
\, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f}$ and $E_n$. Since $\{(F_n \wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}\}$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, $\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum. Then, by Remark \[loose\], $E_n$ is a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
We conclude this section with some observations about $F_n$.
The map $\eta \: F_n \rightarrow E_n$ is not a weak equivalence and $F_n$ is not $K(n)$-local.
If $\eta$ is a weak equivalence, then $\pi_0(\eta)$ is a ${G_n}$-equivariant isomorphism from a discrete $G_n$-module (with all orbits finite) to a non-finite profinite $G_n$-module, which is impossible. If $F_n$ is $K(n)$-local, then $F_n \simeq {\hat{L}}(F_n) \simeq E_n$, and $\eta$ is a weak equivalence, a contradiction.
The maps ${\hat{L}}(F_n
\wedge F_n) \rightarrow {\hat{L}}(E_n
\wedge F_n) \rightarrow {\hat{L}}(E_n
\wedge E_n)$ are weak equivalences.
Since $F_n \wedge M_I \simeq E_n \wedge M_I$, $F_n \wedge
F_n \wedge M_I \simeq E_n \wedge E_n \wedge M_I.$ Since $F_n \wedge F_n$, $E_n \wedge F_n$ and $E_n \wedge E_n$ are $E(n)$-local, the result follows from Theorem \[veryneat\].
Since $E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}$ is not an $E_n$-module (but $E_n$ is an $E_n^{\mathtt{h}U_i}$-module), note that $F_n$ and $\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge M_I)_{f,G_n}$ are not $E_n$-modules. However, any fully satisfactory model of $E_n$ as a continuous ${G_n}$-spectrum would also be a twisted $E_n$-module ${G_n}$-spectrum, since $E_n$ itself is such a spectrum. (“Twisted” means that the module structure map is ${G_n}$-equivariant, where $E_n \wedge E_n$ has the diagonal action.)
Homotopy fixed points when $\mathrm{vcd(G)} \,
\mathrm{<} \, \infty$ {#hfps}
===============================================
In this section, $G$ always has finite virtual cohomological dimension. Thus, there exists a uniform bound $m$, such that for all $K <_c G$, $\mathrm{vcd}(K) \leq m.$ For $X \in Sp_G$, we use this fact to give a model for $X^{hG}$ that eases the construction of its descent spectral sequence. Also, this fact yields a second model for $X^{hK}$ that is functorial in $K$.
Consider the functor $$\Gamma_G = \mathrm{Map}_c(G,-) \circ U \: Sp_G \rightarrow
Sp_G, \ \ \ X \mapsto \Gamma_G(X)=
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X),$$ where $\Gamma_G(X)$ has the $G$-action defined in §\[spt\]. We write $\Gamma$ instead of $\Gamma_G$, when $G$ is understood from context. There is a $G$-equivariant monomorphism $i \: X \rightarrow \Gamma
X$ defined, on the level of sets, by $i(x)(g)= g \cdot x.$ As in [@Weibel 8.6.2], since $U$ and $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,-)$ are adjoints, $\Gamma$ forms a triple and there is a cosimplicial discrete $G$-spectrum $\Gamma^\bullet X,$ with $(\Gamma^\bullet X)^k \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k+1},X)$.
We recall the construction of Thomason’s hypercohomology spectrum for the topos $\mathbf{Shv}$ (see [@Thomason 1.31-1.33] and [@Mitchell §1.3, §3.2] for more details). Consider the functor $$T=u_\ast u^\ast \: \mathbf{ShvSpt}
\rightarrow \mathbf{ShvSpt}, \ \ \ \negthinspace
\mathcal{F} \mapsto
\mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \mathrm{Map}_c(G,
\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \mathcal{F}(G/N))),$$ obtained by composing the adjoints in the point of the topos. Then, for $X \in Sp_G$, $T (\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)) \cong
\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,\mathrm{Map}_c(G, X)).$ By iterating this isomorphism, the cosimplicial sheaf of spectra $T^\bullet
\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)$ gives rise to the cosimplicial sheaf $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \Gamma^\bullet X)$.
Given $X \in Sp_G$, the [*presheaf of hypercohomology spectra of $G \negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ with coefficients in $X$*]{} is the presheaf of spectra $$\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (-;X) = \mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \Gamma^\bullet X) \:
(G\negthinspace - \negthinspace
\mathbf{Sets}_{df})^{\mathrm{op}}
\rightarrow Sp,$$ and $\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (S;X) = \mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(S, \Gamma^\bullet X)$ is the hypercohomology spectrum of $S$ with coefficients in $X$.
The map $X_f \rightarrow \Gamma^\bullet
X_f$, induced by $i$, out of the constant cosimplicial diagram, and $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-, X_f) \rightarrow \mathrm{lim} \, _\Delta
\, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, X_f) \rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, X_f)$ induce a canonical map $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-, X_f) \rightarrow
\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (-,X_f).$
Now we show that $\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace(\ast,X_f)$ is a model for $X^{hG}$. Below, a [*cosimplicial globally fibrant presheaf*]{} is a cosimplicial presheaf of spectra that is globally fibrant at each level.
\[globally\] If $\mathcal{F}^\bullet$ is a cosimplicial globally fibrant presheaf, then $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, \mathcal{F}^\bullet$ is a globally fibrant presheaf.
By [@Jardine Rk. 2.35], this is equivalent to showing that, for each $n \geq 0$, (a) $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^n$ is a globally fibrant simplicial presheaf; and (b) the adjoint of the bonding map, the composition $$\gamma\: \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^n
\rightarrow \Omega(\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^{n+1}) \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
\Omega(\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^{n+1}$$ is a local weak equivalence of simplicial presheaves. Part (a), the difficult part of this lemma, is proven in [@Jardinejpaa Prop. 3.3].
The map $\gamma$ is a local weak equivalence if the map of stalks $\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \gamma(G/N)$ is a weak equivalence in $\mathcal{S}$, which is true if each $\gamma(G/N)$ is a weak equivalence. By [@Jardinejpaa pg. 74], if $P$ is a globally fibrant simplicial presheaf, then $\Omega P$ is too, so that $\sigma \: (\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^n \rightarrow
\Omega(\mathcal{F}^\bullet)^{n+1}$ is a cosimplicial diagram of local weak equivalences between globally fibrant simplicial presheaves. Thus, $\sigma(G/N)$ is a cosimplicial diagram of weak equivalences between Kan complexes, so that $\gamma(G/N)=\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, \sigma(G/N)$ is indeed a weak equivalence.
The following result is not original: it is basically a special case of [[@Jardinejpaa Prop. 3.3], versions of which appear in [@hGal §5], [@Mitchell Prop. 3.20], and [@Mitchell2 Prop. 6.1]]{}. Since the result is central to our work, for the benefit of the reader, we give the details of the proof. For use now and later, we recall that, for any group $G$ and any closed subgroup $K$, $H^s_c(K;\mathrm{Map}_c(G,A)) = 0$, when $s>0$ and $A$ is any discrete abelian group [@Wilson Lemma 9.4.5].
\[fibrantmodel\] Let $G$ be a profinite group with $\mathrm{vcd}(G) \leq m$, and let $X$ be a discrete $G$-spectrum. Then there are weak equivalences $$\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X) \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X_f)
\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
\mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \Gamma^\bullet X_f),$$ and $\mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-, \Gamma^\bullet X_f)$ is a globally fibrant model for $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)$. Thus, evaluation at $\ast \in
G\negthinspace - \negthinspace \mathbf{Sets}_{df}$ gives a weak equivalence $X^{hG} \rightarrow \mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^G.$
The weak equivalence $X \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, X^N
\rightarrow \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, (X^N)_\mathtt{f},$ whose target is a discrete $G$-spectrum that is fibrant in $Sp$, induces a weak equivalence $X_{f,G} \rightarrow (\mathrm{colim}
\, _N \, (X^N)_\mathtt{f})_{f,G}.$ Thus, there are weak equivalences $$\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (\ast,X_f) \rightarrow
\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (\ast, (\mathrm{colim} \, _N
\, (X^N)_\mathtt{f})_{f,G}) \leftarrow \mathbb{H}^\bullet
\negthinspace (\ast, \mathrm{colim} \, _N \, (X^N)_\mathtt{f}),$$ so that $\mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (\ast, \mathrm{colim}
\, _N \, (X^N)_\mathtt{f})$ is a model for $X^{hG}$ that does not require the model category $Sp_G$ for its construction.
Since $X_f$ is fibrant in $Sp$, $\Gamma X_f$ is fibrant in $Sp_G$ by Corollary \[U\]. By iteration, $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,
\Gamma^\bullet X_f)$ is a cosimplicial globally fibrant presheaf, so that $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,
\Gamma^\bullet X_f)$ is globally fibrant, by Lemma \[globally\]. It only remains to show that $\lambda \: \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,X)
\rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, \mathrm{Hom}_G(-,
\Gamma^\bullet X_f)$ is a weak equivalence.
By hypothesis, $G$ contains an open subgroup $H$ with $\mathrm{cd}(H) \leq m$. Then by [@Wilson Lem. 0.3.2], $H$ contains a subgroup $K$ that is an open normal subgroup of $G$. Let $\{N\}$ be the collection of open normal subgroups of $G$. Let $N' = N \cap K$. Observe that $\{N'\}$ is a cofinal subcollection of open normal subgroups of $G$ so that $G \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _{N'} \, G/{N'}.$ Since $N'<_c H$, $\mathrm{cd}(N')
\leq \mathrm{cd}(H).$ Thus, $H^s_c(N'; M) = 0,$ for all $s>m+1$, whenever $M$ is a discrete $N'$-module. Henceforth, we drop the $'$ from $N'$ to ease the notation: $N$ is really $N \cap K$.
Any presheaf of sets $\mathcal{F}$ has stalk $\mathrm{colim}
\, _{N} \, \mathcal{F}(G/N)$, so that $\lambda$ is a weak equivalence if $\lambda_u \: X \cong
\mathrm{colim}
\, _{N} \, X^{N} \rightarrow
\mathrm{colim} \, _{N} \, \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^{N}$ is a weak equivalence. Since $\mathrm{Hom}_G(-,
\Gamma^\bullet X_f)$ is a cosimplicial globally fibrant spectrum, the diagram $(\Gamma^\bullet X_f )^{N}$ is a cosimplicial fibrant spectrum. Then, for each $N$, there is a conditionally convergent spectral sequence $$\label{specseq}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}E_2^{s,t}(N) = \pi^s \pi_t ((\Gamma^\bullet X_f )^{N})
\Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^{N}).$$ Because $\pi_t(X)$ is a discrete $G$-module, we have $$\pi_t(\mathrm{Map}_c(G,
X_f)^{N}) \cong \pi_t(\mathrm{Map}_c(G/{N}, X_f))
\cong \textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/{N}} \, \pi_t(X) \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,
\pi_t(X))^{N}$$ and $$\pi_t(\mathrm{Map}_c(G, X_f)) \cong
\pi_t(\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, \textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/N} \,
X_f) \cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G,\pi_t(X)).$$ Iterating such manipulations, we obtain $\pi^s \pi_t
((\Gamma^\bullet X_f )^{N}) \cong
H^s((\Gamma^\ast \pi_t(X))^{N}).$ The cochain complex $0 \rightarrow \pi_t(X) \rightarrow
\Gamma^\ast \pi_t(X)$ of discrete $N$-modules is exact (see e.g. [@hGal pp. 210-211]), and, for $k \geq 1$ and $s >0,$ $$H^s_c(N; \Gamma^k \pi_t(X)) \cong H^s_c(N;
\mathrm{Map}_c(G, \Gamma^{k-1} \pi_t(X)))
= 0.$$ Thus, the above cochain complex is a resolution of $\pi_t(X)$ by $(-)^{N}$-acyclic modules, so that $E_2^{s,t}(N)
\cong H^s_c(N;
\pi_t(X)).$ Taking a colimit over $\{N \}$ of (\[specseq\]) gives the spectral sequence $$\label{specseq2}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}E_2^{s,t} = \mathrm{colim} \, _{N} \, H^s_c(N; \pi_t(X))
\Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(\mathrm{colim} \, _{N} \, \mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^{N}).$$ Since $E_2^{s,\ast}(N) = 0$ whenever $s>m+1$, the $E_2$-terms $E_2(N)$ are uniformly bounded on the right. Therefore, by [@Mitchell Prop. 3.3], the colimit of the spectral sequences does converge to the colimit of the abutments, as asserted in (\[specseq2\]).
Finally, $E_2^{*,t} \cong H^\ast_c(\mathrm{lim} \, _N \, N;
\pi_t(X)) \negthinspace \cong \negthinspace H^\ast(\{e\};
\pi_t(X)),$ which is isomorphic to $\pi_t(X)$, concentrated in degree zero. Thus, (\[specseq2\]) collapses and for all $t$, $$\pi_{t}(\mathrm{colim} \, _{N} \, \mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \,(\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^{N}) \cong
\pi_t(X),$$ and hence, $\lambda_u$ is a weak equivalence.
\[model\] Because of Theorem \[fibrantmodel\], if $\mathrm{vcd}(G) <
\infty$ and $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, we make the identification $$X^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G
X_{f,G})^G = \mathbb{H}^\bullet \negthinspace (\ast,X_{f,G}).$$
In [@Stavros §2.14], an expression that is basically equivalent to $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G X_{f,G})^G$ is defined to be the homotopy fixed point spectrum $X^{hG}$, even if $\mathrm{vcd}(G) =
\infty.$ This approach has the disadvantage that $(-)^{hG}$ need not always be the total right derived functor of $(-)^G$. Thus, we only make the identification of Remark \[model\] when $\mathrm{vcd}(G) < \infty.$
Now it is easy to construct the descent spectral sequence. Note that if $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, the proof of Theorem \[fibrantmodel\] shows that $$\pi^s \pi_t ((\Gamma^\bullet_G X)^G) \cong
\pi^s((\Gamma^\bullet_G \pi_t(X))^G) \cong H^s_c(G;\pi_t(X)).$$
\[vcddss\] If $\, \mathrm{vcd}(G) < \infty$ and $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, then there is a conditionally convergent descent spectral sequence $$E_2^{s,t} = H^s_c(G; \pi_t(X)) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(X^{hG}).$$
As in Theorem \[fibrantmodel\], $(\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^G$ is a cosimplicial fibrant spectrum. Thus, we can form the homotopy spectral sequence for $\pi_\ast(\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet X_f)^G).$
The descent spectral sequence of Theorem \[vcddss\] has been constructed in other contexts: for simplicial presheaves, presheaves of spectra, and $S_G$, see [@Jardinejpaa Cor. 3.6], [@Jardine §6.1], and [@hGal §§4, 5], respectively. In several of these examples, a Postnikov tower provides an alternative to the hypercohomology spectrum that we use. In all of these constructions of the descent spectral sequence, some kind of finiteness assumption is required in order to identify the homotopy groups of the abutment as being those of the homotopy fixed point spectrum.
Let $X$ be a discrete $G$-spectrum. We now develop a second model for $X^{hK}$, where $K$ is a closed subgroup of $G$, that is functorial in $K$.
The map $X \rightarrow X_{f,G}$ in $Sp_K$ gives a weak equivalence $X^{hK} \rightarrow (X_{f,G})^{hK}.$ Composition with the weak equivalence $(X_{f,G})^{hK} \rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_K((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))^K$ gives a weak equivalence $X^{hK} \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_K((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))^K$ between fibrant spectra. The inclusion $K \rightarrow G$ induces a morphism $\Gamma_G(X_{f,G}) \rightarrow \Gamma_K(X_{f,G}),$ giving a map $\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}) \rightarrow
\Gamma^\bullet_K(X_{f,G})$ of cosimplicial discrete $K$-spectra.
\[zig-zag\] There is a weak equivalence $$\rho \: \mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K \negthinspace
\rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_K(X_{f,G}))^K
\negthinspace \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_K((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))^K.$$
Recall the conditionally convergent spectral sequence $$H^s_c(K;\pi_t(X)) \cong H^s_c(K; \pi_t((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))
\Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_K((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))^K).$$
We compare this spectral sequence with the homotopy spectral sequence for $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K$. Note that if $Y$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum that is fibrant as a spectrum, then $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y) \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _{N} \, \prod
\, _{G/N} \, Y$ and $$\mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y)^K \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c(G/K,Y) \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
\textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/(NK)} \, Y$$ are fibrant spectra. Thus, $(\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K$ is a cosimplicial fibrant spectrum, and there is a conditionally convergent spectral sequence $$E_2^{s,t} = H^s((\Gamma^\ast_G
\pi_t(X_{f,G}))^K) \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(\mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K).$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[fibrantmodel\], $0 \rightarrow \pi_t(X_{f,G})
\rightarrow \Gamma^\ast_G(\pi_t(X_{f,G}))$ is a $(-)^K$-acyclic resolution of $\pi_t(X_{f,G})$. Hence, $$E_2^{s,t} \cong
H^s_c(K;\pi_t(X_{f,G})) \cong H^s_c(K;\pi_t(X)).$$
Since $\rho$ is compatible with the isomorphism between the two $E_2$-terms, the spectral sequences are isomorphic and $\rho$ is a weak equivalence.
\[model2\] Lemma \[zig-zag\] gives the following weak equivalences between fibrant spectra: $$X^{hK} = (X_{f,K})^K \rightarrow \mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_K((X_{f,G})_{f,K}))^K \leftarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K.$$ Thus, if $\mathrm{vcd}(G) < \infty$, $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, and $K$ is a closed subgroup of $G$, then $\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K$ is a model for $X^{hK}$, so that $$X^{hK} = \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K$$ is another definition of the homotopy fixed points.
This discussion yields the following result.
\[functor\] If $X$ is a discrete $G$-spectrum, with $\mathrm{vcd}(G) <
\infty$, then there is a presheaf of spectra $P(X) \:
(\mathcal{O}_G)^\mathrm{op} \rightarrow Sp$, defined by $$P(X)(G/K) = \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K =X^{hK}.$$
If $Y$ is a discrete $G$-set, any morphism $f \colon G/H
\rightarrow G/K$, in $\mathcal{O}_G$, induces a map $$\mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y)^K \cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G/K,Y) \rightarrow
\mathrm{Map}_c(G/H,Y) \cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y)^H.$$ Thus, if $Y
\in Sp_G,$ $f$ induces a map $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y)^K \rightarrow
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,Y)^H,$ so that there is a map $$P(X)(f) \:
\mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^K \rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(X_{f,G}))^H.$$ It is easy to check that $P(X)$ is actually a functor.
We conclude this section by pointing out a useful fact: smashing with a finite spectrum, with trivial $G$-action, commutes with taking homotopy fixed points. To state this precisely, we first of all define the relevant map.
Let $X$ be a discrete $G$-spectrum and let $Y$ be any spectrum with trivial $G$-action. Then there is a map $$(\mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G} X_f)^{G}) \wedge Y
\rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
((\Gamma^\bullet_{G} X_f)^{G} \wedge Y) \rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, ((\Gamma^\bullet_{G} X_f)
\wedge Y)^G.$$ Also, there is a natural $G$-equivariant map $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X) \wedge Y \rightarrow
\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X \wedge Y)$ that is defined by the composition $$(\mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
\textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/N} \, X) \wedge Y \cong
\mathrm{colim} \, _N \, ((\textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/N} \, X)
\wedge Y) \rightarrow \mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
\textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/N} \, (X \wedge Y),$$ by using the isomorphism $\mathrm{Map}_c(G,X) \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _N \,
\textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/N} \, X.$ This gives a natural $G$-equivariant map $$(\Gamma_G \, \Gamma_G X) \wedge Y
\rightarrow \Gamma_G \, ((\Gamma_G X) \wedge Y) \rightarrow
\Gamma_G \, \Gamma_G (X \wedge Y).$$ Thus, iteration gives a $G$-equivariant map of cosimplicial spectra $$(\Gamma^\bullet X) \wedge Y \rightarrow
\Gamma^\bullet(X \wedge Y).$$ Therefore, if $\mathrm{vcd}(G)< \infty,$ there is a canonical map $X^{hG}
\wedge Y \rightarrow (X_f \wedge Y)^{hG}$ that is defined by composing the map $X^{hG}
\wedge Y \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
((\Gamma^\bullet X_f) \wedge Y)^G,$ from above, with the map $$\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, ((\Gamma^\bullet
X_f) \wedge Y)^G \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet (X_f \wedge Y))^G \rightarrow \mathrm{holim}
\, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet (X_f \wedge Y)_f)^G.$$
\[commute3\] If $\, \mathrm{vcd}(G) < \infty,$ $X \in Sp_G,$ and $Y$ is a finite spectrum with trivial $G$-action, then $X^{hG}
\wedge Y \rightarrow (X_{f,G} \wedge Y)^{hG}$ is a weak equivalence.
\[commute2\] By Lemma \[commute3\], when $Y$ is a finite spectrum, there is a zigzag of natural weak equivalences $X^{hG} \wedge Y
\rightarrow (X_{f,G} \wedge Y)^{hG} \leftarrow (X \wedge
Y)^{hG}.$ We refer to this zigzag by writing $X^{hG} \wedge
Y \cong (X \wedge Y)^{hG}.$
Homotopy fixed points for towers in $Sp_G$ {#hfps2}
==========================================
In this section, $\{Z_i\}$ is always a tower in $Sp_G$ (except in Definition \[M-L\]). For $\{Z_i\}$ a tower of fibrant spectra, we define the homotopy fixed point spectrum $(\mathrm{holim} \, _i
\, Z_i)^{hG}$ and construct its descent spectral sequence.
\[general\] If $\{Z_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, we define $Z = \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, Z_i$, a continuous $G$-spectrum. The homotopy fixed point spectrum $Z^{hG}$ is defined to be $\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, Z_i^{hG},$ a fibrant spectrum.
We make several comments about Definition \[general\]. Let $H$ be a closed subgroup of $G.$ Then the maps $$\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, ((Z_i)_f)^H \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_H(Z_i)_f)^H \ \ \
\mathrm{and}$$ $$\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G(Z_i)_{f,G})^H
\rightarrow
\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
\mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_H((Z_i)_{f,G})_{f,H})^H$$ are weak equivalences. Thus, in Definition \[general\], any one of our three definitions for homotopy fixed points (Definition \[profinite\], Remarks \[model\] and \[model2\]) can be used for $Z_i^{hH}$.
In Definition \[general\], suppose that not all the $Z_i$ are fibrant in $Sp$. Then the map $Z=\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, Z_i
\rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, (Z_i)_{f,\{e\}} =
\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, Z_i^{h\{e\}} = Z^{h\{e\}}$ need not be a weak equivalence. Thus, for an arbitrary tower in $Sp_G$, Definition \[general\] can fail to have the desired property that $Z \rightarrow Z^{h\{e\}}$ is a weak equivalence.
Below, Lemmas \[special\] and \[ex1\], and Remark \[ex1remark\], show that when $G$ is a finite group, $Z^{hG}
\simeq Z^{h'G}$, and, for any $G$, $Z^{hG}$ can be obtained by using a total right derived functor that comes from fixed points. Thus, Definition \[general\] generalizes the notion of homotopy fixed points to towers of discrete $G$-spectra.
\[special\] Let $G$ be a finite group and let $\{Z_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ be a tower of fibrant spectra. Then there is a weak equivalence $Z^{hG} \rightarrow Z^{h'G}.$
We have: $Z^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, \mathrm{lim} \, _G \,
(Z_i)_f$ and $Z^{h'G} = \mathrm{holim} \, _G \, \mathrm{holim}
\, _i \,
(Z_i)_f$ (since $Z = \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, Z_i
\rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, (Z_i)_f$ is a weak equivalence and $G$-equivariant, and $\mathrm{holim} \, _i
\, (Z_i)_f$ is fibrant in $Sp$). Then the map $Z^{hG}
\rightarrow
Z^{h'G}$ is defined to be $$\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
\mathrm{lim} \, _G \, (Z_i)_f \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, \mathrm{holim} \, _G \,
(Z_i)_f \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _G \, \mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
(Z_i)_f.$$ For each $i$, $\mathrm{lim} \, _G \,
(Z_i)_f \rightarrow \mathrm{holim} \, _G \, (Z_i)_f$ is a weak equivalence between fibrant spectra, so that the desired map is a weak equivalence.
In the lemma below, $$\mathbf{R}(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, (-)^G)
\: \mathrm{Ho}(\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ho}(Sp)$$ is the total right derived functor of the functor $\mathrm{lim}
\, _i \, (-)^G \: \mathbf{tow}(Sp_G) \rightarrow Sp.$
\[ex1\] If $\{Z_i\}$ is an arbitrary tower in $Sp_G$, then $$\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, ((Z_i)_f)^G
\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
({(Z_i)'_{\negthinspace f}})^G \overset{\simeq}{\longleftarrow}
\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, ({(Z_i)'_{\negthinspace f}})^G =
\mathbf{R}(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, (-)^G)(\{Z_i\}).$$
The first weak equivalence follows from $((Z_i)_f)^G \rightarrow
((Z_i)'_{\negthinspace f})^G$ being a weak equivalence between fibrant spectra. The second weak equivalence holds because $\{({(Z_i)'_{\negthinspace f}})^G\}$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, such that all maps in the tower are fibrations. Finally, the equality is because $\{Z_i\}
\rightarrow
\{(Z_i)'_{\negthinspace f}\}$ is a trivial cofibration in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$.
\[ex1remark\] By Lemma \[tright\], if $X \in Sp_G$, then $X^{hG} = (\mathbf{R}(-)^G)(X)$. Also, by Lemma \[ex1\], if $\{Z_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, then $$Z^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _i \, Z_i^{hG} =
\mathrm{holim} \, _i \, ((Z_i)_f)^G \cong \mathbf{R}(\mathrm{lim}
\, _i \, (-)^G)(\{Z_i\}).$$ Thus, the homotopy fixed point spectrum $Z^{hG}$ is again given by the total right derived functor of an appropriately defined functor involving $G$-fixed points.
Given any tower in $Sp_G$ of fibrant spectra, there is a descent spectral sequence whose $E_2$-term is a version of continuous cohomology, whose definition we now recall from [@Jannsen]. We use $\mathrm{DMod}(G)$ to denote the category of discrete $G$-modules.
\[Jannsen\] Let $\mathrm{DMod}(G)^{\mathbb{N}}$ denote the category of diagrams in discrete $G$-modules of the form $ \cdots
\rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow M_1 \rightarrow M_0$. Then $H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G; \{M_i\})$, the continuous cohomology of $G$ with coefficients in the tower $\{M_i\}$, is the $s$th right derived functor of the left exact functor $$\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, (-)^G \:
\mathrm{DMod}(G)^\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbf{Ab}, \ \ \
\{M_i\} \mapsto \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, M_i^G.$$ By [@Jannsen Theorem 2.2], if the tower of abelian groups $\{M_i\}$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, then $H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{M_i\}) \cong
H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, M_i),$ for $s \geq 0.$
\[generaldss\] If $\mathrm{vcd}(G)<\infty$ and $\{Z_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, then there is a conditionally convergent descent spectral sequence $$\label{geisser2}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\pi_t(Z_i)\}) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(Z^{hG}).$$
\[l-adic\] Such a spectral sequence goes back to Thomason’s construction of the $\ell$-adic descent spectral sequence of algebraic $K$-theory ([@Thomason], [@Mitchell]). Spectral sequence (\[geisser2\]) is the homotopy spectral sequence $$E_2^{s,t} =
\textstyle{\mathrm{lim}} ^s \, _{\Delta \times \{i\}} \,
\pi_t((\Gamma^\bullet_G((Z_i)_{f,G}))^G) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(\mathrm{holim} \, _{\Delta \times \{i\}} \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G((Z_i)_{f,G}))^G),$$ where the identification $E_2^{s,t} \cong H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\pi_t(Z_i)\})$ depends on the fact that if $\{I_i\}$ is an injective object in $\mathrm{DMod}(G)^\mathbb{N}$, then $\textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}
^s \, _{\Delta \times \{i\}} \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G I_i)^G =0$, for $s >0$. We omit the details of the proof, since it is a special case of [@Geisser Prop. 3.1.2], and also because (\[geisser2\]) is not our focus of interest.
For our applications, instead of spectral sequence (\[geisser2\]), we are more interested in descent spectral sequence (\[geisser\]) below. Spectral sequence (\[geisser\]), a homotopy spectral sequence for a particular cosimplicial spectrum, is more suitable for comparison with the $K(n)$-local $E_n$-Adams spectral sequence (see [@DH Prop. A.5]), when (\[geisser\]) has abutment $\pi_\ast((E_n \wedge X)^{hG})$, where $X$ is a finite spectrum.
\[M-L\] If $\{Z_i\}$ is a tower of spectra such that $\{\pi_t(Z_i)\}$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition for every $t \in
{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $\{Z_i\}$ is a [*Mittag-Leffler tower*]{} of spectra.
\[Dss\] If $\mathrm{vcd}(G) < \infty$ and $\{Z_i\}$ in $\mathbf{tow}(Sp_G)$ is a tower of fibrant spectra, then there is a conditionally convergent descent spectral sequence $$\label{geisser}{\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}E_2^{s,t} = \pi^s\pi_t (\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G (Z_i)_f)^G) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(Z^{hG}).$$ If $\{Z_i\}$ is a Mittag-Leffler tower, then $E_2^{s,t} \cong
H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G; \pi_t(Z))$.
\[differ\] In Theorem \[Dss\], when $\{Z_i\}$ is a Mittag-Leffler tower, $E_2^{s,t} \cong H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\pi_t(Z)) \cong
H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\pi_t(Z_i)\}),$ and spectral sequence (\[geisser\]) is identical to (\[geisser2\]). However, in general, spectral sequences (\[geisser2\]) and (\[geisser\]) are different. For example, if $G=\{e\}$, then in (\[geisser2\]), $E_2^{0,t}=\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, \pi_t(Z_i)$, whereas in (\[geisser\]), $E_2^{0,t}=\pi_t(\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, Z_i)$.
Note that $Z^{hG} \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \,
\mathrm{holim} \,
_i \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G (Z_i)_f)^G,$ and the diagram $\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
(\Gamma^\bullet_G (Z_i)_f)^G$ is a cosimplicial fibrant spectrum.
Let $\{Z_i\}$ be a Mittag-Leffler tower. For $k \geq 0$, Lemma \[mittag\] and Remark \[mittagrk\] imply that $\textstyle{\mathrm{lim}}^1 \, _i \,
\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k}, \pi_{t+1}(Z_i)) = 0.$ Therefore, $$\pi_t (\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
(\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k+1}, (Z_i)_f ))^G ) \cong \mathrm{lim} \,
_i
\, \mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k+1}, \pi_t(Z_i))^G,$$ and hence, $\pi_t(\mathrm{holim} \, _i \,
(\Gamma^\bullet (Z_i)_f)^G) \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(\Gamma^\bullet \pi_t(Z_i))^G.$ Thus, $$E_2^{s,t} \cong \pi^s
(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(\Gamma^\bullet \pi_t(Z_i))^G) \cong H^s(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(-)^G \, \{\Gamma^\ast \pi_t(Z_i)\}_i).$$
Consider the exact sequence $\{0\} \rightarrow \{\pi_t(Z_i)\}
\rightarrow \{\Gamma^\ast\pi_t(Z_i)\}$ in $\mathrm{DMod}(G)^\mathbb{N}.$ Note that, for $s,k>0$, by Theorem \[ses\], $$H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\Gamma^k \pi_t(Z_i)\}) \cong
H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\mathrm{lim} \, _i \, \Gamma^k \pi_t(Z_i))
\cong \mathrm{lim} \, _i \, H^s_c(G; \Gamma^k \pi_t(Z_i))=0,$$ since the tower $\{\Gamma^k \pi_t(Z_i)\}$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, and, for each $i$, $\Gamma^k \pi_t(Z_i)
\cong \mathrm{Map}_c(G,\Gamma^{k-1} \pi_t(Z_i))$ is $(-)^G$-acyclic. Thus, the above exact sequence is a $(\mathrm{lim}
\, _i \, (-)^G)$-acyclic resolution of $\{\pi_t(Z_i)\},$ so that we obtain the isomorphism $E_2^{s,t} \cong
H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\pi_t(Z_i)\}) \cong H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;
\pi_t(Z)).$
By Remark \[ex1remark\], we can rewrite spectral sequence (\[geisser\]), when $\{Z_i\}$ is a Mittag-Leffler tower, in a more conceptual way: $$R^s(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(-)^G)\{\pi_t(Z_i)\} \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}(\mathbf{R}(\mathrm{lim} \, _i \,
(-)^G)(\{Z_i\})).$$ Spectral sequence (\[geisser2\]) can always be written in this way.
Homotopy fixed point spectra for ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$
==========================================================
In this section, for any spectrum $X$ and any closed subgroup $G$ of $G_n$, we define the homotopy fixed point spectrum $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$, using the continuous action of $G$.
Let $X$ be an arbitrary spectrum with trivial $G_n$-action. By Corollary \[Rezk\], there is a weak equivalence $F_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X \rightarrow E_n \wedge M_I \wedge X.$ Then, using functorial fibrant replacement, there is a map of towers $$\{(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge
X)_\mathtt{f}\} \rightarrow \{(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge
X)_\mathtt{f}\},$$ which yields the weak equivalence $${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (E_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X)_\mathtt{f} \overset{\simeq}{\longleftarrow}
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_\mathtt{f}.$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[wonder\], this implies the following lemma, since the diagram $\{(F_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X)_{f,G_n}\}$ is a tower of fibrant spectra.
\[gencts\] Given any spectrum $X$ with trivial $G_n$-action, the isomorphism $${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n}$$ makes ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ a continuous $G_n$-spectrum.
Let $G$ be any closed subgroup of $G_n$. Since $\{(F_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n}\}$ is a tower of discrete $G$-spectra that are fibrant in $Sp$, Lemma \[gencts\] also shows that ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum. By Theorem \[finally\], the composition $$(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)
\rightarrow (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n} \rightarrow
((F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n})_{f,G}$$ is a trivial cofibration in $Sp_G$, with target fibrant in $Sp_G$. Therefore, $$((F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n})^{hG} = (F_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X)^{hG}.$$ Then, by Definition \[general\], we have the following.
\[bigdef\] Let $G<_c G_n$. Then $$E_n^{hG} = (\mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
(F_n \wedge M_I)_{f,G_n})^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I)^{hG}.$$ More generally, for any spectrum $X$, $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} = (\mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n})^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG}.$$
When $X$ is a finite spectrum, $E_n \wedge X \simeq {\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$. Thus, we have $(E_n \wedge X)^{hG} \cong
({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}.$
\[elementary\] For any $X$, ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) \cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I
\, (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G}$ also shows that ${\hat{L}}(E_n
\wedge X)$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum. Note that, by definition, the spectra $((F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G})^{hG}$ and $(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG}$ are identical. This implies that $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
((F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G})^{hG} =\mathrm{holim} \, _I
\, (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG},$$ as before.
Note that Definition \[bigdef\] implies the identifications $$E_n^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G_n} (F_n
\wedge
M_I)_{f,G_n})^G$$ and $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G_n} (F_n
\wedge
M_I \wedge X)_{f,G_n})^G.$$ The first identification, coupled with Theorem \[functor\], implies the following result.
There is a functor $$P \: (\mathcal{O}_{G_n})^\mathrm{op}
\rightarrow Sp, \ \ \ P(G_n/G) = E_n^{hG},$$ where $G$ is any closed subgroup of $G_n$.
In addition to the above identifications, we also have $$E_n^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G} (F_n
\wedge
M_I)_{f,G})^G$$ and $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, \mathrm{holim} \, _\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G} (F_n
\wedge
M_I \wedge X)_{f,G})^G.$$
Since $E_n^{\mathtt{h}G}$ is $K(n)$-local, one would expect that $E_n^{hG}$ is $K(n)$-local; this is verified below.
\[local\] Let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$ and let $X$ be any spectrum. Then the spectra $(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge
X)^{hG}$ and $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$ are $K(n)$-local. Also, $(F_n \wedge X)^{hG}$ is $E(n)$-local.
Recall that $(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \,
_\Delta \, (\Gamma^\bullet_G (F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G})^G,$ and, for $k \geq 1,$ $$(\Gamma^k_G(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_f)^G \simeq
\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k-1}, F_n \wedge X) \wedge M_I.$$ Since $\mathrm{Map}_c(G, F_n \wedge X) \cong \mathrm{colim} \, _i
\, \textstyle{\prod} \, _{G/(U_i \cap G)} \, (F_n \wedge X)$, and $F_n \wedge X$ is $E(n)$-local, the finite product is too, and hence, the direct limit $\mathrm{Map}_c(G, F_n \wedge X)$ is $E(n)$-local. Iterating this argument shows that $\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k-1}, F_n \wedge X) \cong \Gamma_G
\Gamma_G \cdots \Gamma_G (F_n \wedge X)$ is $E(n)$-local. Smashing $\mathrm{Map}_c(G^{k-1}, F_n \wedge X)$ with the type $n$ spectrum $M_I$ shows that $(\Gamma^k_G(F_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)_f)^G$ is $K(n)$-local. Therefore, since the homotopy limit of an arbitrary diagram of $E$-local spectra is $E$-local [@Bousfieldlocal pg. 259], $(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG}$ and $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}$ are $K(n)$-local. The same argument shows that $(F_n \wedge X)^{hG}$ is $E(n)$-local.
The following theorem shows that the homotopy fixed points of ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X)$ are obtained by taking the $K(n)$-localization of the homotopy fixed points of the discrete $G_n$-spectrum $(F_n \wedge X)$. Thus, homotopy fixed points for $E_n$ come from homotopy fixed points for $F_n$.
\[fun\] For any closed subgroup $G$ of $G_n$ and any spectrum $X$ with trivial $G$-action, there is an isomorphism $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge
X))^{hG} \cong {\hat{L}}((F_n \wedge X)^{hG})$$ in the stable category. In particular, $E_n^{hG} \cong {\hat{L}}(F_n^{hG})$.
After switching $M_I$ and $X$, $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG}
\cong \mathrm{holim} \,
_I \, (F_n \wedge X \wedge M_I)^{hG}$. By Remark \[commute2\], $(F_n \wedge X \wedge M_I)^{hG} \cong (F_n \wedge X)^{hG}
\wedge M_I \simeq ((F_n \wedge X)^{hG} \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f},$ where the isomorphism signifies a zigzag of natural weak equivalences. Thus, $$({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))^{hG} \cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
((F_n \wedge X)^{hG} \wedge M_I)_\mathtt{f} \cong {\hat{L}}((F_n
\wedge X)^{hG}),$$ since, by Lemma \[local\], $(F_n \wedge X)^{hG}$ is $E(n)$-local.
\[different\] If $X$ is a finite spectrum of type $n$, then there is an isomorphism $(F_n
\wedge X)^{hG} \cong E_n^{hG}
\wedge X.$ In particular, $(F_n \wedge M_I)^{hG} \cong E_n^{hG}
\wedge M_I.$
Since $X$ is finite, by Remark \[commute2\], $(F_n
\wedge X)^{hG} \cong F_n^{hG} \wedge X.$ Then, since $F_n^{hG}$ is $E(n)$-local by Lemma \[local\], there are isomorphisms $F_n^{hG} \wedge X \cong {\hat{L}}(F_n^{hG}) \wedge X
\cong E_n^{hG} \wedge X.$
We conclude this section by observing that smashing with a finite spectrum commutes with taking the homotopy fixed points of $E_n$.
\[final\] Let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$ and let $X$ be a finite spectrum. Then there is an isomorphism $(E_n \wedge X)^{hG} \cong
E_n^{hG} \wedge X.$
Recall that $(E_n \wedge X)^{hG} = \mathrm{holim} \, _I \,
(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG}.$ The zigzag of natural weak equivalences between $(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)^{hG}$ and $(F_n
\wedge M_I)^{hG} \wedge X$ yields $$(E_n \wedge X)^{hG}
\cong \mathrm{holim} \, _I \, ((F_n \wedge M_I)^{hG} \wedge
X)_\mathtt{f} \simeq (\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n \wedge
M_I)^{hG}) \wedge X,$$ where the weak equivalence is due to Lemma \[commute\].
The descent spectral sequence for $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge
X))^{hG}$
=========================================================
By applying the preceding two sections, it is now an easy matter to build the descent spectral sequence for $({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge
X))^{hG}$.
Let $X$ be a spectrum. If the tower $\{\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X)\}_I$ of abelian groups satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition for all $t \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, then $X$ is an [*$E_n$-Mittag-Leffler spectrum*]{}. If $X$ is an $E_n$-Mittag-Leffler spectrum, then, for convenience, we say that $X$ is $E_n$-ML.
Any finite spectrum $X$ is $E_n$-ML, since $\{\pi_t(E_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)\}_I$ is a tower of finite abelian groups, by Lemma \[finite\]. However, an $E_n$-ML spectrum need not be finite. For example, for $j \geq
1$, let $X=E_n^{(j)}$. Then $\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I
\wedge X) \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^{j}, \pi_t(E_n)/I).$ Since $\{\pi_t(E_n)/I\}$ is a tower of epimorphisms, the tower $\{\mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^{j}, \pi_t(E_n)/I)\}$ is also, and $E_n^{(j)}$ is $E_n$-ML.
\[label\] Let $G$ be a closed subgroup of $G_n$ and let $X$ be any spectrum with trivial $G$-action. Let $$E_2^{s,t}= \pi^s\pi_t(\mathrm{holim}
\, _I \, (\Gamma^\bullet_{G} (F_n \wedge
M_I \wedge X)_{f,G})^G).$$ Then there is a conditionally convergent descent spectral sequence $${\addtocounter{Lem}{1}\tag{\theLem}}\label{mydss}
E_2^{s,t} \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s}(({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) )^{hG}).$$ If $X$ is $E_n$-ML, then $E_2^{s,t}\cong H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\pi_t({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X))).$ In particular, if $X$ is a finite spectrum, then descent spectral sequence (\[mydss\]) has the form $$H^s_c(G; \pi_t(E_n
\wedge X)) \Rightarrow
\pi_{t-s}((E_n \wedge X)^{hG}).$$
As in Remark \[elementary\], ${\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge X) \cong
\mathrm{holim} \, _I \, (F_n
\wedge M_I \wedge X)_{f,G}$ is a continuous $G$-spectrum. Then (\[mydss\]) follows from Theorem \[Dss\] by considering the tower of spectra $\{(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_f \}_I.$ When $X$ is $E_n$-ML, $\{(F_n \wedge M_I \wedge X)_f \}$ is a Mittag-Leffler tower of spectra, and thus, the simplification of the $E_2$-term in this case follows from Theorem \[Dss\]. By Corollary \[help2\], when $X$ is finite, there is an isomorphism $H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G;\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)) \cong H^s_{c}(G;
\pi_t(E_n \wedge X)).$
As discussed in Remark \[differ\], Theorem \[generaldss\] gives a spectral sequence with abutment $\pi_\ast(({\hat{L}}(E_n
\wedge X))^{hG})$, the same as the abutment of (\[mydss\]), but with $E_2$-term $H^s_\mathrm{cont}(G;\{\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I \wedge
X)\}),$ which is, in general, different from the $E_2$-term of (\[mydss\]). We are interested in the descent spectral sequence of Theorem \[label\], not just because it is a second descent spectral sequence with an interesting $E_2$-term, but, as mentioned in §\[hfps2\], it can be compared with the $K(n)$-local $E_n$-Adams spectral sequence. (This comparison is work in progress.)
We conclude this paper with a computation that uses spectral sequence (\[mydss\]) to compute $\pi_\ast(({\hat{L}}(E_n \wedge
E_n^{(j)}))^{hG_n}),$ where $j \geq 1$ and $G_n$ acts only on the leftmost factor. By Theorem \[powers\], $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_t({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)})) & \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n^j, \pi_t(E_n)) \\ & \cong
\mathrm{lim} \, _I \, \mathrm{Map}_c^\ell(G_n,
\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1}, \pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I))) \\
& \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _I \, \mathrm{Map}_c(G_n,
\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1}, \pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I))),\end{aligned}$$ where the tower $\{\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n, \mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1},
\pi_t(E_n \wedge M_I)))\}$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, by Remark \[mittagrk\]. Thus, in spectral sequence (\[mydss\]), Theorem \[ses\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
E_2^{s,t} & \cong H^s_\mathrm{cts}(G_n; \pi_t({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)}))) \\ & \cong \mathrm{lim} \, _I \, H^s_c(G_n;
\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n, \mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1}, \pi_t(E_n \wedge
M_I)))),\end{aligned}$$ which vanishes for $s>0$, and equals $\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1}, \pi_t(E_n)),$ when $s=0.$ Thus, $$\pi_\ast (({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)}))^{hG_n}) \cong
\mathrm{Map}_c(G_n^{j-1},
\pi_\ast(E_n)) \cong \pi_\ast({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j)})),$$ as abelian groups. Therefore, for $j \geq 1$, there is an isomorphism $({\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j+1)}))^{hG_n} \cong {\hat{L}}(E_n^{(j)}),$ in the stable category. The techniques described in this paper do not allow us to handle the $j=0$ case, which would say that $E_n^{hG_n}$ and ${\hat{L}}(S^0) \simeq E_n^{\mathtt{h}G_n}$ are isomorphic.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We numerically study the evolution of magnetic fields and fluid flows in a thin spherical shell. We take the initial field to be a latitudinally confined, predominantly toroidal flux tube. For purely toroidal, untwisted flux tubes, we recover previously known radial-shredding instabilities, and show further that in the nonlinear regime these instabilities can very effectively destroy the original field. For twisted flux tubes, including also a poloidal component, there are several possibilities, including the suppression of the radial-shredding instability, but also a more directly induced evolution, brought about because twisted flux tubes in general are not equilibrium solutions of the governing equations.'
author:
- 'R. $^{1,2}$,P.S. $^{2}$,'
title: Nonlinear Evolution of Axisymmetric Twisted Flux Tubes in the Solar Tachocline
---
Introduction
============
The solar tachocline is the transition zone between the uniformly rotating radiative interior and the differentially rotating convection zone. First discovered helioseismically in the early 1990s, it continues to be probed to this day. Of particular interest is how thin it is; the angular-velocity profile changes dramatically over no more than about 5% of the solar radius. This intense shear is one of the reasons why the tachocline is now generally believed to be the seat of the solar dynamo, with poloidal fields being sheared out to produce very strong toroidal fields. Seefor reviews of many different aspects of the tachocline, including its role in the solar dynamo.
Given the combination of strong magnetic fields and shear, it was quickly realized that so-called magneto-shear instabilities could potentially play an important role in the dynamics of the tachocline. Indeed, in other contexts, long before the tachocline was even discovered, it had been known that both magnetic fields [@gough66] and shear [@watson81] separately can lead to instabilities. The first to study this problem in the tachocline context were$\!\!$; one very interesting result that they obtained was that a combination of magnetic fields and shear can be unstable even though each ingredient separately would be stable. @gilfox97 carried out a 2D calculation, confined to the surface of a sphere, with no radial variations allowed. Subsequent work extended this to quasi-3D shallow-water and 3D thin-shell models, including also both linear onset and nonlinear equilibration studies. Seefor a review of this work.
We will consider a different type of two-dimensionality, namely axisymmetric solutions. These have not received as much attention as some of the 3D solutions, but recent linear-onset calculations [@cdg08; @dgcm09] indicate that if the toroidal field is concentrated into latitudinal bands, instabilities may arise that shred the field in the radial direction. In this paper we consider the nonlinear evolution of such banded fields. For purely toroidal, untwisted flux tubes, we obtain results in good qualitative agreement with the linear-onset calculations. For mixed toroidal plus poloidal, twisted flux tubes (which were not considered before) we show that the field evolves not just [*via*]{} the onset of instabilities, but much more directly, simply because in general it is not an equilibrium solution of the governing equations. For twisted flux tubes there is then a variety of possible outcomes, depending on the strengths of both the toroidal and poloidal components.
Equations {#sec:equations}
=========
The equations we wish to solve are the (Boussinesq) Navier-Stokes equation $$\frac{\partial{\bf v}}{\partial t} + {\bf v\cdot\nabla v} = -\nabla p
+{\bf(\nabla\times a)\times a} +S{\bf\hat e}_r +\epsilon\nabla^2{\bf v},
\eqno(1)$$ the magnetic induction equation $$\frac{\partial{\bf a}}{\partial t}=\nabla\times({\bf v\times a})
+ \epsilon\nabla^2{\bf a},\eqno(2)$$ and the entropy equation $$\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} + {\bf v}\cdot\nabla S =
-N^2{\bf v\cdot\hat e}_r + \epsilon\nabla^2 S.\eqno(3)$$ Here $\bf v$ and $\bf a$ denote the fluid and Alfvén velocities, respectively, and $S$ the entropy. $N$ is the Brunt-Väisälä frequency, assumed constant. Length has been scaled by the inner edge of the tachocline, so we will be interested in solving this system in the interval $r\in[1,1.05]$. Time has been scaled by the equatorial rotation frequency, $\bf v$ and $\bf a$ as length/time.
Except for the inclusion of the diffusive terms $(\epsilon\nabla^2\cdot)$, these equations are the same as in$\!\!$, hereafter referred to as CDG08. Some diffusivity must be included here to ensure numerical stability, but values in the range $\epsilon=10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$ yielded similar results, indicating that diffusivity is not significantly affecting the evolution. The results presented here are all at $\epsilon=2\times10^{-6}$.
While the equations may be much the same, the subsequent analysis is very different from that of CDG08. They considered only the linear onset of instability, and only for high radial wavenumber $(k)$, thereby ultimately eliminating $r$ entirely, instead simply having $k$ as a parameter in the equations. In contrast, we are interested in a direct numerical solution, in the finite interval $r\in[1,1.05]$, allowing an arbitrary radial dependence, and including also the full nonlinear evolution of the solutions.
For axisymmetric solutions, it is convenient to decompose $\bf v$ and $\bf a$ as $${\bf v}=v{\bf\hat e}_\phi + \nabla\times(\psi{\bf\hat e}_\phi),\qquad
{\bf a}=b{\bf\hat e}_\phi + \nabla\times(a{\bf\hat e}_\phi).\eqno(4)$$ The toroidal parts, $v$ and $b$, are the azimuthal components of the given vectors; the poloidal parts, $\psi$ and $a$, are the streamfunctions of the meridional components. The original Equations (1) and (2) then become $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}v=P_1(b,a) - P_1(v,\psi) + \epsilon D^2v,
\eqno(5)$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}D^2\psi=
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}S + P_2(b,b) + P_2(D^2a,a)
-P_2(v,v)-P_2(D^2\psi,\psi) + \epsilon D^4\psi,\eqno(6)$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}b=P_2(v,a) - P_2(b,\psi) + \epsilon D^2b,
\eqno(7)$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}a=P_1(\psi,a) + \epsilon D^2a,\eqno(8)$$ where $$D^2=\nabla^2 - 1/(r\sin\theta)^2,\eqno(9)$$ and $$P_1(X,Y)={\bf\hat e}_\phi\cdot
\bigl[\bigl(\nabla\times(X{\bf\hat e}_\phi)\bigr)
\times\bigl(\nabla\times(Y{\bf\hat e}_\phi)\bigr)\bigr],\eqno(10)$$ $$P_2(X,Y)={\bf\hat e}_\phi\cdot\nabla\times
\bigl[(X{\bf\hat e}_\phi)\
\times\bigl(\nabla\times(Y{\bf\hat e}_\phi)\bigr)\bigr].\eqno(11)$$
We then wish to solve (5) and (6), with stress-free boundary conditions $$\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Bigl(\frac{v}{r}\Bigr)=\psi=
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}\psi=0\qquad
{\rm at}\quad r=1,1.05,\eqno(12)$$ (7) and (8), with perfectly conducting boundary conditions $$\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\bigl(br\bigr)=a=0\qquad
{\rm at}\quad r=1,1.05,\eqno(13)$$ and (3), with $S=0$ at $r=1,1.05$. These boundary conditions are somewhat artificial, but [*any*]{} boundary conditions would necessarily be artificial. To properly capture all of the dynamics of the tachocline, it should not be studied in isolation, but rather as part of a global model that also includes the interior and the convection zone. However, while there are models that aim in this direction [@ASH], they are so complicated that one cannot focus specifically on aspects such as tachocline instabilities. To study tachocline instabilities, one must therefore adopt simplified models such as ours, despite the inevitably unnatural boundaries where the real Sun has none.
We solve these equations using the numerical code described by$\!\!$, in which the radial structure is expanded in terms of Chebyshev polynomials, the angular structure in terms of spherical harmonics, and the time-stepping is done [*via*]{} a second-order Runge-Kutta method. Resolutions ranging from $50\times1600$ to $80\times2400$ in $(r,\theta)$ were used, and were all checked to ensure that the results were adequately resolved. A timestep of $10^{-3}$ was sufficiently small to ensure stability.
To facilitate comparison with CDG08, we choose initial conditions much the same as theirs. The initial entropy is simply $S=0$, so any buoyancy effects arise entirely out of the subsequent evolution. For the flow, we take the solar-like differential rotation profile $\omega=v/(r\sin\theta)=1-0.18
\cos^2\theta$, where we note that (1) is written in a non-rotating frame, so $\omega$ here must include an overall rotation, not just the Pole-to-Equator differential rotation $-0.18\cos^2\theta$.
For the toroidal field, we take $$b=Ap\bigl[{\mathrm e}^{-4(\mu-d)^2/W^2(1-d^2)}
-{\mathrm e}^{-4(\mu+d)^2/W^2(1-d^2)}\bigr]\sin\theta/r,\eqno(14)$$ where $\mu=\cos\theta$. That is, $b$ consists of two oppositely directed bands in the two hemispheres, with position $d$, latitudinal bandwidth $W$, and amplitude $A$. The normalization factor $p$ is adjusted such that the maximum field strength $\max_\theta(b)$ is $A/2$.
Values of $A$ up to one, corresponding in dimensional terms to $\max_\theta(b)
\approx10^5$ G, are of greatest interest in the solar context, but other (especially younger) solar-type stars may well have even larger values. We will present runs for $A=1$ and $2$. A range of possibilities for $d$ and $W$ were considered, and yielded qualitatively similar results. We therefore show results only for $d=0.5$, corresponding to bands situated $\pm30^o$ from the Equator, and $W=\pi/36$, corresponding to a bandwidth of $5^o$.
Thus far our initial conditions are exactly as in CDG08; see also$\!\!$, who were the first to introduce banded toroidal fields of this type. To this toroidal field, we now add the poloidal field $$a=A'p'\bigl[{\mathrm e}^{-4(\mu-d)^2/W^2(1-d^2)}
+{\mathrm e}^{-4(\mu+d)^2/W^2(1-d^2)}\bigr]\sin\theta(r-1)(r-1.05).
\eqno(15)$$ The poloidal field thus has the same banded structure as the toroidal, but $a$ is equatorially symmetric, whereas $b$ is anti-symmetric. Both of these symmetries correspond to the standard “dipole” solutions of solar dynamo theory. The differing radial dependencies, $(r-1)(r-1.05)$ for $a$ [*versus*]{} $1/r$ for $b$, are dictated by the different boundary conditions (13) that $a$ and $b$ are supposed to satisfy. The normalization factor $p'$ is adjusted such that $\max_\theta(a)$ is $A'$.
The amplitude $A'=fA$, so the factor $f$ gives the ratio of poloidal to toroidal fields. In addition to the $f=0$, untwisted flux tubes, we will take $f=\pm10^{-4}$ and $\pm4\times10^{-4}$ for the twisted flux tubes. The sign of $f$ determines whether the tubes are twisted in a left- or right-handed sense. It is not certain which is more appropriate to the tachocline [@Fan04], so we consider both possibilities, and show that they yield qualitatively similar behavior. Regarding the amplitudes of $f$, for $A=1$ and $|f|=10^{-4}$, the maximum values of $(a_r,a_\theta,a_\phi)$ are $(0.0022,0.0092,0.5)$. Even for $|f|=4\times10^{-4}$ the field is thus predominantly azimuthal, with only around one twist over the full circumference $\phi\in[0,2\pi]$. We will see though that even such relatively weak poloidal fields as this can significantly influence the subsequent evolution.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Untwisted Flux Tubes {#subsec:untwist}
--------------------
We begin by considering the influence of the stratification. Figure 1 shows results for $N^2=10,10^2,10^3$, all for $A=1$ and $f=0$. Within each row, the first panel shows the toroidal field $b$, the second panel the angular velocity $\omega=v/(r\sin\theta)$, the third the meridional circulation $\psi$, and the fourth the entropy $S$. (According to Equation (8), if $a=0$ initially, it will remain zero.) Only the range $\theta\in[45^o,75^o]$ is shown, centered on the flux tube at $\theta=60^o$. The radial direction has been stretched by a factor of 10, that is, the actual gap $r\in[1,1.05]$ has been stretched to look like $[1,1.5]$.
Turning to the variation with $N^2$, we see that for $N^2=10$ the solution has changed significantly from its initial condition, whereas for $N^2=10^3$ it is almost unchanged. The reason for this is easy to understand: If initially only $b$ and $v$ are non-zero – and if $a$ is always zero – then according to Equations (5) and (7), the only way (apart from the very weak dissipation) for either $b$ or $v$ to change is by inducing a meridional circulation $\psi$. Now, according to Equation (6), the terms $P_2(b,b)-
P_2(v,v)$ will indeed induce such a circulation; these terms are zero only if $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}(b^2-v^2)=0$, which in general is not the case. However, for increasingly strong stratification, the buoyancy term $(r^{-1}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial\theta})$ can very effectively suppress the tendency to drive a meridional circulation. That is, having only $b$ and $v$ non-zero is not quite an equilibrium solution to the governing equations, but if $N^2$ is sufficiently large, only a very weak circulation $\psi$ will be induced, so according to Equations (5) and (7), $b$ and $v$ will remain almost unchanged. This justifies linear stability analyses such as those of CDG08, where a basic state is simply imposed for $b$ and $v$. In the remainder of this paper we will consider only the strongly stratified case $N^2=10^3$.
Figure 2 shows the effect of doubling the field strength, to $A=2$. Now even the strong stratification is not enough to stabilize the solution. Instead, we see the development of precisely the radial-shredding instabilities previously studied by CDG08. Here though we follow the full nonlinear evolution, and discover that by $t=10$ the instability has almost completely obliterated the original flux tube.
Twisted Flux Tubes {#subsec:twist}
------------------
Figures 3 and 4 show the results for $A=1$ and $f=\pm4\times10^{-4}$. That is, the amplitude $A=1$ is as in Figure 1, too low for the shredding instability to occur, and indeed it doesn’t. Nevertheless, the solutions also do not remain virtually stationary, as in the bottom row in Figure 1. Instead, we see the development of highly localized jets in the angular velocity $\omega$. To understand their origin, we return to Equation (5), where the term $P_1(b,a)$ is clearly responsible; this term is zero only if contours of $b$ and $a$ coincide, which in general is not the case. Furthermore, because there is no buoyancy force in this equation, no amount of stratification can suppress this effect, very much unlike Figure 1.
Comparing Figures 3 and 4 in detail, we note that reversing the sign of $a$ (that is, the sense of twist in the tube) has exactly the effect one might expect; reversing the sign of $P_1(b,a)$ simply reverses the jets. Otherwise the evolution is much the same, and in both cases the flux tubes largely maintain their strength. Note also that jets as concentrated as this would not be detectable by helioseismology, so phenomena such as these could conceivably exist in the real tachocline.
Figure 5 shows results for $A=2$ and $f=10^{-4}$. The toroidal field is therefore as in Figure 2, whereas the poloidal field is half as strong as in Figure 3 (so the nonlinear term $P_1(b,a)$ is just as strong as in Figure 3). Initially we see the same jets as in Figures 3 and 4 (and reversing the sign of $f$ again merely reverses the jets). By $t=5$ the evolution is dominated by the same shredding instability as in Figure 2, and the final result is much the same, with the original flux tube largely destroyed. Poloidal fields as weak as this therefore have relatively little influence. However, if we increase the poloidal field strength to $f=4\times10^{-4}$, it does have a very significant influence, as illustrated in Figure 6. The radial-shredding instability is now completely suppressed, and the flux tube persists up to $t=10$ (and beyond). Note also how the solution has adjusted itself so that contours of $b$ and $a$ do now largely coincide, and correspondingly these localized jets are greatly reduced in strength.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have considered the evolution of flux tubes in a thin spherical shell, intended to model solar-type tachoclines. For untwisted tubes we obtain the same radial-shredding instabilities that have previously been studied in the linear regime, and show that in the nonlinear regime these instabilities can very efficiently destroy the original flux tube, simply by shredding it to sufficiently short length-scales for it to dissipate.
For twisted flux tubes, there are a number of possibilities. If the toroidal field is too weak for instabilities to set in, the solution will nevertheless evolve, [*via*]{} the formation of differential-rotation jets, driven directly by the Lorentz forces associated with the twist in the tube. These jets induce a certain amount of structure in the flux tubes, but not enough to disrupt it as the instabilities did.
If the toroidal field is sufficiently strong, and the poloidal field very weak, the shredding instabilities develop much as before, and simply overwhelm the jets driven by the twist. Finally, if the poloidal field is somewhat stronger – but still much weaker than the toroidal – it can suppress the shredding instability. Twisted flux tubes can therefore exist at considerably greater field strengths than untwisted tubes.
Future work will extend this model to 3D and study the interaction of some of the effects presented here with some of the previously known non-axisymmetric magneto-shear instabilities [@gc07].
This work was supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council Grant No. PP/E001092/1. RH’s visit to Australia was supported by a Royal Society International Travel Grant.
Brun, A.S., Toomre, J.: [*Astrophys. J.*]{} **570**, 865.
Cally, P.S., Dikpati, M., Gilman, P.A.: 2008, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} **391**, 891. (CDG08)
Dikpati, M., Gilman, P.A.: 1999, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}**512**, 417.
Dikpati, M., Gilman, P.A., Cally, P.S., Miesch, M.S.: 2009, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} **692**, 1421.
Fan, Y.: 2004, [*Living Rev. Solar Phys.*]{} **1**, URL (cited on 1 August 2009):\
<http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2004-1>
Gilman, P.A., Cally, P.S.: In: Hughes D., Rosner R., Weiss N., eds, 2007, [*The Solar Tachocline*]{}. Cambridge University Press. p 243.
Gilman, P.A., Fox, P.A.: 1997, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} **484**, 439.
Gough, D.O., Tayler, R.J.: 1966, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} **133**, 85.
Hollerbach, R.: 2000, [*Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids*]{} **32**, 773.
Hughes D., Rosner R., Weiss N., eds, 2007, [*The Solar Tachocline*]{}. Cambridge University Press.
Watson, M.: 1981, [*Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.*]{} **16**, 285.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Group communication is becoming a more and more popular infrastructure for efficient distributed applications. It consists in representing locally a group of remote objects as a single object accessed in a single step; communications are then broadcasted to all members. This paper provides models for automatic verification of group-based applications, typically for detecting deadlocks or checking message ordering. We show how to encode group communication, together with different forms of synchronisation for group results. The proposed models are parametric such that, for example, different group sizes or group members could be experimented with the minimum modification of the original model.'
author:
- 'Rabéa Ameur-Boulifa'
- Ludovic Henrio and Eric Madelaine
bibliography:
- 'Oasis.bib'
title: Behavioural Models for Group Communications
---
Introduction
============
Group communication is a communication pattern allowing a single process to perform a communication to many clients in a single instruction, this operation can be synchronized or optimized accordingly. Nowadays group communication is widely used in distributed computing particularly in grid technologies [@Grid05]. Objects can register to a group and receive communications handled in a collective way. Group membership is transparent to the receiver that simply handles requests it receives. Group communications are also easy to handle on the sender side because a simple invocation can trigger several communications. Communication parameters are sent according to a distribution policy; they can be for example broadcasted or split between the members of the group. Several middleware platforms and toolkits for building distributed applications implement one-to-many communication mechanisms [@JGroup; @baduel07asynchronous; @KPS+04].
This paper addresses the crucial point of reliability of distributed applications using group communications. The most frequent reliability issue for distributed application is to be able to detect deadlocks, in the case of group, a dead lock can occur for example when a member of the group does not answer to its requests while the request sender is waiting for all the results. Such an absence of response might be due to an issue in message ordering for example. In order to enhance reliability of group applications we develop methods for the analysis and verification of behavioural properties of such applications, our method can be applied with automatic tools.
A first contribution of this paper is to provide a model allowing the verification of the behaviour of group-based applications, in other words, we provide a verifiable model for group communication. We also illustrate our approach by specifying an application example, instantiating the verifiable model, and proving a few properties.
To precisely define the semantics of group communications, we focus on a specific middleware called [*ProActive*]{} [@Pro03]. [*ProActive*]{} provides a high-level programming API for building distributed applications, ranging from Grid computing to mobile applications. [*ProActive*]{} offers advanced communication strategies, including group communication [@LSR-ARTICLE-2006-001; @baduel07asynchronous]. In [*ProActive*]{}, remote communication relies on asynchronous requests with futures: upon a call on a remote entity, a request is created at the receiver side, and a future is created on the sender side that will be filled when the remote entity provides an answer. What make the handling of groups particular in [*ProActive*]{} is the necessity to also gather and manage replies for requests sent to the group. Synchronisation on futures is generally transparent: an access to a future blocks until the result is computed and returned. However, synchronisation on group of futures, that represent the result of a group invocation, features more specific and complex synchronization primitives. Consequently, our model also encodes different synchronisation policies.
In [@BBCHM:article2009] we have defined a parameterized and hierarchical model for synchronised networks of labelled transition systems. We have shown how this model can be used as an intermediate format to represent the behaviour of distributed applications, and to check their temporal properties. In this paper, we present a method for building parameterized models capturing the behavioural semantics of group communication systems; models are the networks of labelled transition systems, whose labels represent method invocations. The language we chose is pNets; it is an intermediate language: the models we present here should be generated, either from source code or from a higher-level specification. PNets themselves are then used to generate a model in a lower-level language that will be used for verification of the program properties. In this paper the advantage of choosing such an intermediate language are the following: compared to a higher-level language, pNets are precise enough to define a behavioural semantics, and compared to lower level languages, they provide parameterized processes and synchronization which allow the expression of the models in a generic manner.
Our approach aims at combining compositional description with automatic model generation. The formal specification consists in a labelled transition system and synchronisation networks, in which both events (messages) and processes (group members) can be parameterized and built from a graphical language. On one hand, having a well-defined semantics made the specification sound; on the other hand, having a framework based on process algebras and bisimulation semantics made possible to benefit from compositionality for specification and verification [@handbook:01]. Parametric synchronisation vectors also allow us to envision the modelling of dynamic groups with members joining or leaving the group.
#### Related Work {#related-work .unnumbered}
Some work has been done to formally verify properties in group-based applications. Some of these verifications deal with safety properties, while others remain limited to a case study. In [@hu99modelchecking] the formal verification of cryptographic protocols is proposed. It used model-checking tool to verify confidentiality and confidentiality properties. Model-checking was also used to verify behavioural and dependability properties [@Mas04]. The authors adopted Markov chains to specify the studied protocols. By using a combination of inductive poofs and probabilistic model checking [@KN02] verified a randomized protocols. In the same way, [@layouni-correctness03] used a combination PVS theorem prover and model-checker based on timed-automata for formal verification of an intrusion-tolerant protocol. [@Ban98] presented a simple deadlock detection mechanism caused by circular synchronous group remote procedure calls. In contrast with all these, we limit ourselves to apply finite model-checking techniques to abstract semantic models. Our pNets semantic model is very helpful in this matter, providing us with a very expressive and compact formalism, but where the usage of parameters is limited in a way that can be easily abstracted to finite instances.
Group-based systems as well as parameterized systems are particular infinite systems in the sense that each of their instances are finite but the number of states of the system depends on one or several parameters. Among these parameters we can distinguish: data structures or variables (e.g., queues, counters), number of components involved in the system, ... Automatic verification of such systems has to face state explosion problem. A variety of techniques to alleviate state explosion has been investigated. We can cite: techniques based on abstraction [@DBLP:journals/entcs/LesensS97; @DBLP:conf/vmcai/ClarkeTV06]; techniques based on finding network invariants [@Emerson96; @DBLP:journals/fac/SistlaG99; @265960; @DBLP:conf/cav/PnueliS00], which can (possibly-over) approximate the system with an infinite family of processes. Others [@199468; @DBLP:conf/icfem/EmersonTW06] based on finding an appropriate cut-off value of the parameters to bound the system model. For automatic verification of infinite-state systems [@DBLP:conf/cav/BouajjaniJNT00; @DBLP:conf/tacas/AbdullaDHR07] propose regular model checking. The approach is based on the idea of giving symbolic representation in term of regular languages. Our work tries to take the best of these approaches: whenever possible, we use property-preserving abstractions to build very small (abstract) data domains for the parameters of the basic processes of our systems; but for parameterized topologies such abstractions are not generally complete, so we have to use cut-off strategies as in bounded model-checking.
In the following of the paper, Section 2 overviews [*ProActive*]{} communication model and group concepts, and introduces a running example. Section 3 presents our theoretical model and its graphical syntax. Section 4 provides a behavioural model for group communication and synchronisation. Section 5 shows our verification methodology, with experimental results on state-space generation and verification of properties.
The [*ProActive*]{} communication model
=======================================
[*ProActive*]{} is an LGPL Java library [@Pro03] for parallel, distributed, concurrent applications. It is based on an active object model, where active objects communicate by asynchronous method invocation (called *requests*) with futures: upon a method invocation on an active object, a request is enqueued at the remote object’s side, and a future is automatically created to represent the result of the request while the caller continues its execution. Active objects are mono-threaded and treat the incoming invocations one after the other, returning a value for the request at the caller as soon as a request is finished. As remote invocations and future creation are handled transparently, the programmer can write distributed applications in a much similar manner to standard sequential ones. In [*ProActive*]{} there is no shared memory between active objects to prevent data race-conditions; consequently, a copy of the request arguments are transmitted to the remote active objects.
[*ProActive*]{} Groups
----------------------
In this paper, we focus on the group communication mechanism offered by [*ProActive*]{} [@baduel07asynchronous]. Groups in [*ProActive*]{} work as follows: a group of active objects is a set of active objects that behaves as follows. First, a method invocation on the group results in a remote invocation to all the members of the group in parallel. Second, a list of futures is automatically created to receive the results returned by the group members. Groups are typed as usual objects, and thus invocations to a group are made transparently, as any object invocation. This way, specific primitives for groups are only group creation and management, and thus code modification to handle group communication is minimal. In [*ProActive*]{}, groups are dynamic in the sense that objects can join or leave the group at runtime. The main [*ProActive*]{} primitives for handling groups are the following:
- `Group ProActive.newActiveGroup(String Type)` creates a new group of the type “`Type`”.
- `void Group.add(Object o)` adds an object to a group.
- `void Group.remove(int index)` Remove the object at the specified index.
Synchronisation for [*ProActive*]{} Groups {#SectSynch}
------------------------------------------
For classical active objects, synchronisation occurs as follows: a simple access to the future representing the result of a request automatically blocks until the result is computed, and the future is filled. For a group invocation, there is one result by group member, those results are stored in a group of futures. Synchronizing on a group of futures is more complex, here are 3 synchronization primitives of [*ProActive*]{}:
- `void ProActiveGroup.waitAll(Object FutureGroup)` blocks until all the futures of the group return.
- `void ProActiveGroup.waitN(Object FutureGroup, int n)` waits until n futures are returned.
- `Object FutureListGroup.waitAndGetTheNth(Object FutureGroup, int n)` waits for the result from the n-th member and returns it.
Example
-------
To illustrate group communication, we consider an application synchronising meetings, it consists of a master initiator and several clients that contain the agendas of the participants. The initiator suggests a date to all participants that reply whether they are available or not. For this, we define a class `Participant`:
public class Participant {
Booolean suggestDate(Date d) { ... }
Boolean validate() { ... }
void cancel() { ... }
}
The following code can be implemented by the initiator to coordinate the meeting:
public static void main(...) {
....
// group creation
Participant participants=ProActive.newActiveGroup("Participant");
...
// we populate the group by adding one or several element
participant = ProActive.newActive("Participant",null);
participants.add(participant);
...
while (true) {
// then we sugggest a date to all members simply by:
Object answers = participants.suggestDate(date);
...
// collateResults gets the result and provides an overall result,
// e.g. returns true if all futures are true
if (collateResults(answers, ProActiveGroup.size(participants))) {
Object f=participants.validate(); // validate the meeting
waitAll(f); // waits until everybody acknowledged validation
}
else
participants.cancel(); // cancel the meeting
... }
}
This example illustrates well the different mechanisms of group management and communication: first an empty group is created (`newActiveGroup`), then it is populated by several Participant objects. Thus when the initiator invokes `suggestDate` on the group, this broadcasts a meeting request to all the members. Then the members reply, which fills the futures contained in the group of futures `answers`. The local method `collateResults` synchronises the returns from all these invocations. Validate or cancel is broadcasted to all the group members depending on the result of the preceding step. To illustrate more synchronization mechanisms, the initiator waits until all participants acknowledge the validation. A possible implementation of the `collateResults` method is the following:
boolean collateResults(Object ans, int size) {
boolean result=true;
for (int i=0 ; i < size ; i++) {
if (!ProActiveGroup.waitAndGetTheNth(ans,i)) result = false;
}
return result;
}
Fig. \[Modegroup\] illustrates the mechanism of group communication as implemented in [*ProActive*]{}. A method call to a remote activity goes through a proxy, that locally creates “future” objects, while the request goes to the remote request queues.
![\[Modegroup\] Asynchronous and remote method call on group[]{data-label="fig:inf"}](figures/group){width="8cm"}
Theoretical Model
=================
In [@BBCHM:article2009] we have proposed a formalism to represent the behavior of distributed applications. Behavior of complex systems can be represented hierarchically by composition of classical LTSs [@Milner89]. Those LTSs are composed using synchronisation Networks (Net) [@Arnold94; @Arnold01] so that the synchronisation product generates a LTS which can be used at the higher level of hierarchy. Finally the behavior of the system can be expressed by a global LTS. We have also shown that this model can be used as an intermediate format to check behavioral properties like temporal ones.
To encode both families of processes and data value passing communication LTSs and Nets are enriched with parameters [@CansadoM08]. Parameters can be used as communication arguments, in state definitions, and in synchronisation operators. This enables compact and generic description of parameterized and dynamic topologies. In the following we recall definitions of the [*parameterized Networks of synchronised automatas (pNets)*]{} as given in [@BBCHM:article2009]. We start by giving the notion of parameterized actions.
[**Parameterized Actions.**]{} Let $P$ be a set of names, $\mathcal{L}_{A,P}$ a term algebra built over $P$, including at least a distinguished sort $A$ for actions, and a constant action $\tau$. We call $v \in P$ a parameter, and $a \in
\mathcal{L}_{A,P}$ a parameterized action, $\mathcal{B}_{A,P}$ is the set of boolean expressions (guards) over $\mathcal{L}_{A,P}$.
$A$ describes the possible actions representing interactions between processes. Main actions of our system are illustrated in bold fonts in Figure \[figure:MeetNet\]. The typical shape of an action is **!Participant\[i\].Q\_Suggest(f,Date)** for a message **Q\_Suggest** sent to the member number **i** of the process family **Participant**. **f** and **Date** are the message parameters, here **f** is the future for the request, and **Date** the request parameter. **!** indicates an emission, and **?** a reception. In most cases the destination of the message can be inferred by the context, and in the figure by the destination of the arrows, in that case, the actions look like **?Q\_Cancel()**.
[**pLTS**]{}. \[pLTS\] A parameterized LTS is a tuple $\langle P,S,s_0, L, \to\rangle$ where:
- $P$ is a finite set of parameters, from which we construct the term algebra $\mathcal{L}_{A,P}$,
- $S$ is a set of states; each state $s \in S$ is associated to a finite indexed set of free variables ${{\makebox{\it fv}}}(s) =
\tilde{x}_{J_s} \subseteq P$,
- $s_0 \in S$ is the initial state,
- $L$ is the set of labels, $\to$ the transition relation $\to \subset S \times L \times S$
- Labels have the form $l = \langle \alpha,~e_b,~\tilde{x}_{J_{s'}}{$\hspace{-.2ex}$}:= \tilde{e}_{J_{s'}}\rangle $ such that if $s \xrightarrow{l} s'$, then:
- $\alpha$ is a parameterized action, expressing a combination of inputs ${\makebox{\it iv}}(\alpha) \subseteq P$ (defining new variables) and outputs ${\makebox{\it oe}}(\alpha)$ (using action expressions),
- $e_b \in \mathcal{B}_{A,P}$ is the *optional* guard,
- the variables $\tilde{x}_{J_{s'}}$ are assigned during the transition by the *optional* expressions $\tilde{e}_{J_{s'}}$
with the constraints: ${{\makebox{\it fv}}}({\makebox{\it oe}}(\alpha)) \subseteq {\makebox{\it iv}}(\alpha) \cup \tilde{x}_{J_s}$ and ${{\makebox{\it fv}}}(e_b)\cup {{\makebox{\it fv}}}(\tilde{e}_{J_{s'}}) \subseteq {\makebox{\it iv}}(\alpha)\cup\tilde{x}_{J_s} \cup
\tilde{x}_{J_{s'}}$.
{width="14.5cm"}
We defined Networks of LTSs called Nets in a form inspired by the [*synchronisation vectors*]{} of Arnold and Nivat [@Arnold94], that we use to synchronise a (potentially infinite) number of processes. The Nets are extended to pNets such that the holes can be indexed by a parameter, to represent (potentially unbounded) families of similar arguments.
\[pNet\] A [**pNet**]{} is a tuple $\langle P,pA_G,J,\tilde{p}_J,\tilde{O}_J,\overrightarrow{V}\rangle $ where: $P$ is a set of parameters, $pA_G \subset
\mathcal{L}_{A,P}$ is its set of (parameterized) external actions, $J$ is a finite set of holes, each hole $j$ being associated with (at most) a parameter $p_j\in P$ and with a sort $O_j \subset \mathcal{L}_{A,P}$. $\overrightarrow{V} = \{\overrightarrow{v}\}$ is a set of synchronisation vectors of the form: $\overrightarrow{v}=\langle a_g, \{ \alpha_{t_i}\}_{i \in I, t\in B_i} \rangle $ such that: $I \subseteq J \land B_i \subseteq \mathcal{D}om(p_i) \land \alpha_{t_i} \in O_i \land {{\makebox{\it fv}}}(\alpha_{t_i}) \subseteq P$ \[pNet\]
Each hole in the pNet has a parameter $p_j$, expressing that this “parameterized hole” corresponds to as many actual processes as necessary in a given instantiation of its parameter. In other words, the parameterized holes express [*parameterized topologies*]{} of processes synchronised by a given Net. Each parameterized synchronisation vector in the pNet expresses a synchronisation between some instances ($\{t\}_{t\in B_i}$) of some of the pNet holes ($I \subseteq J$). The hole parameters being part of the variables of the action algebra, they can be used in communication and synchronisation between the processes.
Figure \[figure:MeetNet\] gives an illustration of a graphical representation of a parametrized system in our intermediate language. It shows a meeting system with a single initiator and an arbitrary number of participants. The parameterized network is represented by a set of three boxes, [Initiator]{} and [Participant]{} boxes inside [Meeting]{} box (hierarchy). Each box is surrounded by labelled ports encoding a particular Sort (sort constraint $pA_G$) of the corresponding pNet. The box will be filled with a pLTS or another pNet (see Fig. \[MeetFull\]) satisfying the Sort inclusion condition ($L \subseteq pA_G$). The ports are interconnected through edges for synchronization. Edges are translated to synchronisation vectors. In previous works we only had single edges with simple arrows having one source and one destinations, which were translated into synchronisation vectors of the form `(R_Validate(),!R_Validate(),?R_Validate())` expressing a rendez-vous between actions `!R_Validate()` and `?R_Validate()`, visible as a global action `R_Validate()`. Next section details synchronisation vectors for the multiple arrows we use in our example.
Behavioural Model for [*ProActive*]{} Groups
============================================
In [@PMDJO:2004] we presented a methodology for generating behavioural model for [*ProActive*]{} distributed applications, based on static analysis of the Java/[*ProActive*]{} code. This method is composed of two steps: first the source code is analysed by classical compilation techniques, with a special attention to tracking references to remote objects in the code, and identifying remote method calls. This analysis produces a graph including the method call graph and some data-flow information. The second step consists in applying a set of structured operational semantics (SOS) rules to the graph, computing the states and transitions of the behavioural model.
The contribution of this paper is to extend our previous with support for group communication and complex synchronizations related to group communication.
The behavioural model is given as a pNets, which we use as an intermediate language. We express here the semantics of group communication in this intermediate language and show how behaviour of application including group communications with various synchronisation policies can be expressed.
Modeling complex synchronisations {#ModelMult}
---------------------------------
In order to encode the simultaneity of several message reception/sending, we use a particular kind of proxy and N-ary synchronisation vectors. In Fig. \[Synchro\] we give a graphical notation for two operators, the ellipse on the left shows a broadcasting operation, and the one on the right show a collection operation.
The first operator that is in charge of broadcasting requests to multiple processes. It is represented by an ellipse with one link arriving from a process, and a set of link departing from the ellipse. The incoming action is triggered as the same time as all the outgoing ones: in the example the output of the client is triggered at the same time as the input in the service on the left, and the input in all the services on the right (the dotted arrow denotes a multiple link). We extend parameterized vectors to support the multicasting communication.
{width="10cm"}
For broadcasting, we introduce the `BC` operator to encode a family of synchronized processes. The vector $< Q\_suggest,
!Q\_suggest(date), BC ~ i\in\mathcal{D}.\: ?services[i].Q\_suggest(date),
?service.Q\_suggest(date)>$ indicates the synchronisation between one instance of the network 1 (client), a given number of network 2 (services), and another service process. The synchronisation is an observable action labeled $Q\_suggest$. The parameter $i$ ranges in the domain $\mathcal{D}$. For instance, if $\mathcal{D}=[0..1]$, then the vector is expanded to:\
[$< Q\_suggest, !Q\_suggest(date), ?services[0].Q\_suggest(date),?services[1].Q\_suggest(date), ?service.Q\_suggest(date)>$]{}.
The operator on the right side collects communications: it synchronizes *one* of its input with its single output. For encoding such a synchronisation, we introduce the `CO` operator to encode a set of synchronisation vectors. The vector $<
R\_suggest(val),?R\_suggest(i,val), CO i\in\mathcal{D}.\: !services[i].R\_suggest(val)
>$ indicates the synchronisation between a `R_suggest` action in the network 1 (client) and an output of one of the network 2 (services). For instance, with $\mathcal{D}=[0..1]$, this vector is expanded to several vectors:\
$< R\_suggest(val), ?R\_suggest(0,val), !services[0].R\_suggest(val), *>$\
$< R\_suggest(val), ?R\_suggest(1,val), *, !services[1].R\_suggest(val)>$
Those two synchronisation mechanisms will be further illustrated in the encoding of the example.
Modeling the Example
--------------------
We describe now the behavioural model for our example application, especially focusing on the modeling of group proxies, and the communications involving groups. The full model for our example is shown in Fig. \[MeetFull\]. The model is split into two parts interconnected by parameterized synchronization vectors.
- *The initiator* encodes a client side behaviour. The Initiator contains a body encoding an abstraction of the functional code, and the group proxies. For each remote method call in the Initiator code there is a parameterized group proxy, representing an unbounded number of future proxy instances. The body repeatedly suggest a date and either cancel or validate depending on the answers.
- *The participants* encodes the server side behaviour. They are modelled by an indexed family of processes, each representing the behaviour of one element of the group, with its request queue, its body serving requests one after the other in a FIFO order, and the code of its local methods.
A [**Proxy**]{} pNet (box) is created for each remote method invocation. The Proxy is indexed by the program point ($c$) where the method is called. The [**Proxy**]{} pNet models the creating and the management of the group of futures: Once the group of future is created, futures can be received one after the other, and each already received future can be accessed. It is also possible to wait until $N$ answers are received.
For each remote method call of the Initiator, a broadcast node, synchronizes the sending of the method call by the initiator body, the initialisation of the corresponding future, and the reception of the request message in the queues of each of the participants in the group.
Concerning the user code, the [**Body**]{} boxes in Fig. \[MeetFull\] represent the behaviour of the main method of each active object, again on the form of a pLTS. The code for each method (e.g. **Validate**) is also expressed by a pLTS, and triggered when serving the corresponding request, or by direct invocation like **collateResult**. Each of them is either obtained by source code analysis, or provided by the user.
As it is the only object to act as a server, the participant has a **Queue** box. The corresponding pLTS encodes a FIFO queue of request that is accessed by the participant’s body, and filled when the initiator sends a request. The queue can be given a maximum length and raise an error if it is overflowed.
{width="19cm"}
Variations on group synchronisations {#Var-Syn}
------------------------------------
[*ProActive*]{} provides various primitives (see Section \[SectSynch\]) allowing the programmer to control explicitly the synchronization of asynchronous methods calls by waiting the incoming replies. The network [**Proxy\_suggest**]{} in Fig. \[MeetFull\] specifies three kinds of these primitives: [*waitAll*]{}, [*waitN*]{} and [ *waitAndGetTheNth*]{}. Those three primitives show the different synchronisations that our group proxies can express: counting the number of returned objects, or returning a specific result. They are encoded very naturally using a table of received results, and the number `N` of results already returned. Those information are updated when receiving messages from a *collection* (`CO`) of different results as explained in Section \[ModelMult\]. Additionally to those primitives, one could also use a *waitOne* primitive waiting for one result, no matter of which it is; this primitive could be encoded with a little more effort by our proxy, but we do not present it because it is not used in our example and we believe it is less crucial than the others. *waitOne* is useful in the case several workers perform the same task, and only one result is necessary.
Verification and Results
========================
In principle, the steps for designing and validating a distributed application with our approach are:
1. Specify the structure and the behaviour of the application, in terms of active objects (or components). We provide editors for distributed components in the Vercors platform; specific component interfaces exist for group communication. Alternatively one could imagine tools for static analysis of Java/ProActive code, that would provide a similar abstraction of the system.
2. Generate a pNet model, following the approach in the previous section. We plan to have tools automatizing this step in a near future, integrated in the Vercors platform.
3. Write user requirements, in the form of logical formulas in some temporal logic dialect (most action-based logics will be suitable).
4. Use a model-checker to check the validity of theses formulas on the generated model. Currently only finite-state model-checkers are capable to analyse our models. This means that the parameterized pNets have to be instantiated first to a finite system, and that the formulas have to be instantiated accordingly.
The reader acquainted with model-checkers will have guessed that such models are severely exposed to state explosion. It is very important here to observe two facts: First we only work with an abstraction of the system. We use finite abstractions of data-values in the description of data domains, and we only expose (and observe) the events that are useful for the properties. Secondly, we make use as much as possible of the congruence properties of our semantic model: we build the state-space in a hierarchical manner, often minimizing partial models using branching bisimulation before building their products. But this strategy has limits, and sometimes it is better to build the state-space of a subsystem under the constraints of its environment, avoiding unnecessary complexity; this is illustrated in our case-study by the “Participant group” that has by itself a very high state complexity, of which only a small part is used by the “Initiator” client.
In Figure \[GeneratedSizes\] we give figures obtained on our example. The systems in the first 4 lines of the table have been computed on a Fedora 10 box, with 2 dual-core Intel processors at 2.40 GHz, with a total of 3.8 Gbytes of RAM. The source specification was written in the intermediate format Fiacre [@BERTHOMIEU:2003; @BERTHOMIEU:2008], and the state space generated using CADP version 2008-h. The systems in the last part of the table have been computed on a cluster with 15 nodes, each having 8 cores and 32 Gbytes of RAM. We have been using the Distributor tool of CADP for distributed state-space generation, with or without on-the-fly reduction by tauconfluence [@GaravelSerwe2006]; the distributed state space has to be merged into a single state space before minimization and model-checking. The execution times in this part include the deployment of the application, the distributed generation, the merging and the minimization of the resulting state-space. A cell with a “-” means that the computation did not terminate.
The main lesson from this experiment is that intermediate systems will often cause the main bottlenecks in the system construction. Here, an unconstrained model for a group of 3 participants is already too big to be computed on a single desktop machine. By contrast, computing the behavior of such a group in the context of a specific client is feasible (here the model of the full system with 3 participants remains reasonably small). Generating the state-space in a distributed fashion gives us the capability of handling significantly larger models. On-the-fly reduction strategies are useful too, but to a certain point only, because it may involve local computations that require large local memory space themselves. In our tests the generation of the model of a group with 3 participants failed: we estimated that the brute force model has approximately 125 billiards of states (this would require some 12 Terabytes of distributed RAM, 25 times more than our full cluster). But even using on-the-fly reduction by tauconflence, local computations caused an out-of-memory failure.
#### Proving properties
We give here examples of functional behavioural properties that we checked on various scenarios. For this, we have built the global synchronisation product of the system, with 3 Participants in the group (the number of participants does not change the results), and with the size of requests queues instantiated to 1 or 2 depending of the cases.
For expressing the properties, we could use any of the logical languages provided within the CADP tool suite, including LTL, CTL, or specification patterns [@Dwyer98propertyspecification]. In general, we use the regular alternative-free $\mu$-calculus formalism, which is a powerful modal logic, nicely expressing action sequences as regular expressions; it is the native logics of the model-checker. We have checked the following formulas:
1. $<True*.Error> True $ : in the system with queue of length 1, the queues can signal an Error.
2. $[True*.Error] False $ : in the system with queue of length 2, the queues never signal an Error.
3. $< True*.R\_suggest(i,b) > True $ : some paths lead to a response to the `suggest` request.
4. $ <True*.T\_CollateResult(false)> True $ : the collection of results by the Initiator can return `false`.
5. $After\: !Q\_Suggest(id)\: Eventually\: !Q\_Cancel() \lor
!Q\_validate() $ : inevitable reachability of either a validation or a cancellation after a date has been suggested. This formula is written in the specification patterns formalism, and expresses correct progress of the system.
Properties 1. and 2. are checked on two different models, with different size of the queue. They prove that a bounded queue of length 2 is required and sufficient to ensure the correct operation of the system. The Error action in the queue of a participant signals that a request is received in a state where the Queue is already full.
Properties 3. and 4. check the reachability of some possible events; technically, property 3 has to be checked for each possible values of parameters i and b, because the $\mu$-calculus logic is not parameterized.
Property 5. expresses the correction of the (first iteration of the) behaviour of the system: in response to a suggest request, we guarantee that the initiator sends either a validation or a cancellation message.
It is interesting to discuss the tools available for exploring and debugging the generated systems. In addition to the model-checking and minimization engines, we have used tools for:
- exploring interactively the generated behaviour at the level of its Lotos representation (OCIS)
- displaying graphically the generated LTS (BCG\_EDIT)
Consider formula 1 that checks reachability of action Error. In addition to a “True” result, the model-checker produces a trace illustrating the reachability from the initial state, as shown in Figure \[Path\]. The trace consists in a full cycle through the system behaviour, from the initial state to state 6 and action “Q\_cancel()”. Then, because we do not wait for the return of the Cancel requests, one of the Participants can still have a Cancel request pending in its queue when the Initiator sends the next Suggest request, which leads to an Error. The BCG\_EDIT tool can display the sequence of Figure \[Path\]. A finer trace showing internal interactions and allowing user-driven guidance of the system can be obtained with the OCIS tool.
{width="15.5cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have sketched models for specifying and verifying the correct behaviour of group-based applications. Our parameterized models enable the finite representation of groups of arbitrary size, and express the communication with such groups, together with the associated synchronizations. For our modelling, we focused on the [*ProActive*]{} library; nevertheless these models can be applied to other middlewares involving collective communications. Our parameterized models are supported by model checking tool. Besides they are hierarchical labelled transition systems, therefore suitable for analysis with verification tools based on bisimulation semantics.
Our main contribution is to provide a behavioural semantic model for group communication applications. It allows the application programmer to prove the correctness of his/her behavioral properties, and for instance detect deadlocks [@Ban98]. We have illustrated our approach on an example application, generated the corresponding model, and proved several properties ensuring the correct behaviour of the example. The size of the generated system and the proven properties show that, if the system is entirely known at instantiation time, we are able to prove non-trivial properties on examples of a reasonable size.
#### Towards dynamic groups
A nice perspective of this work is the verification of groups with dynamic membership. The [*ProActive*]{} middleware allow active objects to join and leave a group during execution. This way the application can adapt dynamically in the case new group members are necessary to perform a complex computation, or systematically when new machines join the network. The use of pNets will facilitate the specification of dynamic groups thanks to the support for parameterized processes and synchronisation vectors.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
A set of fixed points of the Hopfield type neural network was under investigation. Its connection matrix is constructed with regard to the Hebb rule from a highly symmetric set of the memorized patterns. Depending on the external parameter the analytic description of the fixed points set had been obtained. And as a conclusion, some exact results of Hopfield neural networks were gained. 0.3in\
[**PACS Number(s):**]{} 87.10.+e, 05.45.+b\
[**Key Words:**]{} Neural Networks, Hebb rule, Fixed points
author:
- '[Hong-Liang Lu$^{\#}$, and Xi-Jun Qiu]{}'
title: '[**Some Exact Results of Hopfield Neural Networks and Applications** ]{} '
---
=-40mm
0.2in 0.3in Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of interest in so-called artificial neural network(ANN) technology. ANNs are a model of computing inspired by the brain\[1\]-\[5\], consisting of a collection of model “neurons” connected by model “synapses.” Computation in the network is performed in a distributed fashion, by propagating excitatory and inhibitory activations across the synapses, and computing the neuronal outputs as a nonlinear (typically sigmoidal) function of total synaptic input. These networks also have a capacity to “learn” to perform a given computation by adjusting real-valued synaptic connection strengths (weight values) between units. ANNs are of considerable interest both for biological modeling of information processing in the nervous system, and for solving many classes of complex real-world applications.
J.J.Hopfield boosted neural network research at the beginning of the 1980s with the publication of a famous paper on artificial neural networks, which he used for pattern completion and to solve optimization problems\[4\]. These networks consist of one layer of neurons that are completely connected with each other. Hopfield analysed the behavior of networks belonging to that type, and could prove mathematically that stable behavior may be achieved under certain conditions.
It can be shown that the dynamic behavior of Hopfield type neural networks is described by an energe surface. Each network state corresponds to a certain position on that surface. Through external clamping, neurons may be forced to certain states of activity, and thus the whole network may be forced to move to a well defined point on the energy surface. If the network is released, [*i.e.*]{} external clamping is removed, it will change its state in such a way that it moves on the energy surface towards new states of lower energy. Finally, neuron states will stop changing if a local minimum in the energy surface is reached. Through careful selection of weights, ocillations will be avoided. A set of fixed points of the Hopfield type neural network\[4\]\[6\]is under investigation. Its connection matrix is constructed with regard to the Hebb rule from a $(p\times n)$-matrix $\bf S$ of memorized patterns: $${\bf S}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1-x&1&\ldots&1&1&\ldots&1\\
1&1-x&\ldots&1&1&\ldots&1\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ldots&\vdots\\
1&1&\ldots&1-x&1&\ldots&1\end{array}\right).$$ Here $n$ is the number of neurons, $p$ is the number of memorized patterns $\vec s^{(l)}$, which are the rows of the matrix $\bf S$, and $x$ is an arbitrary real number.
Depending on $x$ the memorized patterns $\vec s^{(l)}$ are interpreted as $p$ distorted vectors of the [*standard*]{} $$\vec\varepsilon (n)= (\underbrace{1,1,\ldots,1}_n).\eqno(1)$$
We denote by $\vec\varepsilon (k)$ the configuration vector which is collinear to the bisectrix of the principle orthant [*standard-vector*]{}. Next, $n$ is the number of the spin variables, $p$ is the number of the memorized patterns and $q=n-p$ is the number of the nondistorted coordinates of the standard-vector. Configuration vectors are denoted by small Greek letters. We use small Latin letters to denote vectors whose coordinates are real.
The problem is as follows: [*the network has to be learned by $p$-times showing of the standard (1), but a distortion has slipped in the learning process. How does the fixed points set depends on the value of this distortion $x$?*]{}
Depending on the distortion parameter $x$ the analytic description of the fixed points set has been obtained. It turns out to be very important that the memorized patterns $\vec s^{(l)}$ form a highly symmetric group of vectors: all of them correlate one with another in the same way: $$(\vec s^{(l)},\vec s^{(l')})=r(x), \eqno (2)$$ where $r(x)$ is independent of $l,l'=1,2,\ldots,p.$ Namely this was the reason to use the words “highly symmetric” in the title.
It is known \[7\], that the fixed points of a network of our kind have to be of the form: $$\vec\sigma^*=(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots,\sigma_p,1,\ldots,1),\quad
\sigma_i=\{\pm 1\},\ i=1,2,\ldots,p.\eqno(3)$$ Let’s join into one [*class*]{} $\Sigma^{(k)}$ all the [ *configuration*]{} vectors $\vec\sigma^*$ given by Eq.(3), which have $k$ coordinates equal to “–1” among the first $p$ coordinates. The class $\Sigma^{(k)}$ consists of $C_p^k$ configuration vectors of the form (3), and there are $p+1$ different classes $(k=0,1,\ldots,p)$. Our main result can be formulated as a Theorem.\
[**Theorem.**]{} [*As $x$ varies from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ the fixed points set is exhausted in consecutive order by the classes of the vectors\[8\] $$\Sigma^{(0)},\Sigma^{(1)},\ldots,\Sigma^{(K)},$$ and the transformation of the fixed points set from the class $\Sigma^{(k-1)}$ into the class $\Sigma^{(k)}$ occurs when $x=x_k$: $$x_k= p\frac{n-(2k-1)}{n+p-2(2k-1)},\quad k=1,2,\ldots,K.$$ If $\frac{p-1}{n-1}<\frac13$, according this scheme all the $p$ transformations of the fixed points set are realized one after another and $K=p$. If $\frac{p-1}{n-1}>\frac13 $, the transformation related to $$K=\left[\frac{n+p+2}4\right]$$ is the last. The network has no other fixed points.*]{}
The Theorem makes it possible to solve a number of practical problems. We would like to add that the Theorem can be generalized onto the case of arbitrary vector $$\vec u =(u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_p,1,\ldots,1),\quad \sum_{i=1}^p u_i^2=p$$ being a standard instead the standard (1). Here memorized patterns $\vec s^{(l)}$ are obtained by the distortion of the first $p$ coordinates of the vector $\vec u$ with regard to the fulfillment of Eqs.(2).
The obtained results can be interpreted in terms of neural networks, Ising model and factor analysis. The authors acknowledge the benefit of extended interaction with Miss Jie-yan Bai of Shanghai Research and Development Center for Fiber Optic Technology, Shanghai 803 Research Institute, who has helped us develop or clarify several ideas and issues that appear in this paper. We also extend our thanks to Prof. Yu-Long Mo of the School of Information and Communication Engineering, Shanghai University. 0.4in
[s40]{} McCulloch M.S. W.Pitts, A logical caculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity, [*Bull. of Math. Biophys.*]{}[**5**]{}, 1943,pp.115-133 Hebb D.O., [*The organization of Behavior*]{}, Wiley, New York,1949 Rosenblatt F., [*Principles of Neurodynamics*]{},Spartan Books, 1962 Hopfield J.J., Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*]{}, Vol.[**79**]{}, 1982, pp.2554-2558 Rumelhart D.E., McClelland J.L., [*Parallel Distributed Processing*]{}, Vol.[**1**]{}, [**2**]{}, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986 Hopfield J.J., Neurons with Graded Respone have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*]{}, Vol.[**81**]{}, 1984, pp.3088-3092 L.B.Litinsky. Direct calculation of the stable points of a neural network. [*Theor. and Math. Phys.*]{}[**101**]{}, 1492 (1994) L.B.Litinsky. Fixed points of Hopfiled type neural networks, cond-mat/9901251 (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Inexact Newton regularization methods have been proposed by Hanke and Rieder for solving nonlinear ill-posed inverse problems. Every such a method consists of two components: an outer Newton iteration and an inner scheme providing increments by regularizing local linearized equations. The method is terminated by a discrepancy principle. In this paper we consider the inexact Newton regularization methods with the inner scheme defined by Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization and Tikhonov regularization. Under certain conditions we obtain the order optimal convergence rate result which improves the suboptimal one of Rieder. We in fact obtain a more general order optimality result by considering these inexact Newton methods in Hilbert scales.'
author:
- Qinian Jin
title: '**On the order optimality of the regularization via inexact Newton iterations** '
---
[example.eps]{}
gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore
\[section\]
\#1[\#1\_2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
‘@=12
**Introduction**
================
Inverse problems arise whenever one searches for unknown causes based on observation of their effects. Driven by the requirements from huge amount of practical applications, the field of inverse problems has undergone a tremendous growth. Such problems are usually ill-posed in the sense that their solutions do not depend continuously on the data. In practical applications, one never has exact data, instead only noisy data are available due to errors in the measurements. Even if the deviation is very small, algorithms developed for well-posed problems may fail, since noise could be amplified by an arbitrarily large factor. Therefore, the development of stable methods for solving inverse problems is a central topic.
In this paper we consider the stable resolution of nonlinear inverse problems which mathematically can be formulated as the nonlinear equations $$\label{1}
F(x)=y,$$ where $F: \D(F)\subset \X\mapsto \Y$ is a nonlinear Fréchet differentiable operator between two Hilbert spaces $\X$ and $\Y$ whose norms and inner products are denoted as $\|\cdot\|$ and $(\cdot, \cdot)$ respectively. We use $F'(x)$ to denote the Fréchet derivative of $F$ at $x\in \D(F)$ and use $F'(x)^*$ to denote the adjoint of $F'(x)$. We assume that (\[1\]) has a solution $x^\dag$ in the domain $\D(F)$ of $F$, i.e. $F(x^\dag)=y$. Let $y^\d$ be the only available noisy data of $y$ satisfying $$\label{1.2}
\|y^\delta-y\|\le \delta$$ with a given small noise level $\delta> 0$. Due to the intrinsic ill-posedness, regularization methods should be employed to produce from $y^\d$ a stable approximate solution of (\[1\]).
Many regularization methods have been considered in the last two decades. Due to their straightforward implementation and fast convergence property, Newton type regularization methods are attractive for solving nonlinear inverse problems. In [@Jin2011] we considered a general class of Newton type methods of the form $$\label{m1}
x_{n+1} =x_n+g_{t_n} \left(F'(x_n)^*F'(x_n)\right) F'(x_n)^*
\left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right),$$ where $x_0$ is an initial guess of $x^\dag$, $\{t_n\}$ is a sequence of positive numbers, and $\{g_t\}$ is a family of spectral filter functions. The scheme (\[m1\]) can be derived by applying the linear regularization method defined by $\{g_t\}$ to the linearized equation $$F'(x_n)(x-x_n)=y^\delta-F(x_n)$$ which follows from (\[1\]) by replacing $y$ by $y^\d$ and $F(x)$ by its linearization $F(x_n)+F'(x_n)(x-x_n)$ at $x_n$. When the sequence $\{t_n\}$ is given a priori with suitable property, we showed in [@Jin2011] that, under the discrepancy principle, the methods are convergent and order optimal. We also considered in [@JT2011] the methods in Hilbert scales and obtained the order optimal convergence rates.
In the definition of the Newton type methods (\[m1\]), one may determine the sequence $\{t_n\}$ adaptively during computation. Motivated by the inexact Newton methods in [@DES82] for well-posed problems, Hanke proposed in [@H97] his regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme for solving nonlinear inverse problems with $\{t_n\}$ chosen to satisfy $$\|y^\d-F(x_n)-F'(x_n)(x_{n+1}-x_n)\|= \eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$$ at each step for some preassigned number $\eta\in (0,1)$ and with the discrepancy principle used to terminate the iteration. Rieder generalized the idea in [@H97] and proposed in [@R99] (see also [@LR2010]) a general class of inexact Newton methods; every such a method consists of two components: an outer Newton iteration and an inner scheme providing increment by regularizing local linearized equations. When the inner scheme is defined by an iterative method, the number of iterations is determined adaptively which has the advantage to avoid the over-solving of the linearized equation that may occur when the inner scheme is terminated a priori. The convergence rates of inexact Newton regularization methods were considered in [@R01] but only suboptimal ones were derived. It is a longstanding question whether the inexact Newton methods are order optimal. Important progress has been made recently in [@H2010] where the regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme is shown to be order optimal. In this paper we consider the inexact Newton regularization methods in which the inner schemes are defined by applying various linear regularization methods, including Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization and Tikhonov regularization, to the local linearized equations and show that these methods are indeed order optimal by exploiting ideas developed in [@H2010; @JT2011; @LR2010]. We even consider these methods in Hilbert scales and derive the order optimal convergence rates. Our theoretical results confirm those numerical illustrations in [@R99; @R01].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we formulate the methods precisely and state the main results on the order optimal convergence rates. In Section 3 we show that these methods are well-defined, and prove that the error decays monotonically. In Section 4 we complete the proof of the the main result by deriving the order optimal convergence rates.
**Main results**
================
The inexact Newton regularization methods are a family of methods for solving nonlinear ill-posed inverse problems. Every such a method consists of two components, an outer Newton iteration and an inner scheme providing increments by regularizing local linearized equations. An approximate solution is output by a discrepancy principle.
To be more precise, the method starts with an initial guess $x_0\in \D(F)$. Assume that $x_n$ is a current iterate, one may apply any regularization scheme to the linearized equation $$\label{linear}
F'(x_n) u=y^\d-F(x_n)$$ to produce a family of regularized approximations $\{u_n(t)\}$. One may choose $t_n$ to be the smallest number $t_n>0$ such that $$\label{4.2}
\|y^\d-F(x_n)-F'(x_n) u_n(t_n)\|\le \eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$$ for some preassigned value $0<\eta<1$. The next iterate is then updated as $x_{n+1}=x_n +u_n(t_n)$. The outer Newton iteration is terminated by the discrepancy principle $$\label{4.3}
\|y^\d-F(x_{n_\d})\|\le \tau\d <\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|, \qquad 0\le n<n_\d$$ for some given number $\tau>1$. This outputs an integer $n_\d$ and hence $x_{n_\d}$ which is used to approximate the exact solution $x^\dag$.
The convergence rates of the inexact Newton regularization methods have been considered in [@R99; @R01]. It has been shown that if $$x_0-x^\dag\in \R((F'(x^\dag)^* F'(x^\dag))^\mu)$$ for some $0<\mu\le 1/2$, then there is a number $0<\mu_0<\mu$ such that $$\|x_{n_\d}-x^\dag\|=O(\d^{2(\mu-\mu_0)/(1+2\mu)})$$ which is only suboptimal. It is a long-standing question whether the inexact Newton regularization methods are order optimal. Important progress has been made recently in [@H2010] where the regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme is proved to be order optimal.
In this paper we will consider the inexact Newton regularization methods in which the inner schemes are defined by applying Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization, or Tikhonov regularization to the linearized equation (\[linear\]) and show that these methods are indeed order optimal. For these four methods, $u_n(t)$ are defined by $$u_n(t)=g_t\left(F'(x_n)^*F'(x_n)\right) F'(x_n)^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right)$$ with the spectral filter functions $\{g_t\}$ given by $$\label{5.7.2}
g_t(\la)=\sum_{j=0}^{[t]-1} (1-\lambda)^j, \,\,\,\, \sum_{j=1}^{[t]} (1+\lambda)^{-j},
\,\,\,\, \frac{1}{\la} \left(1-e^{-t\la}\right), \,\,\,\, \left(\frac{1}{t}+\la\right)^{-1}$$ respectively, where $[t]$ denotes the largest integer not greater than $t$.
We need the following standard condition which is known as the Newton-Mysovskii condition (see [@DES98]).
\[A0\] (a) There exists $K_0\ge 0$ such that $$\|[F'(x)-F'(z)] h\|\le K_0\|x-z\| \|F'(z) h\|, \quad \forall h\in \X$$ for all $x, z \in B_\rho(x^\dag)\subset \D(F)$, where $B_\rho(x^\dag)$ denotes the ball of radius $\rho>0$ with center at $x^\dag$.
\(b) $F$ is properly scaled so that $\|F'(x) \|
\le \Theta<1$ for all $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$.
The order optimality of these four inexact Newton regularization methods is contained in the following result.
\[T1\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A0\], let $\tau>2$ and $0<\eta<1$ be such that $ \tau\eta>2$, and let $x_0\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. If $K_0\|x_0-x^\dag\|$ is sufficiently small, then the inexact Newton regularization methods with the inner scheme defined by Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization, or Tikhonov regularization are well-defined and terminate after $n_\d=O(1+|\log \d|)$ iterations. If, in addition, $x_0-x^\dag =(F'(x^\dag)^*F'(x^\dag))^\mu \omega$ for some $\omega\in \mathcal{N}(F'(x^\dag))^\perp\subset \X$ and $0<\mu\le 1/2$ and if $K_0\|\omega\|$ is sufficiently small, then there holds $$\|x_{n_\d}-x^\dag\| \le C \|\omega\|^{\frac{1}{1+2\mu}} \d^{\frac{2\mu}{1+2\mu}}$$ for some constant $C$ independent of $\d$ and $\|\omega\|$.
We will not give the proof of Theorem \[T1\] directly. Instead, we will prove a more general result by considering these four inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales. Let $L$ be a densely defined self-adjoint strictly positive linear operator in $\X$ satisfying $$\|x\|^2\le \gamma (L x, x), \quad x\in \D(L)$$ for some constant $\gamma>0$, where $\D(L)$ denotes the domain of $L$. For each $t\in {\mathbb R}$, we define $\X_t$ to be the completion of $\cap_{k=0}^\infty \D(L^k)$ with respect to the Hilbert space norm $$\|x\|_t:= \|L^t x\|.$$ This family of Hilbert spaces $\{\X_t\}_{t\in {\mathbb R}}$ is called the Hilbert scales generated by $L$. The following are fundamental properties (see [@EHN96]):
\(a) For any $-\infty<q<r<\infty$, $\X_r$ is densely and continuously embedded into $\X_q$ with $$\label{embed}
\|x\|_q\le \gamma^{r-q}\|x\|_r, \quad x\in \X_r,$$
\(b) For any $-\infty<p<q<r<\infty$ there holds the interpolation inequality $$\label{inter}
\|x\|_q\le \|x\|_p^{\frac{r-q}{r-p}}\|x\|_r^{\frac{q-p}{r-p}}, \quad x\in \X_r.$$
\(c) If $T:\X\mapsto \Y$ is a bounded linear operator satisfying $$m\|h\|_{-a}\le \|Th\|\le M\|h\|_{-a}, \quad h\in \X$$ for some constants $M\ge m>0$ and $a\ge 0$, then for the operator $A:=TL^{-s}:\X\mapsto \Y$ with $s\ge -a$ there holds for any $|\nu|\le 1$ that $$\label{2.3}
\underline{c}(\nu) \|h\|_{-\nu(a+s)}\le\|(A^*A)^{\nu/2}h\| \le
\overline{c}(\nu) \|h\|_{-\nu(a+s)}$$ on $\D((A^*A)^{\nu/2})$, where $A^*:=L^{-s} T^*: \Y\to \X$ is the adjoint of $A$ and $$\underline{c}(\nu):=\min\{m^\nu,M^\nu\} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\overline{c}(\nu)=\max\{m^\nu, M^\nu\}.$$
We will consider the inexact Newton regularization methods in which the inner schemes are defined by applying Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization, or Tikhonov regularization in Hilbert scales to the linearized equation (\[linear\]). Now we have $$\label{5.7.1}
u_n(t)= g_{t}\left(L^{-2s}F'(x_n)^* F'(x_n)\right) L^{-2s} F'(x_n)^*\left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right)$$ with $g_t$ defined by (\[5.7.2\]), where $s\in {\mathbb R}$ is a suitable chosen number. The iterative solutions are defined by $x_{n+1}=x_n+ u_n(t_n)$ with $t_n>0$ chosen to be the smallest number satisfying (\[4.2\]). The iteration is then terminated by the discrepancy principle (\[4.3\]) to output an approximate solution $x_{n_\d}$.
We will use $x_{n_\d}$, constructed from these four inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales, to approximate the true solution $x^\dag$ of (\[1\]) and derive the order optimal convergence rate when $x_0-x^\dag\in \X_\mu$ with $s<\mu\le b+2s$. We need the following condition on the nonlinear operator $F$.
\[A1\] (a) There exist constants $a\ge 0$ and $0<m\le M<\infty$ such that $$m\|h\|_{-a}\le \|F'(x) h\|\le M \|h\|_{-a}, \quad h\in \X$$ for all $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$.
\(b) $F$ is properly scaled so that $\|F'(x) L^{-s}\|_{\X\to \Y}
\le \Theta<1$ for all $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$, where $s\ge -a$.
\(c) There exist $0<\beta\le 1$, $0\le b\le a$ and $K_0\ge 0$ such that $$\|F'(x)-F'(z)\|_{\X_{-b}\to \Y}\le K_0\|x-z\|^\beta$$ for all $x, z\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$.
This condition was first used in [@N2000] for the convergence analysis of the nonlinear Landweber iteration in Hilbert scales. It was then used recently in [@HP08] and [@JT2011] for nonlinear Tikhonov regularization and some Newton-type regularization methods in Hilbert scales respectively. One can consult [@N2000; @HP08] for several examples satisfying Assumption \[A1\].
\[T2\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A1\] with $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, let $\tau>2$ and $0<\eta<1$ be such that $ \tau\eta>2$, and let $x_0\in \D(F)$ be such that $\gamma^s\|x_0-x^\dag\|_s\le \rho$. If $K_0\|x_0-x^\dag\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then the inexact Newton regularization methods with the inner scheme defined by Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization, or Tikhonov regularization in Hilbert scales are well-defined and terminate after $n_\d=O(1+|\log \d|)$ iterations. If, in addition, $x_0-x^\dag \in \X_\mu$ for some $s<\mu \le b+2s$ and $K_0\|x_0-x^\dag\|_\mu^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then there holds $$\|x_{n_\d}-x^\dag\|_r \le C \|x_0-x^\dag\|_\mu^{\frac{a+r}{a+\mu}} \d^{\frac{\mu-r}{a+\mu}}$$ for all $r\in [-a, s]$, where $C$ is a constant independent of $\d$ and $\|x_0-x^\dag\|_\mu$.
The proof of Theorem \[T2\] will be given in the next two sections. Here some remarks are in order.
When the inner scheme is defined by the asymptotic regularization or Tikhonov regularization, there is flexibility to choose $t_n$ to satisfy $$\eta_1\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\le \|y^\d-F(x_n)-F'(x_n) u_n(t_n)\|\le \eta_2\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$$ with some numbers $0<\eta_1\le \eta_2<1$. Furthermore, we only need $\tau>2$ and $\tau \eta_1>1$ in the convergence analysis.
When $s>(a-b)/\beta$, the same order optimal convergence rate in Theorem \[T2\] holds for $x_0-x^\dag\in \X_\mu$ with $s\le \mu\le b+2s$ which can be seen from the proof of Lemma \[P1\] in Section 4.
If the Fréchet derivative $F'(x)$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition $$\|F'(x)-F'(z)\|\le K_0\|x-z\|, \qquad x, z\in B_\rho(x^\dag),$$ then Assumption \[A1\] (c) holds with $b=0$ and $\beta=1$, and thus, for these inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales with $s\ge a$, the order optimal convergence rates hold for $x_0-x^\dag\in \X_\mu$ with $s<\mu\le 2s$.
We indicate how Theorem \[T1\] can be derived from Theorem \[T2\]. First, we note that Assumption \[A0\] (a) implies $$\|F(x)-F(z)-F'(z)(x-z)\|\le \frac{1}{2} K_0\|x-z\| \|F'(z) (x-z)\|$$ for all $x, z\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. One can then follow the proofs in Section 3 to show that, if $x_0\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$ and $K_0\|x_0-x^\dag\|$ is sufficiently small, then these inexact Newton regularization methods are well-defined and $$\|x_{n+1}-x^\dag\|\le \|x_n-x^\dag\|, \quad n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$$ which implies $x_n\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$ for $0\le n\le n_\d$. By shrinking the ball $B_\rho(x^\dag)$ if necessary, we can derive from Assumption \[A0\] (a) that there exist two constants $0<C_0\le C_1<\infty$ such that $$\label{5.2.1}
C_0\|F'(z) h\|\le \|F'(x) h\|\le C_1\|F'(z) h\|, \quad h\in \X$$ for all $x, z\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. This implies that all the operators $F'(x)$ have the same null space $\N$ as long as $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. By the condition of Theorem \[T1\] we have $x_0-x^\dag\in \N^\perp$. By the definition of $\{x_n\}$ we also have $x_{n+1}-x_n \in \R(F'(x_n)^*)\subset \N^\perp$ for $n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$. By considering the operator $G(z):=F(z+x_0)$ if necessary, we may assume $x_0=0$. Therefore $x^\dag, x_n\in \N^\perp$ for $n=0, \cdots, n_\d$, and we may consider the equation (\[1\]) on $\N^\perp$. Consequently we may assume $\N=\{0\}$, i.e. each $F'(x)$ is injective for $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$.
Now we introduce the operator $L:=(F'(x^\dag)^* F'(x^\dag))^{-1/2}$ which is clearly densely defined self-adjoint strictly positive linear operator in $\X$ satisfying $$\|x\|^2\le \Theta (L x, x), \quad x\in \D(L).$$ From (\[5.2.1\]) it follows that $C_0\|h\|_{-1}\le \|F'(x) h\|\le C_1\|h\|_{-1}$ which implies Assumption \[A1\] (a) with $a=1$. Moreover, from Assumption \[A0\] (b) it follows for $x,z\in B_\rho(x^\dag) $that $$\begin{aligned}
\|[F'(x)-F'(z)] \|_{\X_{-1}\to \Y}=\|[F'(x)-F'(z)] L\|_{\X\to \Y}\le K_0\|x-z\|\|F'(z) L\|_{\X\to \Y}.\end{aligned}$$ Since (\[5.2.1\]) implies $\|F'(z) L\|_{\X\to \Y}\le C_1$, Assumption \[A1\] (c) holds with $b=1$ and $\beta=1$. Since $\R((F'(x^\dag)F'(x^\dag))^\mu)=\X_{2\mu}$, Theorem \[T1\] follows immediately from Theorem \[T2\] with $s=0$.
**Monotonicity of the error**
=============================
We start with a simple consequence of Assumption \[A1\] which will be used frequently.
\[L2.0\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A1\] and let $x, z\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. If $t\ge 0$ then $$\label{5.1.1}
\|F(x)-F(z)-F'(z) (x-z)\|\le \frac{1}{1+\beta}K_0 \|x-z\|_t^{\frac{a(1+\beta)-b}{a+t}}
\|x-z\|_{-a}^{\frac{t(1+\beta)+b}{a+t}}.$$ If, in addition, $t\ge (a-b)/\beta$, then $$\label{5.1.2}
\|F(x)-F(z)-F'(z) (x-z)\|\le \frac{1}{1+\beta}\gamma^{t\beta+b-a} K_0 \|x-z\|_t^\beta
\|x-z\|_{-a}.$$
From Assumption \[A1\] (c) and the identity $$F(x)-F(z)-F'(z)(x-z)=\int_0^1 \left[F'(z+t(x-z))-F'(z)\right] (x-z) dt$$ it follows immediately that $$\label{5.1.3}
\|F(x)-F(z)-F'(z)(x-z)\|\le \frac{1}{1+\beta} K_0\|x-z\|^\beta \|x-z\|_{-b}.$$ With the help of the interpolation inequality (\[inter\]) we have $$\|x-z\|\le \|x-z\|_t^{\frac{a}{a+t}} \|x-z\|_{-a}^{\frac{t}{a+t}} \quad
\mbox{and}\quad \|x-z\|_{-b} \le \|x-z\|_t^{\frac{a-b}{a+t}} \|x-z\|_{-a}^{\frac{t+b}{a+t}}.$$ This together with (\[5.1.3\]) gives (\[5.1.1\]). If, in addition, $t\ge (a-b)/\beta$, then we have $[t(1+\beta)+b]/(a+t)\ge 1$. Thus, by using $\|x-z\|_{-a}\le \gamma^{a+t} \|x-z\|_t$ which follows from the embedding (\[embed\]), we can derive (\[5.1.2\]) immediately from (\[5.1.1\]). $\Box$
In this section we will use the ideas from [@H97; @HNS96; @LR2010] to show that the four inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales stated in Theorem \[T2\] are well-defined and for the error term $$e_n:=x_n-x^\dag$$ there holds $\|e_{n+1}\|_s\le \|e_n\|_s$ for $n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$. We will use the notation $$T:=F'(x^\dag), \quad T_n:=F'(x_n), \quad A:=T L^{-s} \quad \mbox{and} \quad A_n:=T_n L^{-s}.$$ It follows easily from the definition (\[5.7.1\]) of $\{u_n(t)\}$ that $$\label{g1.1}
u_n(t)=L^{-s} g_t(A_n^* A_n) A_n^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right)$$ and $$\label{r1}
y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t)=r_t(A_nA_n^*) \left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right),$$ where $r_t(\la):=1-\la g_t(\la)$ denotes the residual function associated with $g_t$. For the spectral filter functions given in (\[5.7.2\]), it is easy to see that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} r_t(\la)=0$ for each $\la>0$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.7.4}
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \|y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t)\|&=\|P_{\R(A_n)^\perp}(y^\d-F(x_n))\|,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{\R(A_n)^\perp}$ denotes the orthogonal projection of $\Y$ onto $\R(A_n)^\perp$, the orthogonal complement of the range $\R(A_n)$ of $A_n$.
\[L2.1\] Let $F$ satsify Assumption \[A1\] with $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, let $\tau>1$ and $0<\eta<1$ satisfy $\tau \eta >1$, and let $x_0\in \D(F)$ be such that $\gamma^s \|e_0\|_s\le \rho$. Assume that $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small. If $\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|>\tau \d$ and $\|e_n\|_s\le \|e_0\|_s$, then $t_n$ is well-defined and $t_n\ge c_0$ for some constant $c_0>0$ independent of $n$ and $\d$.
From (\[embed\]) and the given conditions it follows that $\|e_n\|\le \gamma^s \|e_n\|_s \le \gamma^s \|e_0\|_s\le \rho$ which implies $x_n\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$. Since $\|e_n\|_s\le \|e_0\|_s<\infty$ implies $L^s e_n\in \X$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{\R(A_n)^\perp} (y^\d-F(x_n))\| &\le \|y^\d-F(x_n)+A_n L^s e_n\|=\|y^\d-F(x_n)+ T_n e_n\|.\end{aligned}$$ In order to show that $t_n$ is well-defined, in view of (\[5.7.4\]) it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.10}
\|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\| < \eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, we can use (\[1.2\]) and (\[5.1.2\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\] to derive $$\|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\| \le \d+ \frac{1}{1+\beta} \gamma^{s\beta+b-a} K_0\|e_n\|_s^\beta \|e_n\|_{-a}$$ Now by using Assumption \[A1\] (a), $\|e_n\|_s\le \|e_0\|_s$ and $\tau \d< \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$, we obtain with $C=\gamma^{s\beta+b-a}/[(1+\beta) m]$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\| &\le \frac{1}{\tau} \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|
+ C K_0 \|e_0\|_s^\beta \|T_n e_n\|\\
&\le \left(\frac{1}{\tau}+ C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta\right) \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\\
&\quad \, + C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau \eta>1$, we therefore obtain (\[2.10\]) if $K_0\|e_0\|_s$ is sufficiently small.
For the inner scheme defined by Landweber iteration or the implicit iteration in Hilbert scales, it is obvious that $t_n$ is an integer with $t_n\ge 1$. For the inner scheme defined by the asymptotic regularization or Tikhonov regularization in Hilbert scales, we have $$\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|=\|y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t_n)\|=\|r_{t_n}(A_nA_n^*) (y^\d-F(x_n))\|$$ where $r_t(\la)=e^{-t \la}$ or $r_t(\la)=(1+t\la)^{-1}$. Since $\|A_n\|\le 1$, we can obtain either $e^{-t_n}\le \eta$ or $(1+t_n)^{-1} \le \eta$. Therefore $t_n\ge \log(1/\eta)$ or $t_n\ge 1/\eta-1$. $\Box$
\[L2.2\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A1\] with $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, let $\tau>2$ and $0<\eta<1$ be such that $ \tau\eta>2$, and let $x_0\in \D(F)$ be such that $\gamma^s\|e_0\|_s\le \rho$. If $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then the four inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales stated in Theorem \[T2\] are well-defined and terminate after $n_\d<\infty$ iterations, and $$\label{4.30.1}
\sum_{n=0}^{n_\d-1} t_n \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2 \le C_2 \|e_0\|_s^2$$ for some constant $C_2>0$. Moreover $$\label{2.11}
\|x_{n+1}-x^\dag\|_s\le \|x_n-x^\dag\|_s$$ for $n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$.
We will prove this result for the four inexact Newton methods case by case.
\(a) We first consider the inexact Newton method with inner scheme defined by Landweber iteration in Hilber scales. We first show the monotonicity (\[2.11\]). We may assume $n_\d\ge 1$. Let $0\le n<n_\d$ and assume that $\|e_n\|_s\le \|e_0\|_s$. By the definition of $n_\d$ we have $\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|>\tau \d$. It follows from Lemma \[L2.1\] that $t_n$ is a well-defined positive integer. Let $u_{n,k}:=u_n(k)$ for each integer $k$. Then $u_{n,0}=0$ and $$u_{n, k}=u_{n,k-1}+ L^{-2s} T_n^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n)- T_n u_{n,k-1}\right)$$ for $k=1, \cdots, t_n$. Recall that $x_{n+1}=x_n+u_{n, t_n}$. Therefore, in order to show $\|e_{n+1}\|_s\le \|e_n\|_s$, it suffices to show $$\label{2.12}
\|e_n+u_{n, k}\|_s\le \|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s, \qquad k=1, \cdots, t_n.$$ We set $z_{n,k}=y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_{n, k}$. Then $u_{n,k}-u_{n, k-1}=L^{-2s} T_n^* z_{n, k-1}$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+u_{n, k}&\|_s^2 -\|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\\
&=2(e_n+u_{n, k-1}, u_{n, k}-u_{n, k-1})_s+\|u_{n, k}-u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\\
&=(u_{n, k}-u_{n, k-1}, u_{n, k}+u_{n, k-1}+2 e_n)_s\\
&=\left(z_{n, k-1}, T_n ( u_{n, k} + u_{n, k-1} + 2 e_n)\right).\end{aligned}$$ According to the definition of $z_{n,k}$ one can see $$T_n ( u_{n, k} + u_{n, k-1} + 2 e_n)=-z_{n,k} -z_{n, k-1} +2(y^\d-F(x_n)+ T_n e_n).$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+ &u_{n, k}\|_s^2 -\|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\\
&=-(z_{n, k-1}, z_{n,k})-\|z_{n, k-1}\|^2 + 2 (z_{n,k-1}, y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n).\end{aligned}$$ Observing that (\[r1\]) and $r_t(\la)=(1-\la)^{[t]}$ imply $z_{n,k}=(I-A_nA_n^*)^k (y^\d-F(x_n))$, we have $(z_{n,k-1}, z_{n,k})\ge 0$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+& u_{n, k}\|_s^2 -\|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\\
&\le -\|z_{n,k-1}\|\left(\|z_{n,k-1}\|- 2 \|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\|\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau \eta>2$, we can pick $0<\eta_0<\eta/2$ with $\tau \eta_0>1$. By using Assumption \[A1\], $\tau \d< \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$ and $\|e_n\|_s\le \|e_0\|_s$, we can derive as in the proof of Lemma \[L2.1\] that if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small then $$\begin{aligned}
\|y^\d-F(x_n) + T_n e_n\|\le \eta_0 \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by the definition of $t_n$ we have $\|z_{n,k-1}\|>\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.13}
\|e_n+u_{n, k}\|_s^2& -\|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\le -\varepsilon_0 \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_0:=\eta(\eta-2\eta_0)>0$. This in particular implies (\[2.12\]) and hence $\|e_{n+1}\|_s\le \|e_n\|_s$. An induction argument then shows the monotonicity result (\[2.11\]).
Moreover, it follows from (\[2.13\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_{n+1}\|_s^2 -\|e_n\|_s^2 &=\sum_{k=1}^{t_n} \left(\|e_n+u_{n, k}\|_s^2-\|e_n+u_{n, k-1}\|_s^2\right)\\
&\le - \varepsilon_0 t_n \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently $$\varepsilon_0 \sum_{n=0}^{n_\d-1} t_n \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2
\le \|e_0\|_s^2-\|e_{n_\d}\|_s^2 \le \|e_0\|_s^2 <\infty$$ which shows (\[4.30.1\]). Since $t_n\ge 1$ and $\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|>\tau\d$ for $0\le n<n_\d$, one can see that $n_\d$ must be finite.
\(b) For the inexact Newton method with inner scheme defined by the implicit iteration in Hilbert scales, all $t_n$ must be positive integer and with the notation $u_{n,k}:=u_n(k)$ we have $u_{n,0}=0$ and $$u_{n, k}=u_{n,k-1}+(L^{2s} + T_n^* T_n)^{-1} T_n^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n) -T_n u_{n,k-1}\right).$$ Let $z_{n,k}:=y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_{n, k}$. We have from (\[r1\]) and $r_t(\la)=(1+\la)^{-[t]}$ that $z_{n,k}=(I+A_nA_n^*)^{-1} z_{n,k-1}$ and $u_{n, k}-u_{n,k-1}=L^{-2s} T_n^* z_{n,k}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+u_{n,k}&\|_s^2-\|e_n+u_{n,k-1}\|_s^2\\
&=(u_{n,k}-u_{n,k-1}, u_{n,k}+u_{n,k-1}+2 e_n)_s\\
&=(z_{n,k}, T_n(u_{n,k}+u_{n,k-1}+2 e_n))\\
&=(z_{n,k}, -z_{n,k}-z_{n,k-1} +2(y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n)).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $(z_{n,k}, z_{n,k-1})\ge \|z_{n,k}\|^2$. We then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+u_{n,k}\|_s^2-\|e_n+u_{n,k-1}\|_s^2
&\le -2\|z_{n,k}\|\left(\|z_{n,k}\|-\|y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n\|\right).\end{aligned}$$ By using $\|A_n\|\le 1$ and the definition of $t_n$, we have $$\|z_{n,k}\|\ge \frac{1}{2}\|z_{n,k-1}\| \ge \frac{1}{2}\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|, \quad k=1,\cdots, t_n.$$ Since $\tau \eta>2$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n+u_{n,k}\|_s^2-\|e_n+u_{n,k-1}\|_s^2
&\le -\frac{1}{2} \eta (\eta-2\eta_0) \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ for $k=1, \cdots, t_n$ when $K_0\|e_0\|_s$ is sufficiently small, where $0<\eta_0<\eta/2$ is such that $\tau \eta_0>1$. This together with an induction argument implies (\[4.30.1\]) and (\[2.11\]).
\(c) For the inexact Newton method with inner scheme defined by the asymptotic regularization in Hilbert scales, $u_n(t)$ is the solution of the initial value problem $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d t} u_n(t) &=L^{-2s} T_n^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t)\right), \quad t>0,\\
u_n(0)&=0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, with $z_n(t):= y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d t} \|e_n+u_n(t)\|_s^2&=2 \left( \frac{d}{d t} u_n(t), e_n +u_n(t)\right)_s
=2\left(z_n(t), T_n(e_n+u_n(t))\right)\\
&=2(z_n(t), -z_n(t)+ y^\d-F(x_n)+T_n e_n)\\
&\le -2\|z_n(t)\| \left(\|z_n(t)\|-\|y^\d-F(x_n)+T_n e_n\|\right).\end{aligned}$$ According to the definition of $t_n$ we have $\|z_n(t_n)\|=\eta\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$ and $\|z_n(t)\|> \eta\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$ for $0\le t\le t_n$. Since $\tau \eta>1$, we therefore obtain $$\frac{d}{d t} \|e_n +u_n(t)\|_s^2\le -2\eta(\eta-\eta_0) \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2, \quad 0<t\le t_n$$ if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small, where $0<\eta_0<\eta$ is such that $\tau \eta_0>1$. In view of $u_n(0)=0$ and $x_{n+1}=x_n+u_n(t_n)$, we obtain $$\|e_{n+1}\|_s^2-\|e_n\|_s^2 \le -2\eta(\eta-\eta_0) t_n\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2.$$ This implies (\[4.30.1\]) and (\[2.11\]) immediately.
\(d) For the inexact Newton method with inner scheme defined by Tikhonov regularization, we have $$u_n(t)=\left(t^{-1} L^{2s} + T_n^* T_n\right)^{-1} T_n^* (y^\d-F(x_n)).$$ We first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_{n+1}\|_s^2 -\|e_n\|_s^2
&\le 2 \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|_s^2 +2(x_{n+1}-x_n, e_n)_s\\
&=2(x_{n+1}-x_n, x_{n+1}-x_n +e_n)_s.\end{aligned}$$ Let $z_n=y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)$. We have from (\[r1\]) and $r_t(\la)=(1+t \la)^{-1}$ that $u_n(t_n)= t_n L^{-2s} T_n^* z_n$ and hence $x_{n+1}-x_n=t_n L^{-2s} T_n^* z_n$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_{n+1}\|_s^2 -\|e_n\|_s^2 &\le 2 t_n \left(z_n, T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n +e_n) \right)\\
&=2 t_n \left(z_n, -z_n +(y^\d-F(x_n) +T_n e_n)\right)\\
&\le -2t_n \|z_n\|\left(\|z_n\|-\|y^\d-F(x_n)+T_n e_n\|\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $t_n$ we have $\|z_n\|= \eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|$. Since $\tau \eta>1$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_{n+1}\|_s^2 -\|e_n\|_s^2
&\le -2\eta(\eta-\eta_0) t_n \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|^2\end{aligned}$$ if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small, where $0<\eta_0<\eta$ is such that $\tau \eta_0>1$. This implies (\[4.30.1\]) and (\[2.11\]). $\Box$
\[R3.1\] The inequality (\[4.30.1\]) will find its use in the proof of Lemma \[P1\]. From (\[4.30.1\]), $t_n\ge c_0>0$, and the fact $\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\ge \tau \d$ for $0\le n<n_\d$, it follows easily that $n_\d=O(\d^{-2})$ which gives only a rough estimate on the number of outer iterations. However, we should point out that the inexact Newton iterations in Hilbert scales in fact terminate after $n_\d=O(1+|\log \d|)$ outer iterations. This can be confirmed by using the fact $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.29.0}
\eta &\|y^\d-F(x_n)\| \ge \|y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n(x_{n+1}-x_n)\|, \quad 0\le n<n_\d\end{aligned}$$ which follows from the definition of $t_n$ and $x_{n+1}=x_n+u_n(t_n)$. To see this, by using (\[5.1.2\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)-T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\| \le \frac{\gamma^{s\beta+b-a}}{1+\beta} K_0\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|_s^\beta\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|_{-a}.\end{aligned}$$ Since (\[2.11\]) implies $\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|_s\le \|e_{n+1}\|_s+\|e_n\|_s\le 2\|e_0\|_s$, from Assumption \[A1\] (a) we have with $C:=2^\beta\gamma^{s\beta+b-a}/[(1+\beta)m]$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)-T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\| & \le C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then there holds $\|T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\|\le 2 \|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)\|$ and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.29}
\|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)&-T_n(x_{n+1}-x_n)\| \le 2C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with (\[4.29.0\]) yields $$\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\ge \|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\| - 2 C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)\|.$$ Considering $\eta<1$, this in particular implies that if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small then $$\frac{\|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\|}{\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|}
\le \frac {\eta+ 2 C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta}{1-2 C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta}
\le \frac{1+\eta}{2}<1.$$ Therefore for all $n=0, \cdots, n_\d$ there holds $$\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\le \left(\frac{1+\eta}{2}\right)^n \|y^\d-F(x_0)\|.$$ By taking $n=n_\d-1$ and using $\|y^\d-F(x_{n_\d-1})\|\ge \tau \d$ we obtain $\tau \d\le \left(\frac{1+\eta}{2}\right)^{n_\d-1} \|y^\d-F(x_0)\|$ which shows that $n_\d=O(1+|\log\d|)$.
**Proof of Theorem \[T2\]**
===========================
In this section we will show the order optimality of the four inexact Newton method in Hilbert scales stated in Theorem \[T2\]. For simplicity of further exposition, we will always use $C$ to denote a generic constant independent of $\d$ and $n$, we will also use the convention $\Phi\lesssim \Psi$ to mean that $\Phi\le C \Psi$ for some generic constant $C$ when the explicit expression of $C$ is not important. Furthermore, we will use $\Phi\sim \Psi$ to mean that $\Phi\lesssim \Psi$ and $\Psi\lesssim \Phi$.
\[L2.3\] Under the same conditions in Lemma \[L2.2\], there holds $$\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\lesssim \|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\|, \qquad n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1.$$
We first claim that there is a constant $c_1>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.7.6}
c_1\|y^\d-F(x_n)\| \le \|y^\d-F(x_n)- T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\|.\end{aligned}$$ This is clear from the definition of $t_n$ when the inner scheme is defined by Tikhonov regularization or the asymptotic regularization. When the inner scheme is defined by Landweber iteration, we have $r_t(\la)=(1-\la)^{[t]}$. According to the definition of $t_n$ and (\[r1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\| &\le \|y^\d-F(x_n)-T_n u_n(t_n-1)\|\\
&=\|(I-A_n A_n^*)^{t_n-1} (y^\d-F(x_n))\|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|A_n\|\le \Theta<1$, we have $\|(I-A_n A_n^*)^{-1}\|\le (1-\Theta^2)^{-1}$. Therefore, using (\[r1\]) again it follows $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\Theta^2) \eta\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|&\le \|(I- A_nA_n^*)^{t_n} (y^\d-F(x_n))\| \nonumber\\
&= \|y^\d-F(x_n)- T_n (x_{n+1}-x_n)\|\end{aligned}$$ which shows (\[5.7.6\]) with $c_1=(1-\Theta^2)\eta$. When the inner scheme is defined by the implicit iteration, we have $r_t(\la)=(1+\la)^{-[t]}$. Thus it follows from (\[r1\]) and $\|A_n\|\le 1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \|y^\d-F(x_n)\| &\le \|(I+A_nA_n^*)^{-t_n+1} (y^\d-F(x_n)) \| \\
&\le 2 \|(I+A_nA_n^*)^{-t_n} (y^\d-F(x_n)) \| \\
&= 2 \|y^\d-F(x_n) -T_n(x_{n+1}-x_n)\|\end{aligned}$$ which shows (\[5.7.6\]) with $c_1=\eta/2$.
The combination of (\[5.7.6\]) and (\[4.29\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
c_1&\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\\
&\le \|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\| + C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n)\|\\
&\le \|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\| + C K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \left(\|y^\d-F(x_{n+1})\|+\|y^\d-F(x_n)\|\right).\end{aligned}$$ This shows the result if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small. $\Box$
For the spectral filter functions defined by (\[5.7.2\]), we have shown in [@JT2011] that for any sequence of positive numbers $\{t_n\}$ there hold $$\begin{aligned}
0\le \la^\nu \prod_{k=j}^{n-1} r_{t_k}(\la)&\le (s_n-s_j)^{-\nu}, \label{g1}\\
0\le \la^\nu g_{t_j}(\la) \prod_{k=j+1}^{n-1} r_{t_k}(\la)&\le
t_j (s_n-s_j)^{-\nu} \label{g2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{g3}
0\le \la^\nu \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} g_{t_i}(\la) \prod_{k=i+1}^{n-1} r_{t_k}(\la)\le s_n^{1-\nu}$$ for $0\le \nu\le 1$, $0\le \la \le 1$ and $j=0, 1, \cdots, n-1$, where $\{s_n\}$ is defined by $$\label{s1}
s_0=0 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad s_n=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} t_j \quad \mbox{for } n=1,2, \cdots.$$ Moreover, we have the following crucial estimate.
\[L10\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A1\], let $\{g_t\}$ be defined by (\[5.7.2\]) and $r_t(\la)=1-\la g_t(\la)$, and let $\{t_n\}$ be a sequence of positive numbers with $\{s_n\}$ defined by (\[s1\]). Let $A=F'(x^\dag) L^{-s}$ and for any $x\in B_\rho(x^\dag)$ let $A_x=F'(x) L^{-s}$. Then for $-\frac{b+s}{2(a+s)} \le \nu\le 1/2$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\| (A^*A)^\nu \prod_{k=j+1}^{n-1} r_{t_k}(A^*A) \left[ g_{t_j}(A^*A)A^*
-g_{t_j}(A_x^*A_x)A_x^*\right] \right\| \nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\lesssim t_j (s_n-s_j)^{-\nu-\frac{b+s}{2(a+s)}} K_0\|x-x^\dag\|^\beta\end{aligned}$$ for $j=0, 1, \cdots, n-1$.
We refer to [@JT2011 Lemma 2] in which similar estimates have been derived for a general class of spectral filter functions. $\Box$
We also need the following estimate concerning the sums of suitable types which will occur in the convergence analysis.
\[L2\] Let $\{t_n\}$ be a sequence of numbers satisfying $t_n\ge c_2>0$, and let $s_n$ be defined by (\[s1\]). Let $p\ge 0$ and $q\ge0$ be two numbers. Then $$\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} t_j (s_n-s_j)^{-p} s_{j+1}^{-q}\le C_3
s_n^{1-p-q} \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
1, & \max\{p,q\}<1,\\
\log (1+s_n), & \max\{p, q\}=1,\\
s_n^{\max\{p, q\}-1}, & \max\{p, q\}>1,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $C_3$ is a constant depending only on $p$, $q$ and $c_2$.
This is essentially contained in [@H2010 Lemma 4.3] and its proof. A simplified proof can be found in [@JT2011 Lemma 3]. $\Box$
Now we are ready to give the crucial estimates on $\|e_n\|_\mu$ and $\|T e_n\|$ for $0\le n<n_\d$. We will exploit the ideas developed in [@H2010; @Jin2011; @JT2011].
\[P1\] Let $F$ satisfy Assumption \[A1\] with $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, let $\tau>2$ and $0< \eta<1$ be such that $\tau \eta>2$, let $x_0\in \D(F)$ satisfy $\gamma^s \|e_0\|_s\le \rho$. If $e_0 \in \X_\mu$ for some $s<\mu \le b+2s$ and if $K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then there exists a constant $C_*>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_n\|_\mu \le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\|T e_n\| \le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu (1+s_n)^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}\end{aligned}$$ for all $n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$.
Since $s<\mu \le b+2s$, from (\[2.3\]) we have $\|e_n\|_\mu\sim \|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_n\|$. Therefore, it suffices to show that there exists a constant $C_*>0$ such that $$\label{402}
\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_n\|\le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu
\quad \mbox{and}\quad \|T e_n\| \le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu (1+s_n)^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}$$ for all $n=0, \cdots, n_\d-1$. We will show (\[402\]) by induction. By using (\[2.3\]) and Assumption \[A1\] (b) we have $$\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_0\|\le \overline{c}(\frac{s-\mu}{a+s}) \|e_0\|_\mu$$ and $$\|T e_0\|=\|(A^*A)^{1/2} L^s e_0\|\le \|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_0\|\le \overline{c}(\frac{s-\mu}{a+s}) \|e_0\|_\mu.$$ Therefore (\[402\]) with $n=0$ holds for $C_*\ge \overline{c}(\frac{s-\mu}{a+s})$. Now we assume that (\[402\]) is true for all $0\le n< l$ for some $0<l<n_\d$ and want to show that it is also true for $n=l$.
From the equation (\[g1.1\]) and $x_{n+1}=x_n+u_n(t_n)$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
e_{n+1}&=e_n + L^{-s} g_{t_n}(A_n^*A_n) A_n^* \left(y^\d-F(x_n)\right) \\
&=L^{-s} r_{t_n}(A^*A) L^s e_n +L^{-s} g_{t_n}(A^*A) A^* (y^\d-F(x_n)+ T e_n) \nonumber\\
&\quad\, +L^{-s} \left[g_{t_n}(A_n^*A_n)A_n^* -g_{t_n}(A^*A)A^* \right] (y^\d-F(x_n)).\end{aligned}$$ By induction on this equation we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{20}
e_l &=L^{-s} \prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(A^* A) L^{s} e_0 +L^{-s} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1} r_{t_k}(A^*A) g_{t_j}(A^*A) A^*(y^\d-y)\nonumber\\
&\quad\, +L^{-s} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1} r_{t_k}(A^*A) g_{t_j}(A^*A) A^*\left(y-F(x_j)+ T e_j\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\, +L^{-s} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1} r_{t_k}(A^*A)
\left[g_{t_j}(A_j^*A_j)A_j^*-g_{t_j}(A^*A)A^*\right] \left(y^\d-F(x_j)\right).\end{aligned}$$ By multiplying (\[20\]) by $T:=F'(x^\dag)$, noting that $A=T L^{-s}$, and using the identity $$1-\la \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} g_{t_j}(\la) \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1} r_{t_k}(\la)=\prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(\la)$$ which follows from the relation $r_t(\la)=1-\la g_t(\la)$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21}
T e_l& =A \prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(A^*A) L^s e_0
+\left[I-\prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(AA^*)\right](y^\d-y) \nonumber\\
&\quad\, + \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1} r_{t_k}(AA^*) g_{t_j}(AA^*) AA^*\left(y-F(x_j)+ T e_j\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\, + \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} A \prod_{k=j+1}^{l-1}
r_{t_k}(A^*A) \left[g_{t_j}(A_j^*A_j)A_j^*-g_{t_j}(A^*A)A^*\right] (y^\d-F(x_j)).\end{aligned}$$ Since $e_0\in \X_\mu$ with $s<\mu\le b+2s$, by using (\[2.3\]), (\[g1\]), (\[g2\]), (\[g3\]) and Lemma \[L10\] we can derive from (\[20\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e29}
\|(&A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\| \nonumber\\
&\quad \le c_3 \|e_0\|_\mu + s_l^{\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} \d
+ \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{a+2s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} \|y-F(x_j)+T e_j\| \nonumber\\
&\quad + C\sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{b+2s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} K_0\|e_j\|^\beta \|y^\d-F(x_j)\|,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_3=\overline{c}(\frac{\mu-s}{a+s})$ and $C$ is a generic constant independent of $l$ and $\d$.
Next by using again $e_0\in \X_\mu$ with $s<\mu\le b+2s$, (\[2.3\]) and (\[g1\]), we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|A \prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(A^*A) L^s e_0\right\|
&\le \left\|A \prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(A^*A) (A^*A)^{\frac{\mu-s}{2(a+s)}}\right\|
\left\|(A^*A)^{-\frac{\mu-s}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_0\right\|\\
&\le c_3 \sup_{0\le \la\le 1} \left(\la^{\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} \prod_{j=0}^{l-1} r_{t_j}(\la)\right) \|e_0\|_\mu\\
&\le c_3 s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} \|e_0\|_\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows from (\[21\]), (\[g2\]) and Lemma \[L10\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{333}
\|T e_l\| &\le c_3 s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} \|e_0\|_\mu +\d
+ \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-1} \|y-F(x_j)+T e_j\| \nonumber\\
& \quad \, + C \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{b+a+2s}{2(a+s)}} K_0\|e_j\|^\beta \|y^\d-F(x_j)\|.\end{aligned}$$
We first use (\[333\]) to derive the desired estimate for $\|Te_l\|$. According to the relation $\|e_j\|_\mu \sim \|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_j\|$, we have from the induction hypotheses that $$\label{induction}
\|e_j\|_\mu \lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu \quad \mbox{and}
\quad \|T e_j\|\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu (1+s_j)^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}, \quad 0\le j\le l-1.$$ We need to estimate the terms $$\|e_j\|, \quad \|y^\d-F(x_j)\|\quad \mbox{and}\quad \|y-F(x_j)+T e_j\|, \qquad 0\le j\le l-1.$$ For each term we will give two types of estimates, one is true for all $0\le j\le l-1$ and the other is true for $0\le j<l-1$.
By using (\[5.1.2\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\], Assumption \[A1\] (a), Lemma \[L2.2\], and $\tau \d\le \|y^\d-F(x_j)\|$ for $0\le j<n_\d$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|y^\d-F(x_j)+T e_j\| &\le \d +\|y-F(x_j)+ T e_j\| \le \d + C K_0\|e_j\|_s^\beta \|e_j\|_{-a}\\
&\le \frac{1}{\tau} \|y^\d-F(x_j)\| +CK_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta \|T e_j\|.\end{aligned}$$ This shows for $0\le j<n_\d$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\|y^\d-F(x_j)\| &\le \frac{\tau}{\tau-1} \left(1+ CK_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta\right) \|T e_j\|,\label{151}\\
\|y^\d-F(x_j)\| &\ge \frac{\tau}{1+\tau} \left(1- CK_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta\right) \|T e_j\|.\label{152}\end{aligned}$$ The inequalities (\[151\]), (\[152\]) and Lemma \[L2.3\] imply that if $K_0\|e_0\|_s^\beta$ is sufficiently small then $$\label{212}
\|T e_j\| \lesssim \|T e_{j+1}\|, \qquad 0\le j<n_\d-1.$$ Consequently, we have from (\[151\]) and (\[212\]) that $$\label{3.18.1}
\|y^\d-F(x_j)\|\lesssim \|T e_{j+1}\|, \qquad 0\le j<n_\d-1.$$ This together with (\[induction\]) gives $$\label{213}
\|y^\d-F(x_j)\|\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu s_{j+1}^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}, \qquad 0\le j<l-1.$$
Next we estimate $\|y-F(x_j)+T e_j\|$. We have from (\[5.1.2\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\], Assumption \[A1\] (a), and (\[induction\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|y-F(x_j)-T e_j\|\lesssim K_0\|e_j\|_\mu^\beta \|e_j\|_{-a} \lesssim K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \|T e_j\|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows from (\[212\]) that $$\label{214}
\|y-F(x_j)-T e_j\|\lesssim K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \|T e_{j+1}\|, \qquad 0\le j\le l-1.$$ On the other hand, by using (\[5.1.1\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\] and Assumption \[A1\] (a), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|y-F(x_j)+T e_j\| &\le K_0\|e_j\|_\mu^{\frac{a(1+\beta)-b}{a+\mu}} \|e_j\|_{-a}^{\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+b}{a+\mu}}\\
&\lesssim K_0\|e_j\|_\mu^{\frac{a(1+\beta)-b}{a+\mu}} \|T e_j\|^{\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+b}{a+\mu}}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows from (\[212\]) and (\[induction\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{215}
\|y-F(x_j)-T e_j\| \lesssim K_0 \|e_0\|_\mu^{1+\beta} s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+b}{2(a+s)}},
\qquad 0\le j<l-1.\end{aligned}$$
For the term $\|e_j\|$, we first have from the interpolation inequality (\[inter\]), Lemma \[L2.2\], and Assumption \[A1\] (a) that $$\|e_j\|\le \|e_j\|_s^{\frac{a}{a+s}} \|e_j\|_{-a}^{\frac{s}{a+s}}
\lesssim \|e_0\|_s^{\frac{a}{a+s}} \|T e_j\|^{\frac{s}{a+s}}.$$ With the help of (\[152\]) we then obtain $$\label{216}
\|e_j\|\lesssim \|e_0\|_s^{\frac{a}{a+s}}\|y^\d-F(x_j)\|^{\frac{s}{a+s}}, \qquad 0\le j\le l-1.$$ On the other hand, by using the interpolation inequality (\[inter\]) and Assumption \[A1\] (a) we also obtain for $0\le j\le l-1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\|e_j\|\le \|e_j\|_\mu^{\frac{a}{a+\mu}} \|e_j\|_{-a}^{\frac{\mu}{a+\mu}}
\lesssim \|e_j\|_\mu^{\frac{a}{a+\mu}} \|T e_j\|^{\frac{\mu}{a+\mu}}.\end{aligned}$$ This together with (\[212\]) and (\[induction\]) gives $$\label{217}
\|e_j\|\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu}{2(a+s)}}, \qquad 0\le j<l-1.$$
Now we use (\[3.18.1\]), (\[214\]) and (\[216\]) with $j=l-1$ and use (\[213\]), (\[215\]) and (\[217\]) for $0\le j<l-1$, we then obtain from (\[333\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|T e_l\| &\le c_3 \|e_0\|_\mu s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} +\d
+ C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^{1+\beta} \sum_{j=0}^{l-2} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-1} s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+b}{2(a+s)}} \\
&\quad \, + CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \|T e_l\|
+CK_0\|e_0\|_s^{\frac{a\beta}{a+s}} t_{l-1}^{\frac{a-b}{2(a+s)}} \|y^\d-F(x_{l-1})\|^{\frac{s\beta}{a+s}} \|T e_l\| \\
&\quad\, + C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^{1+\beta} \sum_{j=0}^{l-2} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{b+a+2s}{2(a+s)}} s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+a}{2(a+s)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mu>s\ge (a-b)/\beta$, we can use Lemma \[L2\] to derive that $$\begin{aligned}
\|T e_l\| &\le \left(c_3+C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|e_0\|_\mu s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}
+\d + CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \|T e_l\| \\
&\quad \, +CK_0\|e_0\|_s^{\frac{a\beta}{a+s}} t_{l-1}^{\frac{a-b}{2(a+s)}}
\|y^\d-F(x_{l-1})\|^{\frac{s\beta}{a+s}} \|T e_l\|.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that (\[4.30.1\]) in Lemma \[L2.2\] implies $t_{l-1}\|y^\d-F(x_{l-1})\|^2\lesssim \|e_0\|_s^2$. Since $s\ge (a-b)/\beta$ and $t_{l-1}\ge c_0>0$, we have $$t_{l-1}^{\frac{a-b}{2(a+s)}} \|y^\d-F(x_{l-1})\|^{\frac{s\beta}{a+s}}
\le \left(t_{l-1} \|y^\d-F(x_{l-1})\|^2\right)^{\frac{s\beta}{2(a+s)}} t_{l-1}^{\frac{a-b-s\beta}{2(a+s)}}
\lesssim \|e_0\|_s^{\frac{s\beta}{a+s}}.$$ Therefore, noting $\|e_0\|_s\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{218}
\|T e_l\| &\le \left(c_3+C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|e_0\|_\mu s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}
+\d + CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \|T e_l\|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $l<n_\d$, we have from the definition of $n_\d$ and (\[151\]) that $$\label{219}
\d\le \frac{1}{\tau} \|y^\d-F(x_l)\|\le \frac{1}{\tau-1} \left(1+CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|T e_l\|.$$ Combining this with (\[218\]) gives $$\|Te_l\|\le \left(c_3+C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|e_0\|_\mu s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}
+\left(\frac{1}{\tau-1}+ CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta \right)\|T e_l\|.$$ Recall that $\tau>2$. Therefore, if $K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta$ is sufficiently small, then we have $$\|Te_l\|\le \frac{2c_3(\tau-1)}{\tau-2}\|e_0\|_\mu s_l^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}.$$ Since $l\ge 1$ and $s_l\ge t_{l-1}\ge c_0$, we have $1+s_l\le (1+1/c_0) s_l$. Therefore $\|T e_l\|\le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu (1+s_l)^{-\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}$ if we choose $C_*\ge 2c_3(1+1/c_0)(\tau-1)/(\tau-2)$.
Finally we will use (\[e29\]) to show the desired estimate for $\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\|$. Since we have verified the estimates for $\|T e_l\|$, the estimates (\[213\]), (\[215\]) and (\[217\]) therefore can be improved to include $j=l-1$; this is clear from the above argument. Consequently we have from (\[e29\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(A^*&A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\| \\
&\le c_3 \|e_0\|_\mu + s_l^{\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}} \d
+C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^{1+\beta} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j(s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{a+2s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+b}{2(a+s)}}\\
& +C K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^{1+\beta} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} t_j (s_l-s_j)^{-\frac{b+2s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} s_{j+1}^{-\frac{\mu(1+\beta)+a}{2(a+s)}}.\end{aligned}$$ It then follows from Lemma \[L2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\| \le \left(c_2+ CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|e_0\|_\mu + s_l^{\frac{a+\mu}{2(a+s)}}\d.\end{aligned}$$ With the help of (\[219\]) and the estimate on $\|Te_l\|$, we obtain $$\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\| \le \left(c_3+CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta\right) \|e_0\|_\mu
+\frac{C_*}{\tau-1} (1+CK_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta) \|e_0\|_\mu.$$ Since $\tau>2$, we thus obtain $\|(A^*A)^{\frac{s-\mu}{2(a+s)}} L^s e_l\|\le C_* \|e_0\|_\mu$ for any $C_*\ge 4c_3(\tau-1)/(\tau-2)$ if $K_0\|e_0\|_\mu^\beta$ is sufficiently small. The proof is therefore complete. $\Box$
Now we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem \[T2\], the main result in this paper.
0.3cm
[*Proof of Theorem \[T2\].*]{} Considering Lemma \[L2.2\] and Remark \[R3.1\], it remains only to derive the order optimal convergence rates. When $n_\d=0$, the proof is standard. So we may assume $n_\d>0$. From Lemma \[P1\] it follows that $\|e_{n_\d-1}\|_\mu\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu$. By using Lemma \[L2.3\] and the definition of $n_\d$ we have $\|y^\d-F(x_{n_\d-1})\|\lesssim \d$, which together with (\[152\]) implies that $\|e_{n_\d-1}\|_{-a} \lesssim \|T e_{n_\d-1}\|\lesssim \d$. Therefore, from the interpolation inequality (\[inter\]) it follows that $$\|e_{n_\d-1}\|_s\le \|e_{n_\d-1}\|_\mu^{\frac{a+s}{a+\mu}} \|e_{n_\d-1}\|_{-a}^{\frac{\mu-s}{a+\mu}}
\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu^{\frac{a+s}{a+\mu}} \d^{\frac{\mu-s}{a+\mu}}.$$ In view of (\[2.11\]) in Lemma \[L2.2\], we consequently obtain $\|e_{n_\d}\|_s\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu^{\frac{a+s}{a+\mu}} \d^{\frac{\mu-s}{a+\mu}}$. By using the definition of $n_\d$ and (\[1.2\]) we have $\|y-F(x_{n_\d})\|\le (1+\tau) \d$. Observing that (\[5.1.2\]) in Lemma \[L2.0\] and (\[2.11\]) in Lemma \[L2.2\] imply $$\begin{aligned}
\|T e_{n_\d}\| & \le \|y-F(x_{n_\d})\| +\|y-F(x_{n_\d}) +T e_{n_\d}\|\\
&\le \|y-F(x_{n_\d})\| +C K_0\|e_{n_\d}\|_s^\beta \|T e_{n_\d}\|\\
&\le \|y-F(x_{n_\d})\| +C K_0 \|e_0\|_s^\beta \|T e_{n_\d}\|.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $K_0\|e_0\|_s\lesssim K_0\|e_0\|_\mu$ is sufficiently small, then $\|T e_{n_\d}\|\lesssim \|y-F(x_{n_\d})\|$. Consequently $\|e_{n_\d}\|_{-a}\lesssim \|T e_{n_\d}\|\lesssim \d$. Now we can use again the interpolation inequality (\[inter\]) to derive for all $r\in [-a,s]$ that $$\|e_{n_\d}\|_r\le \|e_{n_\d}\|_s^{\frac{a+r}{a+s}} \|e_{n_\d}\|_{-a}^{\frac{s-r}{a+s}}
\lesssim \|e_0\|_\mu^{\frac{a+r}{a+\mu}} \d^{\frac{\mu-r}{a+\mu}}.$$ The proof is therefore complete. $\Box$
**Conclusions**
===============
Inexact Newton regularization methods have been suggested by Hanke and Rieder in [@H97] and [@R99], respectively, for solving nonlinear ill-posed inverse problems. The convergence rates of these methods have been considered in [@R99; @R01], the results however turned out to be inferior to the so-called order optimal rates. For a long time it has been an open problem whether these inexact Newton methods are order optimal, although the numerical illustrations in [@R99; @R01] present strong indication.
Important progress has been made recently in [@H2010] where the regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme is shown to be order optimal affirmatively. In this paper we considered a general class of inexact Newton methods in which the inner schemes are defined by Landweber iteration, the implicit iteration, the asymptotic regularization and Tikhonov regularization. By establishing the monotonicity of iteration errors and deriving a series of subtle estimates, we succeeded in proving the order optimality of these methods. We also extended these order optimality results to a more general situation where the inner schemes are defined by linear regularization methods in Hilbert scales. Our theoretical findings confirm the numerical results in [@R99; @R01].\
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} Part of the work was carried out during the stay in Department of Mathematics at Virginia Tech.
[999]{} R. S. Dembo, S. C. Eisenstat and T. Steihaug, [*Inexact Newton methods*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 19 (1982), 400–408.
P. Deuflhard, H.W. Engl and O. Scherzer, [*A convergence analysis of iterative methods for the solution of nonlinear ill-posed problems under affinely invariant conditions*]{}, Inverse Problems, 14 (1998), 1081–1106.
H. W. Engl, M. Hanke and A. Neubauer, [*Regularization of Inverse Problems*]{}, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996.
M. Hanke, [*A regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme with applications to inverse groundwater filtration problems*]{}, Inverse Problems, 13(1997), 79–95.
M. Hanke, [*The regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt scheme is of optimal order*]{}, J. Integeral Equations and Applications, 22 (2010), no. 2, 259–283.
M. Hanke, A. Neubauer and O. Scherzer, [*A convergence analysis of the Landweber iteration for nonlinear ill-posed problems*]{}, Numer. Math., 72 (1995), 21–37.
T. Hohage and M. Pricop, [*Nonlinear Tikhonov regularization in Hilbert scales for inverse boundary value problems with random noise*]{}, Inverse Problems and Imaging, 2 (2008), 271–290.
Q. Jin, [*A general convergence analysis of some Newton-type methods for nonlinear inverse problems*]{}, [SIAM J. Numer. Anal.]{}, 49 (2011), 549–573.
Q. Jin and U. Tautenhahn, [*Inexact Newton regularization methods in Hilbert scales*]{}, Numer. Math., 117 (2011), 555–579.
A. Lechleiter and A. Rieder, [*Towards a general convergence theory for inexact Newton regularizations*]{}, Numer. Math. 114 (2010), no. 3, 521–548.
A. Neubauer, [*On Landweber iteration for nonlinear ill-posed problems in Hilbert scales*]{}, Numer. Math., 85 (2000), 309–328.
A. Rieder, [*On the regularization of nonlinear ill-posed problems via inexact Newton iterations*]{}, Inverse Problems, 15(1999), 309–327.
A. Rieder, [*On convergence rates of inexact Newton regularizations*]{}, Numer. Math. 88(2001), 347–365.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study the statistics of the work done on a quantum critical system by quenching a control parameter in the Hamiltonian. We elucidate the relation between the probability distribution of the work and the Loschmidt echo, a quantity emerging usually in the context of dephasing. Using this connection we characterize the statistics of the work done on a quantum Ising chain by quenching locally or globally the transverse field. We show that for local quenches starting at criticality the probability distribution of the work displays an interesting edge singularity.'
author:
- Alessandro Silva
title: 'The Statistics of the Work Done on a Quantum Critical System by Quenching a Control Parameter.'
---
A series of recent experiments with cold atomic gases [@Greiner; @Kinoshita] spurred new interest on the dynamics of quantum correlated systems. A number of fundamental issues on the nonequilibrium physics of quantum systems are being addressed, ranging from the relation between nonintegrability and thermalization [@Rigol], to the universality of defect production for adiabatic quenches across quantum critical points [@Zurek]. In this broad context, a paradigmatic example of experimental protocol is the instantaneous quench: an abrupt change, either global or local, of a control parameter $g$ from some initial value $g_0$ to a final one $g_1$. Experimentally, it has been shown that the dynamics after such quenches may show intriguing features, such as collapse and revivals of the order parameter for quenches done through a quantum critical point [@Greiner; @Altman], as well as the absence of thermalization in systems close to integrability [@Kinoshita; @Rigol].
Theoretically, the study of quantum quenches received considerable interest: after a series of classic works on the nonequilibrium dynamics of the quantum Ising model [@Mazur], recent investigations focused on characterizing the long time asymptotics of correlation functions [@Sachdev1; @Igloi], their behavior as compared to their thermal counterparts [@Rigol], and the universality emerging in the quench dynamics at a quantum critical point [@Cardy]. Partial information on the internal dynamics of the system can be obtained in a variety of ways. One may extract the way in which excitations propagate by looking at the time dependence of correlators after a quench [@Igloi; @Cardy]. More subtle information on the establishment of quantum correlations can be obtained by studying the dynamics of entanglement entropies [@Calabrese]. The purpose of this Letter is to discuss a more basic way to characterize both the internal dynamics and the quench protocol itself by obtaining information on how far from equilibrium the system has been taken. This can be done by studying the statistics of a fundamental quantity: the work $W$ done on the system by changing its parameters.
The main observation behind this proposal is that the quench protocol resembles a standard thermodynamic transformation. However, since a quench takes the system out of equilibrium, the work $W$, unlike in a quasistatic process, is characterized by a probability distribution $P(W)$ [@Jarzynski; @Kurchan; @Talkner]. Below, we focus on the characteristic function of $P(W)$, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
G(t)=\int dW e^{i W t} P(W),\end{aligned}$$ and study it for the prototypical example of quantum critical system, the quantum Ising chain. We first elucidate a useful relation between $G(t)$ and the Loschmidt echo, a quantity emerging in various physical contexts, most notably the Fermi edge singularity [@Schotte], quantum chaos [@Jalabert], and the physics of dephasing [@Zanardi; @Fazio2]. Using this connection and a combination of field theoretic tools, we compute exactly and analytically $G(t)$ for global and local quantum quenches. In both cases, we characterize the fluctuations of the work and its probability distribution. Interestingly, we show that for a local quench starting at the quantum critical point the function $P(W)$ displays an edge singularity.
Let us start by briefly discussing the relation between the characteristic function $G(t)$ and the Loschmidt echo. For a generic quench $H(g_0) \rightarrow H(g_1)$, the Loschmidt echo is defined as ${\cal L}(t)=\mid {\cal G}(t) \mid^2$, where the amplitude ${\cal
G}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(t)=\left\langle e^{iH(g_0)t}e^{-iH(g_1)t} \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here $H(g_0)$ and $H(g_1)$ are the initial and final Hamiltonian respectively, and the average is taken with respect to the initial equilibrium density matrix $\rho_0=\exp[-\beta H(g_0)]/Z$. The Loschmidt echo can be seen as a measure of the sensitivity of the system to the quench. The connection with $P(W)$ emerges by noticing that for a generic quench the characterization of the work done on the system requires two energy measurements: one before and one after it [@Kurchan; @Talkner]. If the results of such measurements are $\tilde{E}$ and $E$, the work done is then $W=E-\tilde{E}$. Hence if $\mid \Phi_n \rangle$ are the eigenstates of energy $E_n$ of $H(g_1)$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
P(W)=\sum_{n,m} \delta(W-(E_n-\tilde{E}_m)) \mid \langle \Phi_n \mid
\Psi_m \rangle \mid^2 P_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mid \Psi_m \rangle$ are the eigenstates of $H_0$ with energy $\tilde{E}_m$, and $P_m=\exp[-\beta \tilde{E}_m]/Z$. The characteristic function is then $G(t)=\sum_n
e^{i(E_n-\tilde{E}_m)t}\mid ~\langle \Phi_n \mid \Psi_m \rangle
\mid^2 P_m$, which is readily recognized to be the complex conjugate of the amplitude defining the Loschmidt echo $G(t)=[{\cal G}(t)]^*$. This equality is actually a special case of the generalized quantum Jarzynski equality [@Kurchan; @Jarzynski] recently derived in Ref. for problems in which $g$ is taken from $g_0$ to $g_1$ in a finite time interval along a generic path $g(t)$. The Loschmidt echo ${\cal L}(t)$ can be in principle measured by studying the dephasing of an auxiliary two level system coupled to the system of interest [@Jalabert; @Zanardi; @Fazio2]. In the same setup, the probability distribution $P(W)$ can be directly extracted from the absorbtion spectra associated to optical transitions in the auxiliary two level system [@Silva].
For a global quench the work done is extensive. Therefore in the thermodynamic limit the probability distribution $P(w)$ of the work per unit volume $w=W/V$ will be a strongly peaked function, with fluctuations scaling as $1/\sqrt{V}$. This suggests that $P$ is a nontrivial function only for small systems or for local quenches. Despite this fact, it is interesting and instructive to study the work statistics for a paradigmatic example: a zero temperature global quench of the transverse field in a quantum Ising chain [@Sachdev]. The latter is defined by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_0=-J\sum_i \sigma^{x}_i \sigma^{x}_{i+1}+g
\sigma_i^z,\label{Ising}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^{x,z}_i$ are the spin operators at site $i$, $J$ is an overall energy scale (below we set $J=1$) and $g$ is the strength of the transverse field. The one dimensional quantum Ising model is the prototypical, exactly solvable example of a quantum phase transition, with a quantum critical point at $g_c=1$ separating two mutually dual gapped phases, a quantum paramagnetic one ($g>g_c$) and a ferromagnetic one ($g<g_c$).
Let us now consider a global change at time $t=0$ of the transverse field from an initial value $g_0$ to a final one $g_1$. The analysis of the Loschmidt echo can be efficiently performed after a Jordan-Wigner transformation [@Sachdev]. In the fermionic representation, the Hamiltonian Eq.(\[Ising\]) takes the simple form $$\begin{aligned}
H(g)&=&\sum_{k>0} (g-\cos(k))(c^{\dagger}_k
c_k-c_{-k}c^{\dagger}_{-k})\nonumber \\ &+&i\sin(k) (c^{\dagger}_k
c^{\dagger}_{-k} - c_{-k} c_{k}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_k$ are fermionic operators. The diagonal form $H=\sum_{k>0}
E_k (\gamma^{\dagger}_k \gamma_k-\gamma_{-k}
\gamma^{\dagger}_{-k})$, with energies $E_k=\sqrt{(g-\cos(k))^2+\sin(k)^2}$, is achieved after a Bogoliubov rotation $c_{k}=u_k(g) \gamma_k-iv_k(g) \gamma^{\dagger}_{-k}$, $c^{\dagger}_{-k}=u_k(g)\gamma^{\dagger}_{-k}-iv_k(g) \gamma_k$. The coefficients are given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_k(g)=\cos(\theta_k(g))\;\;\;\;\;\;v_k(g)=\sin(\theta_k(g)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tan(2\theta_k(g))=\sin(k)/(g-\cos(k))$. In this representation, the Loschmidt echo for the quantum Ising model following both a global and a local quench of $g$ has been recently shown to the expressible in terms of matrix determinants, which were afterwards analyzed numerically [@Zanardi; @Fazio2]. Below, we compute analytically the Loschmidt echo employing field theoretic tools, which, in contrast to previous approaches, have the advantage of giving a clear insight on the physics of the problem.
Our first task is to express the ground state $\mid \Psi_0 \rangle$ of energy $E_0$ of the initial Hamiltonian $H(g_0)$ in terms of the eigenmodes $\gamma_k$ diagonalizing $H(g_1)$. If we call $\eta_k$ the eigenmodes of $H_0$ it is easy to see that $\eta_k=U_k\gamma_k-iV_k \gamma^{\dagger}_{-k}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
U_k=u_k(g_0)u_k(g_1)+v_k(g_0)v_k(g_1), \\
V_k=u_k(g_0)v_k(g_1)-v_k(g_0)u_k(g_1).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the equation $\eta_k \mid \Psi_0 \rangle=0$, characterizing our initial state can be easily solved giving $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundary}
\mid \Psi_0 \rangle=\frac{1}{{\cal N}} \exp\left[ i
\sum_{k>0}\frac{V_k}{U_k} \gamma^{\dagger}_{k} \gamma^{\dagger}_{-k}
\right] \mid 0 \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}$ is the normalization constant, and $\mid 0 \rangle$ is the vacuum of the fermions $\gamma_k$. The structure of this state closely resembles that of integrable boundary states encountered in statistical field theory. In particular, the amplitude ${\cal G}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
~\label{result}
&&{\cal G}(t)= e^{i E_0 t}\langle \Psi_0 \mid e^{-i H(g_1) t} \mid
\Psi_0 \rangle \\
&&= \frac{e^{-i \delta E t}}{{\cal N}^2} \langle 0 \mid e^{\sum_k
B^*(k) \gamma_k \gamma_{-k}} e^{\sum_k B(k)e^{-2iE_k t}
\gamma_{-k}^{\dagger}\gamma_{k}^{\dagger}} \mid 0 \ \rangle
\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $B(k)=-iV_k/U_k$, and $\delta E=E_1-E_0$, where $E_1$ is the ground state energy of $H(g_1)$. Up to an irrelevant prefactor, Eq.(\[result\]) maps after a Wick rotation $it \rightarrow \tau$ onto the partition function of a two dimensional classical Ising model constrained on a cylinder of height $\tau$ and with boundary conditions on the two ends described by $\mid \Psi_0 \rangle$. Hence, using techniques originally developed for integrable boundary states [@Mussardo] it is easy to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
~\label{result1}
{\cal G}(t)=e^{-i\delta E t} e^{L\int_0^{\pi} \frac{dk}{2\pi}
\log\left[\frac{1+ \mid B(k) \mid^2e^{-2iE_k t}}{ 1+ \mid B(k)
\mid^2}\right]},\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the linear size of the chain.
We can now derive all the cumulants $C_n$ of the probability distribution of the work per unit length $P(w)$ by expanding in power series $\log(G(t/L))=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} C_n (it)^n/n!$. As expected, from Eq.(\[result1\]) we obtain that as $L$ grows, $C_n
\propto 1/L^{n-1}$, leading to the suppression of all fluctuations in the thermodynamic limit. In order to study the effects associated to the presence of the quantum critical point, let us focus on the dependence on $g_0$ and $g_1$ of the average work per unit length and of its variance. The first is in general given by $\langle w
\rangle=\delta E/L +w_e$, where the excess work is $w_e~\geq~0$, in agreement with standard thermodynamic relations. The latter and the variance have a particularly simple form if the final transverse field is large $g_1 \gg 1$, in which case $w_e = g_1 (1+g_0^2-\mid g_0^2-1\mid)/4g_0^2$ and $ \langle (\Delta w)^2 \rangle = (g_1^2)/L (g_0^4+4g_0^2-3-{\rm
sign}[g_0^2-1](g_0^4-4g_0^2+3))/8g_0^4$. These functions are plotted in Fig. \[Fig1a\], where one may see that both $w_e$ and $\langle (\Delta w)^2 \rangle$ signal the presence of the quantum critical point with discontinuities in their derivative at $g=1$. More striking universal effects associated to the quantum critical point are observed by studying the asymptotics of ${\cal G}(t)$ at long times, governed by the long wavelength modes. If for example one looks at $g_0, g_1 \neq 1$ one may easily obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(t) \simeq {\cal G}^{\infty} \exp\left[{\cal A}\;\; m_1 L
\left(\frac{m_1-m_0}{m_1} \right)^2 \frac{e^{-2im_1 t}}{(i m
t)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal G}^{\infty}$ is the asymptotic value attained by ${\cal
G}$ (signaling a delta function peak in $P(w)$), ${\cal A}$ is a constant and $m_i=\mid g_i - 1 \mid$. Passing again to imaginary time, the dependence on $t$ in the exponential corresponds to the dependence on the thickness of the free energy of the Ising model on a cylinder, which away from criticality is exponentially cutoff by the correlation length $\xi = 1/m_1$. At criticality, of course, it becomes a power-law as a result of the establishment of long range correlations. A more detailed study of the statistics of $P(W)$ for global quenches will be reported elsewhere [@Silva].
Let us now pass to a much more interesting situation in which we expect the work done on the system to show nontrivial fluctuations: a local quench of the Hamiltonian from $H_0=H(g)$ to $H_0+V$, where $$\begin{aligned}
V=-\delta g \sigma^z_0.\end{aligned}$$ In order to capture the main differences with the previous case, let us start by considering the case $\delta g \ll 1$ and evaluate ${\cal G}(t)$ within a second order cumulant expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cumulant}
{\cal G}(t)&=&\left\langle e^{iH_0t}\;e^{-i(H_0+V)t}
\right\rangle=\left\langle Te^{-i\int_0^t\;dt'\;V(t')}
\right\rangle\nonumber \\
&=& e^{-i \langle V \rangle t} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \int_0^t dt_1\;dt_2
\langle T[V(t_1)\;V(t_2)\;] \rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $V(t)=\exp[i H_0 t] V \exp[-i H_0 t]$. Using the fermionic representation of the spin operators we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
V=\frac{\delta g}{L} \sum_{k,k'} \left[ c_k c^{\dagger}_{k'}-
c^{\dagger}_k c_{k'} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Hence writing $V$ in terms of the eigenmodes $\eta_k$ of $H_0$ and substituting in Eq.(\[cumulant\]), with the help of Wick theorem we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(t)\simeq e^{-i\;\delta\!E\; t} e^{-f(t)},\end{aligned}$$ Here the energy shift $\delta E$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E&=& \delta g \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{dk}{2\pi}\cos(2\theta_k(g))-\frac{(\delta g)^2}{2}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{dk dk'}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{V(k,k')}{E_k+E_k'}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $V(k,k')=\sin(2\theta_k)\sin(2\theta_{k'})+4\cos(\theta_k)^2\sin(\theta_k')^2$.
The most important information on the statistics of the work done on the system is contained in $$\begin{aligned}
f(t)\!=\!\frac{(\delta g)^2}{2} \!\!\int _{-\pi}^{\pi}\!\! \frac{dk
dk'}{(2\pi)^2}
\frac{V(k,k')}{(E_k+E_k')^2}\left(1-e^{-i(E_k+E_{k'})t} \right)\end{aligned}$$ From this expression we may again estimate the various cumulants of $P(W)$ by expanding in power series $f(t)$. In particular, the variance is given close to the critical point by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (\Delta W)^2 \rangle \!\!=\!\!
%\left(\frac{\delta
%g}{2\pi}\right)^2 \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{dk dk'}{2} V(k,k')=
%
\left(\frac{\delta g}{2\pi}\right)^2 \!\!\!(2(1+\pi^2) -
(g-1)(2+\log\left[\frac{\mid g-1 \mid}{8}\right]))\nonumber
%\left(\frac{\delta g}{2\pi}\right)^2\bigg[2\pi^2 +
%\frac{4}{1+g}K\left[\frac{4g}{(1+g)^2}\right]\nonumber
%\\&-&\frac{2\pi}{(1+g)^2} F\left[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}; 2;
%\frac{4g}{(1+g)^2} \right] \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Despite the fact that this function has a logarithmic singularity of the first derivative at $g=1$, as originally found in studies of dephasing [@Fazio2], it is important to notice that the integral leading to this expression gets contributions from all frequencies (not just small $k$). Hence universality does not emerge substantially.
In order to obtain information on universal effects one has to study the asymptotics of ${\cal G}(t)$ for long times. This can be done by looking at the asymptotic value attained by $f$ at infinity $f_{\infty}=(\delta g)^2/2 \int dk dk'/(2\pi)^2
V(k,k')/(E_k+E_{k'})^2$. Close to the quantum critical point $g
\simeq 1$, this is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\infty}\approx \left[\frac{\delta g}{2\pi} \right]^2 \log
\left[\frac{1}{\mid g-1 \mid}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Hence as $t\rightarrow +\infty$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}(t) \simeq \mid g-1 \mid^{2\left(\frac{\delta g}{2\pi}
\right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The Loschmidt echo vanishes at the quantum critical point with a cusp singularity. As shown below, the vanishing of the Loschmidt echo is the result of an orthogonality catastrophe, originating from the changing of a local scattering potential in a nontrivial, yet gapless, effective fermionic system. In particular, if we set $g=1$ the long time decay of ${\cal G}$ is a power law $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(t) \approx e^{-i\delta E t} (it) ^{-\left(\frac{\delta
g}{2\pi} \right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we expect the probability distribution $P(W)$ to display an edge singularity $$\begin{aligned}
P(W) \approx \theta(W-\delta E) (W-\delta E)^{\left(\frac{\delta
g}{2\pi} \right)^2-1}.\end{aligned}$$
This expectation is readily confirmed by the exact solution of the problem for a local quench starting at the critical point $g=1$. This can be obtained employing the scaling limit of the quantum Ising model in the Majorana representation $$\begin{aligned}
H_0[\varphi,\bar{\varphi}]=\int dr\;i\;
m\;\varphi\;\bar{\varphi}-\frac{i}{2}\varphi\;
\partial_r\; \varphi+\frac{i}{2}\bar{\varphi}\; \partial_r\;
\bar{\varphi},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi$ and $\bar{\varphi}$ are Majorana fermions, and the mass is related to the transverse field by $m=g-1$. The quench consists in going from $H_0$ to $H_0+V$, where $V[\varphi,\bar{\varphi}]=i\;\delta
m\;\varphi(0)\;\bar{\varphi}(0)$. In order to compute ${\cal G}$ at criticality ($m=0$) let us use a trick due to Itzykson and Zuber [@Itzykson]. We start by computing $\left[{\cal G}(t)\right]^2$. Introducing two copies of the Majorana fermions, $\varphi_{1,2}$ and $\bar{\varphi}_{1,2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[{\cal G}(t)]^2=\left\langle e^{i {\cal H}_0 t}e^{-i ({\cal
H}_0+{\cal V})t} \right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal
H}_0=H_0[\varphi_1,\bar{\varphi_1}]+H_0[\varphi_2,\bar{\varphi_2}]$ and ${\cal
V}=V[\varphi_1,\bar{\varphi_1}]+V[\varphi_2,\bar{\varphi_2}]$. The most elegant way to proceed consists now in combining the Majorana fermions into Dirac fermions $\Psi_{R}=(\varphi_1+i\varphi_2)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\Psi_{L}=(\bar{\varphi}_1+i\bar{\varphi}_2)/\sqrt{2}$, and then introducing a pair of nonlocal operators [@Kane] defined as $\Psi_{+}(r)=(\Psi_{R}(r)+\Psi_L(-r))/\sqrt{2}$, and $\Psi_{-}(r)=(\Psi_{R}(r)-\Psi_L(-r))/\sqrt{2}i$. In terms of these $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_0 &=& \int dr \Psi^{\dagger}_+ (-i\partial_r) \Psi_+
+\Psi^{\dagger}_- (-i\partial_r) \Psi_- ,\\
{\cal V} &=& \delta m (\Psi^{\dagger}_+(0) \Psi_+(0)-
\Psi_-^{\dagger}(0)\Psi_-(0)).\end{aligned}$$
Physically, it is now evident that we have two chiral modes subject to local potential scattering of opposite sign characterized by phase shifts $\pm \delta=\pm \delta m/2$. The computation of ${\cal
G}^2$ is now a standard problem solvable by bosonization [@Schotte; @note]. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(t) = \left[\frac{1}{1+i t }
\right]^{\left(\frac{\delta}{\pi}\right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The complex conjugate of this expression is readily recognized to be the characteristic function of the Gamma probability distribution $$\begin{aligned}
P(w)=\frac{ w^{\left(\frac{\delta}{\pi}\right)^2-1}
\;e^{-w}}{\Gamma\left[\left(\frac{\delta}{\pi}\right)^2 \right]},\end{aligned}$$ which indeed displays an edge singularity with a exponent $(\delta/\pi)^2=(\delta g/(2\pi))^2$ consistent with the one obtained by the cumulant expansion.
In conclusion, after elucidating the connection between the probability distribution $P(W)$ of the work done on a system in a quantum quench and the Loschmidt echo, we characterized $P(W)$ for global and local quenches of the transverse field in a quantum Ising chain. As mentioned before, the experimental measurement of $P(W)$ requires the realization of an optical absorbtion experiment in a fully controllable setting. Recent proposals for the realization of quantum spin chains using bosonic atoms in optical lattices [@Lukin] give a possible, concrete way to pursue this goal with the available experimental tools.
I would like to thank G. Mussardo for important discussions, help and encouragement throughout this project and R. Fazio for stimulating my interest on the Loschmidt echo. I would also like to thank V. Kravtsov, A. Nersesyan, D.Rossini and G. Santoro for discussions.
[10]{} M. Greiner [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**415**]{}, 39 (2002); M. Greiner [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**419**]{}, 51 (2002). T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, Nature [**440**]{}, 900 (2006). M. Rigol [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 050405 (2007) W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95** 105701 (2005); A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 161201(R) (2005). E. Altman and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 250404 (2002). P. Mazur, Physica [**43**]{}, 533 (1969); E. Barouch, B. M. McCoy and M. Dresden, Phys. Rev. A [**2**]{}, 1075 (1970). K. Sengupta, S. Powell, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 053616 (2004). F. Iglói and H. Rieger, Phys. Rev. Lett [**85**]{}, 3233 (2000). P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**96**]{}, 136801 (2006). P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P10004. C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2690 (1997). J. Kurchan, e-print arXiv:cond-mat/0007360v2. P. Talkner, E. Lutz, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 050102 (2007). K. D. Schotte and U. Schotte, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 479 (1969). R. A. Jalabert and H. M. Pastawski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2490 (2001); Z. P. Karkuszewski, C. Jarzynski, and W. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 170405 (2002). H. T. Quan, *et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 140604 (2006). D. Rossini, *et al. Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 032333 (2007). A. Silva, to be published. S, Sachdev, *Quantum Phase Transitions , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). A. LeClair, G. Mussardo, H. Saleur, S. Skorik, Nucl.Phys. B453 (1995) 581-618. J. B. Zuber and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2875 (1977). C. L. Kane, K. A. Matveev, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 2253 (1994). Here we set the ultraviolet cutoff $\alpha \simeq J =1$. L. M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 090402 (2003).***
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally demonstrate that a Duraluminium thin plate with a thickness profile varying radially in a piecewise constant fashion as $h(r)=h(0)(1+(r/R_{max})^2)^2$, with $h(0)=0.5$ mm, $h(R_{max})=2$ mm and $R_{max}=10$ cm behaves in many ways as Maxwell’s fish-eye lens in optics, since its imaging properties for a Gaussian pulse with central frequencies 30 kHz and 60 kHz are very similar to those predicted by ray trajectories (great circles) on a virtual sphere (rays emanating from the North pole meet at the South pole). However, refocusing time depends on the carrier frequency as a direct consequence of the dispersive nature of flexural waves in thin plates. Importantly, experimental results are in good agreement with Finite-Difference-Time-Domain simulations.'
author:
- Gautier Lefebvre
- Marc Dubois
- Romain Beauvais
- Younes Achaoui
- Ros Kiri Ing
- Sébastien Guenneau
- Patrick Sebbah
title: 'Experiments on Maxwell’s Fish-eye dynamics in elastic plates'
---
There is currently a keen interest in platonic metamaterials, which are structured thin plates within which flexural waves can follow some curved trajectories, say around an obstacle [@farhat2009; @stenger2012], in ways similar to what was achieved with electromagnetic invisibility cloaks [@ulf2006; @john2006]. In this vein, a flat lens was experimentally demonstrated around $10$ kHz using anomalous dispersion in a duraluminium plate with a square array of circular air holes [@marc2013]. This work is reminiscent of negative refraction observed for Lamb waves in a silicon plate with air inclusions [@Pierre2010]. From a theoretical standpoint, one way to interpret a flexural flat lens using tools of transformation platonics [@seb2010] is by mapping the image plane onto the source plane. Such a space folding [@Philbin2006] leads to Pendry’s perfect lens [@Pendry2000].
There are nonetheless other exciting transformation based lenses that do not require multivalued maps. The fish-eye lens, which first appeared in a problem and its subsequent solution published by James Clerk Maxwell in two issues of the Cambridge Dublin Mathematical Journal in 1853 and 1854 [@ulf1853], is a sphere of radius $R_{max}$ for which the refractive index varies according to $$\label{eq_index}
n(r)=\frac{2}{1+(r/R_{max})^2},$$ where $r$ is the distance from the center of the sphere. Inside the lens, ray paths are circles and all rays from an object at $r_0$ converge at the image point $r_I = −r_0R_{max}^2/|r_0|^2$. This heterogeneous lens also works in two-dimensions, its refractive index still satisfies Eq. \[eq\_index\], and it has recently attracted attention of researchers working in photonics [@ulf2009; @blaikie; @seb2010; @ulf2011; @merlin2011], partly because a fish-eye lens within a cavity is reminiscent of a time-reversed mirror [@lerosey]. Besides from that, it can be thought of as a virtual sphere stereographically projected on a plane [@ulf1964], what makes a transformation optics device. In this letter, we experimentally explore the dynamics of an elastic plate whose thickness variation achieves the index profile defined by Eq. \[eq\_index\]. It has indeed been suggested that plates of varying thicknesses make focussing effects of Lamb waves possible [@dehesa2014] and this provides a nice playground for transformation platonics.
![ (a): Thickness profile of the plate as a function of the distance from the center of the plate. The red curve is the theoretical thickness profile given by Eq. \[eq\_thickness\]. The blue curve is the discretized profile used to design the plate. The black curve is the actual thickness profile obtained after machining and measured with a dial indicator. The magenta dots represent the thickness measured with a method based on the local phase velocity [@etaix2010]. A picture of the whole setup is displayed in inset. The red dot marks the position of the source. (b): Sketch of the experimental setup. The plate with its fifteen equi-height circular rings is sandwiched between two metallic frames. The blue thin frames are layers of adhesive rubber introduced between the plate and the metallic frame. Various parts are screwed together.[]{data-label="fig_design"}](profile_thickness.eps)
For harmonic excitation at pulsation $\omega$ in the low frequency regime, flexural waves in thin plates can be described by the Kirchhoff-Love Eq. \[eq\_kirchhoff\] (i.e. when their wavelengths are much larger than plates’s thicknesses): $$\label{eq_kirchhoff}
D \Delta^2 W - \rho h \omega^2 W = 0,$$ where $W$ is the vertical displacement, $h$ the plate thickness and $\rho$ the mass density. From this equation, one obtains a quadratic dispersion relation valid for flexural waves in thin plates at low frequency: $$\label{eq_dispersion}
\omega^2 = \frac{D }{\rho h} k^4 ,$$ where $k$ is the wavevector modulus and $D=E h^3/12(1-\nu^2)$ is the flexural rigidity, with $E$ the Young’s modulus and $\nu$, the Poisson’s ratio. The refractive index is defined as the inverse of the phase velocity: $$\label{eq_phase_velocity}
V_{\phi} = \frac{\omega}{k} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{E h^2 \omega^2}{12 \rho (1-\nu^2)}} .$$
The physical parameters offer several degrees of freedom to engineer at will the dispersion relation and the refractive index in thin plates [@Dehesa2013], providing their variation is adiabatic for Eq. \[eq\_phase\_velocity\] to remain valid. For more details on this assumption, see [@SuppMat]. Here we choose to vary the thickness as it is technically a more workable parameter than $\rho$ or $E$. The refractive index is inversely proportional to the square root of the plate thickness, as seen from Eq. \[eq\_phase\_velocity\]. The index variation of Eq. \[eq\_index\] required to design the Maxwell fish-eye lens translates here into the following circular thickness profile: $$\label{eq_thickness}
h(r)=h(0)(1+(r/R_{max})^2)^2.$$
When $R_{max}$ is set to 10 cm, plate thickness varies from $h(0)=0.5~$mm to $h(R_{max})=2~$mm. This continuous thickness variation is discretized into equi-height concentric rings as shown in Fig. \[fig\_design\]b to simplify the machining. These rings were carved in a Duraluminium square plate (30 cm$\times$30 cm), using a MAZAK, VTC200B with 5 micron accuracy (see insert in Fig. \[fig\_design\]b). Although small, the error is cumulative. The actual plate profile obtained after processing slightly departs from the theoretical profile (Fig. \[fig\_design\]b), but the original profile is essentially preserved. We have also performed a measurement based on the local phase velocity [@etaix2010], which reveals a very smooth profile. This suggests that the waves are not sensitive to the steep thickness variations, but only to the average profile. The sample arrangement is shown in Fig. \[fig\_design\]a. The plate is held in between two Duraluminium frames, with inner dimensions of 26 cm$\times$26 cm. Layers of adhesive rubber (3.5 mm-thick) are inserted between the frame and the plate before screwing, in order to absorb outgoing waves and reduce reflections at the boundaries. An attenuation of 12 dB is achieved at $f$=30 kHz.
The acoustic emitter is a 1 cm-diameter piezoelectric ceramic disk (PKS1-4A1 MuRata Shock Sensor) bound at the edge of the largest ring (see inset of Fig. \[fig\_design\]b), using Phenyl salicylate (Salol-melting point of $43~\degree~C$) to ensure acoustic coupling. The input signal is a digital-to-analog converted and amplified acoustic Gaussian wavepacket centered at $f_0$=60 kHz with a bandwidth of 28 kHz. In this frequency range, only zero-order symmetric, $S_0$, anti-symmetric, $A_0$, and shear $SH_0$ modes can propagate in the plate. The emitter is not able to produce shear waves, and will almost only excite the first anti-symetric mode, as it generates anti-symetric displacement. The presence of discrete steps may induce small conversion of anti-symetric modes into other propagation modes, but we can simply consider this as a part of the losses occuring in the system. A laser vibrometer (Polytec sensor head OFV534, controller OFV2500) is used to measure the acoustic velocity of the flexural waves. The vibrometer is only sensitive to vertical-displacement velocity. At low frequency ($kh\ll 1$) the symetric mode is almost an in-plane wave [@royer2000], therefore we measure preferentially the anti-symmetric mode. The laser probe is scanned over the flat surface of the plate with a $1~mm-$step grid to map the complete spatio-temporal velocity field.
![Experiment: Velocity field distribution measured at four different times: $t$ = 50, 100, 150, and 200 $\mu$s. The source is at the top left and emits a Gaussian pulse centered at $f_0$ = 60 kHz. The time origin is set at the beginning of emission. Red lines: positive amplitudes; blue lines: negative amplitudes. Color scale is identical in all four snapshots. (Multimedia view)[]{data-label="fig_manip60kHz"}](manip60kHz.eps)
Figure \[fig\_manip60kHz\] (multimedia view) shows snapshots of the measured field at four different times. Red and blue lines represent successive positive and negative wavefronts. As time progresses, wavefront concavity changes from positive around the source to negative around the image point. After time $t= 200~\mu s$, the initial pulse refocuses at a point diametrically opposed to the source, as predicted theoretically. The thickness gradient realizes an almost perfect Maxwell fish-eye lens without the need for reflecting or clamped boundaries. Similar results are obtained for a source located at different points on the outer disk. The translation of thickness variation into index gradient is further illustrated by the wavefront separation which decreases toward the center of the acoustic lens where thickness as well as phase velocity are the smallest. Halfway of pulse propagation, wavefronts are flat. This confirms that a half lens would convert a point source located at the edge of the lens into a plane wave and *vice versa*. One might notice that focusing occurs slightly inside the lens. This is attributed to the discrepancy between ideal and actual thickness profiles (Fig.\[fig\_design\]). We confirmed this hypothesis numerically (see supplementary material [@SuppMat]). Because the actual lens is thinner than computed, the phase velocity is reduced along the diagonal trajectory and focusing is reached earlier within the plate.
![Numerical simulations using 3D-FDTD algorithm: Velocity field distribution measured at four different times. Same initial conditions as in Fig. \[fig\_manip60kHz\]. The origin of time is set at the beginning of emission. Red lines, positive amplitudes; blue lines, negative amplitudes. Color scale is identical in all four snapshots.[]{data-label="fig_simu60kHz"}](simu60kHz.eps)
Exact numerical simulations of flexural waves propagation in a system similar to the experimental setup have been performed based on three dimensional finite difference time-domain method (3D-FDTD) using Simsonic3D software [@Virieux1986; @bossy2004]. We apply stress-free boundary conditions on the upper and lower surfaces of the plate and consider that the plate stands in vacuum. We use highly absorbing layers as lateral boundary conditions, which eliminate reflected waves. Figure \[fig\_simu60kHz\] shows four snapshots of the velocity field at about the same time steps as in Fig. \[fig\_manip60kHz\]). Refocusing is observed around time $t=200~\mu s$, close to the experiment. The presence of highly absorbing layers confirms that focusing observed experimentally is not the result of residual reflections in the square cavity, but the result of wavefront shaping by the ultrasonic lens.
Focusing is also demonstrated at lower central frequency $f_0$=30 kHz in Fig. \[fig\_manip30kHz\]. Importantly, the lensing effect is broadband. The limit of applicability of geometric acoustics gives the lower bound. For the range of plate thicknesses which we use, the wavelength becomes comparable to the lens size for carrier frequency $f_0$ around 1 kHz. At the other end of the spectrum, the upper limit is given by the validity of the quadratic approximation for the dispersion relation Eq. \[eq\_dispersion\]. This relation is valid for $kh \leq 1$, which means Eq. \[eq\_dispersion\] breaks down above $f_0$=300 kHz in our case. Acoustic lensing by our Maxwell fish-eye is therefore expected to be efficient over two frequency decades, which is a broader frequency range than its electromagnetic counterpart [@ulf2011]. This is attributed to the unique dispersive nature of flexural waves in thin plates.
![Experiment: Velocity field distribution measured at two different times. The source is located at the top left corner and emits a gaussian pulse centered at $f_0$=30 kHz. Red lines, positive amplitude; blue lines, negative amplitude. Color scale is identical in the two snapshots. []{data-label="fig_manip30kHz"}](manip30kHz.eps)
The impact of dispersion is also revealed in the dynamics. Refocusing time is found to be dependent on the carrier frequency. Figure \[fig\_time\_flight\] illustrates this point. At $30$ kHz, it takes around 200 $\mu$s for the pulse to converge on the other side of the lens, while this delay is reduced by 25$\%$ to 150 $\mu$s when carrier frequency is doubled. This difference can be estimated by recalling that the ultrasonic rays follow projections on the plane of meridians of the equivalent sphere. As a result, the plate diagonal and the external perimeter have actually the same acoustic length as they correspond to shortest paths (geodesics). It is therefore equivalent and therefore easier to compute the time of flight over the external perimeter where the plate thickness is constant. The impulsion propagates at the group velocity $V_g$ which is simply twice the phase velocity in the particular case of a quadratic dispersion relation. Thus we obtain a refocusing time of 203 $\mu$s at 30 kHz, and 144 $\mu$s at 60 kHz, in good agreement with experimental observations. A direct outcome of this frequency dependence of the refocusing time is the possibility to separate temporally different spectral components at a single focusing point.
![Signal measured at the source position and at the focus point. The pulse travels from the source to the focusing point in (a) 200 $\mu$s at 30 kHz, and (b) 150 $\mu$s at 60 kHz. This time delay is measured at the center of the gaussian pulse.[]{data-label="fig_time_flight"}](time_flight.eps)
In conclusion, we have studied numerically and experimentally the dynamics of the Maxwell fish-eye lens transposed to flexural waves and based on a thin duraluminium plate with varying thickness. Such a Maxwell’s fish-eye makes a paradigm for transformation based lenses. This lensing effect has proven to be very resilient, as it persists despite a limited accuracy of the experimental device fabrication. We stress that analysis of time focusing of Lamb waves can also help to solve the controversy on whether or not Maxwell’s fish-eye makes a perfect lens [@ulf2009; @ulf2011; @merlin2011], but this is beyond the scope of the present work as it requires a plate with a circular stress-free boundary. Moreover, other thickness variations can be envisaged [@dehesa2014], what makes for instance Eaton lenses for flexural waves possible. We note that such lensing effects might be observed with pillar based metamaterial plates [@Rupin2014] with a variation of pillars’s height like in Eq. \[eq\_thickness\]. Finally, an extension of our work to Rayleigh waves for pillars on semi-infinite elastic substrates [@Achaoui2013] with a variation of height like in Eq. \[eq\_thickness\] would open interesting routes towards lensing of surface elastic waves in seismic metamaterials based on analogies with transformation optics.
M.D. acknowledges Ph.D. funding from the Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA). P.S. is thankful to the Agence Nationale de la Recherche support under grant ANR PLATON (No. 12-BS09-003-01), the LABEX WIFI (Laboratory of Excellence within the French Program Investments for the Future) under reference ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL\* and the Groupement de Recherche 3219 MesoImage. S.G. wishes to thank ERC for funding through ANAMORPHISM grant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Guided policy search algorithms can be used to optimize complex nonlinear policies, such as deep neural networks, without directly computing policy gradients in the high-dimensional parameter space. Instead, these methods use supervised learning to train the policy to mimic a “teacher” algorithm, such as a trajectory optimizer or a trajectory-centric reinforcement learning method. Guided policy search methods provide asymptotic local convergence guarantees by construction, but it is not clear how much the policy improves within a small, finite number of iterations. We show that guided policy search algorithms can be interpreted as an approximate variant of mirror descent, where the projection onto the constraint manifold is not exact. We derive a new guided policy search algorithm that is simpler and provides appealing improvement and convergence guarantees in simplified convex and linear settings, and show that in the more general nonlinear setting, the error in the projection step can be bounded. We provide empirical results on several simulated robotic navigation and manipulation tasks that show that our method is stable and achieves similar or better performance when compared to prior guided policy search methods, with a simpler formulation and fewer hyperparameters.'
author:
- |
William Montgomery\
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering\
University of Washington\
`wmonty@cs.washington.edu`\
Sergey Levine\
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering\
University of Washington\
`svlevine@cs.washington.edu`\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Guided Policy Search as Approximate Mirror Descent
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Policy search algorithms based on supervised learning from a computational or human “teacher” have gained prominence in recent years due to their ability to optimize complex policies for autonomous flight [@rmswd-lmruc-13], video game playing [@rgb-rilsp-11; @gsllw-amcts-14], and bipedal locomotion [@mlapt-icdcc-15]. Among these methods, guided policy search algorithms [@levine2015end] are particularly appealing due to their ability to adapt the teacher to produce data that is best suited for training the final policy with supervised learning. Such algorithms have been used to train complex deep neural network policies for vision-based robotic manipulation [@levine2015end], as well as a variety of other tasks [@zkla-ldcpa-15; @mlapt-icdcc-15]. However, convergence results for these methods typically follow by construction from their formulation as a constrained optimization, where the teacher is gradually constrained to match the learned policy, and guarantees on the performance of the final policy only hold at convergence if the constraint is enforced exactly. This is problematic in practical applications, where such algorithms are typically executed for a small number of iterations.
In this paper, we show that guided policy search algorithms can be interpreted as approximate variants of mirror descent under constraints imposed by the policy parameterization, with supervised learning corresponding to a projection onto the constraint manifold. Based on this interpretation, we can derive a new, simplified variant of guided policy search, which corresponds exactly to mirror descent under linear dynamics and convex policy spaces. When these convexity and linearity assumptions do not hold, we can show that the projection step is approximate, up to a bound that depends on the step size of the algorithm, which suggests that for a small enough step size, we can achieve continuous improvement. The form of this bound provides us with intuition about how to adjust the step size in practice, so as to obtain a simple algorithm with a small number of hyperparameters.
The main contribution of this paper is a simple new guided policy search algorithm that can train complex, high-dimensional policies by alternating between trajectory-centric reinforcement learning and supervised learning, as well as a connection between guided policy search methods and mirror descent. We also extend previous work on bounding policy cost in terms of KL divergence [@rgb-rilsp-11; @slmja-trpo-15] to derive a bound on the cost of the policy at each iteration, which provides guidance on how to adjust the step size of the method. We provide empirical results on several simulated robotic navigation and manipulation tasks that show that our method is stable and achieves similar or better performance when compared to prior guided policy search methods, with a simpler formulation and fewer hyperparameters.
Guided Policy Search Algorithms {#sec:gps}
===============================
We first review guided policy search methods and background. Policy search algorithms aim to optimize a parameterized policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ over actions $\at$ conditioned on the state $\st$. Given stochastic dynamics $p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$ and cost $\cost(\st,\at)$, the goal is to minimize the expected cost under the policy’s trajectory distribution, given by , where we overload notation to use $\policy_\params(\st,\at)$ to denote the marginals of $\policy_\params(\traj) = p(\state_1)\prod_{t=1}^T p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at) \policy_\params(\at|\st)$, where $\traj =\{\state_1,\action_1,\dots,\state_T,\action_T\}$ denotes a trajectory. A standard reinforcement learning (RL) approach to policy search is to compute the gradient $\nabla_\theta J(\theta)$ and use it to improve $J(\theta)$ [@w-ssgfa-92; @ps-rlmsp-08]. The gradient is typically estimated using samples obtained from the real physical system being controlled, and recent work has shown that such methods can be applied to very complex, high-dimensional policies such as deep neural networks [@slmja-trpo-15; @lhphe-ccdrl-16]. However, for complex, high-dimensional policies, such methods tend to be inefficient, and practical real-world applications of such model-free policy search techniques are typically limited to policies with about one hundred parameters [@dnp-spsr-13].
Instead of directly optimizing $J(\theta)$, guided policy search algorithms split the optimization into a “control phase” (which we’ll call the C-step) that finds multiple simple local policies $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ that can solve the task from different initial states $\state_1^i \sim p(\state_1)$, and a “supervised phase” (S-step) that optimizes the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ to match all of these local policies using standard supervised learning. In fact, a variational formulation of guided policy search [@lk-vpsto-13] corresponds to the EM algorithm, where the C-step is actually the E-step, and the S-step is the M-step. The benefit of this approach is that the local policies $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ can be optimized separately using domain-specific local methods. Trajectory optimization might be used when the dynamics are known [@zkla-ldcpa-15; @mlapt-icdcc-15], while local RL methods might be used with unknown dynamics [@la-lnnpg-14; @levine2015end], which still requires samples from the real system, though substantially fewer than the direct approach, due to the simplicity of the local policies. This sample efficiency is the main advantage of guided policy search, which can train policies with nearly a hundred thousand parameters for vision-based control using under 200 episodes [@levine2015end], in contrast to direct deep RL methods that might require orders of magnitude more experience [@slmja-trpo-15; @lhphe-ccdrl-16].
C-step: improve each $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ based on surrogate cost $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at)$, return samples $\mathcal{D}_i$ \[algline:gps\_local\] S-step: train $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ with supervised learning on the dataset $\mathcal{D} = \cup_i \mathcal{D}_i$ \[algline:gps\_global\] Modify $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at)$ to enforce agreement between $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ and each $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ \[algline:gps\_dual\]
A generic guided policy search method is shown in Algorithm \[alg:gps\]. The C-step invokes a local policy optimizer (trajectory optimization or local RL) for each $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ on line \[algline:gps\_local\], and the S-step uses supervised learning to optimize the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ on line \[algline:gps\_global\] using samples from each $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$, which are generated during the C-step. On line \[algline:gps\_dual\], the surrogate cost $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at)$ for each $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ is adjusted to ensure convergence. This step is crucial, because supervised learning does not in general guarantee that $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ will achieve similar long-horizon performance to $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ [@rgb-rilsp-11]. The local policies might not even be reproducible by a single global policy in general. To address this issue, most guided policy search methods have some mechanism to force the local policies to agree with the global policy, typically by framing the entire algorithm as a constrained optimization that seeks at convergence to enforce equality between $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ and each $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$. The form of the overall optimization problem resembles dual decomposition, and usually looks something like this: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\params,\trajdist_1,\dots,\trajdist_N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] \text{ such that } \trajdist_i(\at|\st) = \policy_\params(\at|\st) \,\,\,\forall \st, \at, t, i. \label{eqn:gps}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\state_1^i \sim p(\state_1)$, we have $J(\theta) \approx \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)]$ when the constraints are enforced exactly. The particular form of the constraint varies depending on the method: prior works have used dual gradient descent [@lwa-lnnpg-15], penalty methods [@mlapt-icdcc-15], ADMM [@mt-cbfat-14], and Bregman ADMM [@levine2015end]. We omit the derivation of these prior variants due to space constraints.
Efficiently Optimizing Local Policies
-------------------------------------
A common and simple choice for the local policies $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ is to use time-varying linear-Gaussian controllers of the form $\trajdist_i(\at|\st) = \gauss(\Kpol_t\st + \kpol_t, \ucovart)$, though other options are also possible [@mt-cbfat-14; @mlapt-icdcc-15; @zkla-ldcpa-15]. Linear-Gaussian controllers represent individual trajectories with linear stabilization and Gaussian noise, and are convenient in domains where each local policy can be trained from a different (but consistent) initial state $\state_1^i \sim p(\state_1)$. This represents an additional assumption beyond standard RL, but allows for an extremely efficient and convenient local model-based RL algorithm based on iterative LQR [@lt-ilqr-04]. The algorithm proceeds by generating $N$ samples on the real physical system from each local policy $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ during the C-step, using these samples to fit local linear-Gaussian dynamics for each local policy of the form $p_i(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at) = \gauss(\fxt\st + \fut\at + \fct,\noise_t)$ using linear regression, and then using these fitted dynamics to improve the linear-Gaussian controller via a modified LQR algorithm [@la-lnnpg-14]. This modified LQR method solves the following optimization problem: $$\min_{\Kpol_t,\kpol_t,\ucovart} \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)}[\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at)] \text{ such that } \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\trajdist}_i(\traj)) \leq \epsilon,\label{eqn:lqrkl}$$ where we again use $\trajdist_i(\traj)$ to denote the trajectory distribution induced by $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ and the fitted dynamics $p_i(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$. Here, $\bar{\trajdist}_i(\at|\st)$ denotes the previous local policy, and the constraint ensures that the change in the local policy is bounded, as proposed also in prior works [@bs-cps-03; @ps-rlmsp-08; @pma-reps-10]. This is particularly important when using linearized dynamics fitted to local samples, since these dynamics are not valid outside of a small region around the current controller. In the case of linear-Gaussian dynamics and policies, the KL-divergence constraint $\kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\trajdist}_i(\traj)) \leq \epsilon$ can be shown to simplify, as shown in prior work [@la-lnnpg-14] and Appendix \[app:kldiv\]: $$\kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\trajdist}_i(\traj)) \!=\! \sum_{t=1}^T \kl(\trajdist_i(\at|\st) \| \bar{\trajdist}_i(\at|\st) ) \!=\! \sum_{t=1}^T \!-\! E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)} [ \log \bar{\trajdist}_i(\at|\st) ] - \ent(\trajdist_i(\at|\st)),$$ and the resulting Lagrangian of the problem in Equation (\[eqn:lqrkl\]) can be optimized with respect to the primal variables using the standard LQR algorithm, which suggests a simple method for solving the problem in Equation (\[eqn:lqrkl\]) using dual gradient descent [@la-lnnpg-14]. The surrogate objective $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at) = \cost(\st,\at) + \phi_i(\theta)$ typically includes some term $\phi_i(\theta)$ that encourages the local policy $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ to stay close to the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, such as a KL-divergence of the form $\kl(\trajdist_i(\at|\st) \| \policy_\params(\at|\st))$.
Prior Convergence Results
-------------------------
Prior work on guided policy search typically shows convergence by construction, by framing the C-step and S-step as block coordinate ascent on the (augmented) Lagrangian of the problem in Equation (\[eqn:gps\]), with the surrogate cost $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at)$ for the local policies corresponding to the (augmented) Lagrangian, and the overall algorithm being an instance of dual gradient descent [@lwa-lnnpg-15], ADMM [@mt-cbfat-14], or Bregman ADMM [@levine2015end]. Since these methods enforce the constraint $\trajdist_i(\at|\st) = \policy_\params(\at|\st)$ at convergence (up to linearization or sampling error, depending on the method), we know that $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] \approx E_{\policy_\params(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)]$ at convergence.[^1] However, prior work does not say anything about $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ at intermediate iterations, and the constraints of policy search in the real world might often preclude running the method to full convergence. We propose a simplified variant of guided policy search, and present an analysis that sheds light on the performance of both the new algorithm and prior guided policy search methods.
Mirror Descent Guided Policy Search {#sec:md}
===================================
C-step: $\trajdist_i \leftarrow \arg\min_{\trajdist_i} E_{\trajdist_i(\traj)}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)\right] \text{ such that } \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \policy_\params(\traj)) \leq \epsilon$ S-step: $\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_\theta \sum_i \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \policy_\params(\traj))$ (via supervised learning)
In this section, we propose our new simplified guided policy search, which we term mirror descent guided policy search (MDGPS). This algorithm uses the constrained LQR optimization in Equation (\[eqn:lqrkl\]) to optimize each of the local policies, but instead of constraining each local policy $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ against the previous local policy $\bar{\trajdist}_i(\at|\st)$, we instead constraint it directly against the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, and simply set the surrogate cost to be the true cost, such that $\tilde{\cost}_i(\st,\at) = \cost(\st,\at)$. The method is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:mdgps\]. In the case of linear dynamics and a quadratic cost (i.e. the LQR setting), and assuming that supervised learning can globally solve a convex optimization problem, we can show that this method corresponds to an instance of mirror descent [@bt-mdnps-03] on the objective $J(\theta)$. In this formulation, the optimization is performed on the space of trajectory distributions, with a constraint that the policy must lie on the manifold of policies with the chosen parameterization. Let $\Pi_\Theta$ be the set of all possible policies $\policy_\params$ for a given parameterization, where we overload notation to also let $\Pi_\Theta$ denote the set of trajectory distributions that are possible under the chosen parameterization. The return $J(\theta)$ can be optimized according to $\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_{\policy \in \Pi_\Theta} E_{\policy(\traj)}[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)]$. Mirror descent solves this optimization by alternating between two steps at each iteration $k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\trajdist^k \leftarrow \arg\min_\trajdist E_{\trajdist(\traj)}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at) \right] \text{ s. t. } D\left(\trajdist,\policy^k\right) \leq \epsilon ,\hspace{0.4in}
\policy^{k + 1} \leftarrow \arg\min_{\policy \in \Pi_\Theta} D\left(\trajdist^k, \policy\right).\end{aligned}$$ The first step finds a new distribution $\trajdist^k$ that minimizes the cost and is close to the previous policy $\policy^k$ in terms of the divergence $D\left(\trajdist,\policy^k\right)$, while the second step projects this distribution onto the constraint set $\Pi_\Theta$, with respect to the divergence $D(\trajdist^k, \policy)$. In the linear-quadratic case with a convex supervised learning phase, this corresponds exactly to Algorithm \[alg:mdgps\]: the C-step optimizes $\trajdist^k$, while the S-step is the projection. Monotonic improvement of the global policy $\policy_\params$ follows from the monotonic improvement of mirror descent [@bt-mdnps-03]. In the case of linear-Gaussian dynamics and policies, the S-step, which minimizes KL-divergence between trajectory distributions, in fact only requires minimizing the KL-divergence between policies. Using the identity in Appendix \[app:kldiv\], we know that $$\vspace{-0.05in}
\kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \policy_\params(\traj)) = \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st)}\left[\kl(\trajdist_i(\at|\st) \| \policy_\params(\at|\st))\right]. \label{eqn:mirrorkl}$$
Implementation for Nonlinear Global Policies and Unknown Dynamics {#sec:implementation}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, we aim to optimize complex policies for nonlinear systems with unknown dynamics. This requires a few practical considerations. The C-step requires a local quadratic cost function, which can be obtained via Taylor expansion, as well as local linear-Gaussian dynamics $p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at) = \gauss(\fxt\st + \fut\at + \fct,\noise_t)$, which we can fit to samples as in prior work [@la-lnnpg-14]. We also need a local time-varying linear-Gaussian approximation to the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, denoted $\bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\at|\st)$. This can be obtained either by analytically differentiating the policy, or by using the same linear regression method that we use to estimate $p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$, which is the approach in our implementation. In both cases, we get a different global policy linearization around each local policy. Following prior work [@la-lnnpg-14], we use a Gaussian mixture model prior for both the dynamics and global policy fit.
Generate samples $\mathcal{D}_i = \{\traj_{i,j}\}$ by running either $\trajdist_i$ or $\policy_{\params i}$ Fit linear-Gaussian dynamics $p_i(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$ using samples in $\mathcal{D}_i$ Fit linearized global policy $\bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\at|\st)$ using samples in $\mathcal{D}_i$ C-step: $\trajdist_i \leftarrow \arg\min_{\trajdist_i} E_{\trajdist_i(\traj)}[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)] \text{ such that } \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\traj)) \leq \epsilon$ S-step: $\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_\theta \sum_{t,i,j} \kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j}))$ (via supervised learning) Adjust $\epsilon$ (see Section \[sec:step\])
The S-step can be performed approximately in the nonlinear case by using the samples collected for dynamics fitting to also train the global policy. Following prior work [@levine2015end], our S-step minimizes[^2] $$\sum_{i,t} E_{\trajdist_i(\st)}\left[\kl(\policy_\params(\at|\st) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\st)) \right] \approx \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_i|}\sum_{i,t,j} \kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j})),$$ where $\state_{t,i,j}$ is the $j^\text{th}$ sample from $\trajdist_i(\st)$ obtained by running $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ on the real system. For linear-Gaussian $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ and (nonlinear) conditionally Gaussian $\policy_\params(\at|\st) = \gauss(\polmu(\st),\polsig(\st))$, where $\polmu$ and $\polsig$ can be any function (such as a deep neural network), the KL-divergence $\kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j}))$ can easily be evaluated and differentiated in closed form [@levine2015end]. However, in the nonlinear setting, minimizing this objective no longer minimizes the KL-divergence between trajectory distributions $\kl(\policy_\params(\traj) \| \trajdist_i(\traj))$ exactly, which means that MDGPS does not correspond exactly to mirror descent: although the C-step can still be evaluated exactly, the S-step now corresponds to an approximate projection onto the constraint manifold. In the next section, we discuss how we can bound the error in this projection. A summary of the nonlinear MDGPS method is provided in Algorithm \[alg:mdgpsfull\], and additional details are in Appendix \[app:mdgpsdetails\]. The samples for linearizing the dynamics and policy can be obtained by running either the last local policy $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$, or the last global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$. Both variants produce good results, and we compare them in Section \[sec:experiments\].
Analysis of Prior Guided Policy Search Methods as Approximate Mirror Descent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main distinction between the proposed method and prior guided policy search methods is that the constraint $\kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\traj)) \leq \epsilon$ is enforced on the local policies at each iteration, while in prior methods, this constraint is iteratively enforced via a dual descent procedure over multiple iterations. This means that the prior methods perform approximate mirror descent with step sizes that are adapted (by adjusting the Lagrange multipliers) but not constrained exactly. In our empirical evaluation, we show that our approach is somewhat more stable, though sometimes slower than these prior methods. This empirical observation agrees with our intuition: prior methods can sometimes be faster, because they do not exactly constrain the step size, but our method is simpler, requires less tuning, and always takes bounded steps on the global policy in trajectory space.
Analysis in the Nonlinear Case
==============================
Although the S-step under nonlinear dynamics is not an optimal projection onto the constraint manifold, we can bound the additional cost incurred by this projection in terms of the KL-divergence between $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ and $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$. This analysis also reveals why prior guided policy search algorithms, which only have asymptotic convergence guarantees, still attain good performance in practice even after a small number of iterations. We will drop the subscript $i$ from $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ in this section for conciseness, though the same analysis can be repeated for multiple local policies $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$.
Bounding the Global Policy Cost {#sec:bounding}
-------------------------------
The analysis in this section is based on the following lemma, which we prove in Appendix \[app:distro\_bound\], building off of earlier results by Ross et al. [@rgb-rilsp-11] and Schulman et al. [@slmja-trpo-15]:
\[lemma:distro\_bound\] Let $\epsilon_t = \max_{\st} \kl(\trajdist(\at|\st) \| \policy_\params(\at|\st)$. Then $\tv(\trajdist(\st)\| \policy_\params(\st)) \leq 2 \sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$.
This means that if we can bound the KL-divergence between the policies, then the total variation divergence between their state marginals (given by $\tv(\trajdist(\st)\| \policy_\params(\st)) = \frac{1}{2}\|\trajdist(\st) - \policy_\params(\st)\|_1$) will also be bounded. This bound allows us in turn to relate the total expected costs of the two policies to each other according to the following lemma, which we prove in Appendix \[app:cost\_bound\]:
\[lemma:cost\_bound\] If $\tv(\trajdist(\st)\| \policy_\params(\st)) \leq 2 \sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$, then we can bound the total cost of $\policy_\params$ as $$\sum_{t=1}^T E_{\policy_\params(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] \leq \sum_{t=1}^T \left[ E_{p(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] + \sqrt{2\epsilon_t} \max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at) + 2\sqrt{2\epsilon_t} Q_{\text{max},t} \right]$$ where $Q_{\text{max},t} = \sum_{t^\prime=t}^T \max_{\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime}}\cost(\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime})$, the maximum total cost from time $t$ to $T$.
This bound on the cost of $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ tells us that if we update $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ so as to decrease its total cost or decrease its KL-divergence against $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, we will eventually reduce the cost of $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$. For the MDGPS algorithm, this bound suggests that we can ensure improvement of the global policy within a small number of iterations by appropriately choosing the constraint $\epsilon$ during the C-step. Recall that the C-step constrains $\sum_{t=1}^T \epsilon_t \leq \epsilon$, so if we choose $\epsilon$ to be small enough, we can close the gap between the local and global policies. Optimizing the bound directly turns out to produce very slow learning in practice, because the bound is very loose. However, it tells us that we can either decrease $\epsilon$ toward the end of the optimization process or if we observe the global policy performing much worse than the local policies. We discuss how this idea can be put into action in the next section.
Step Size Selection {#sec:step}
-------------------
In prior work [@lwa-lnnpg-15], the step size $\epsilon$ in the local policy optimization is adjusted by considering the difference between the predicted change in the cost of the local policy $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ under the fitted dynamics, and the actual cost obtained when sampling from that policy. The intuition is that, because the linearized dynamics are local, we incur a larger cost the further we deviate from the previous policy. We can adjust the step size by estimating the rate at which the additional cost is incurred and choose the optimal tradeoff. Let $\ell_{k-1}^{k-1}$ denote the expected cost under the previous local policy $\bar{\trajdist}(\at|\st)$, $\ell_{k-1}^k$ the cost under the current local policy $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ and the previous fitted dynamics (which were estimated using samples from $\bar{\trajdist}(\at|\st)$ and used to optimize $\trajdist(\at|\st)$), and $\ell_k^k$ the cost of the current local policy under the dynamics estimated using samples from $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ itself. Each of these can be computed analytically under the linearized dynamics. We can view the difference $\ell_k^k - \ell_{k-1}^k$ as the additional cost we incur from imperfect dynamics estimation. Previous work suggested modeling the change in cost as a function of $\epsilon$ as following: $\ell_k^k - \ell_{k-1}^{k-1} = a\epsilon^2 + b\epsilon$, where $b$ is the change in cost per unit of KL-divergence, and $a$ is additional cost incurred due to inaccurate dynamics [@lwa-lnnpg-15]. This model is reasonable because the integral of a quadratic cost under a linear-Gaussian system changes roughly linearly with KL-divergence. The additional cost due to dynamics errors is assumes to scale superlinearly, allowing us to solve for $b$ by looking at the difference $\ell_k^k - \ell_{k-1}^k$ and then solving for a new optimal $\epsilon^\prime$ according to $\epsilon^\prime = -b/2a$, resulting in the update $\epsilon^\prime = \epsilon (\ell_{k-1}^k - \ell_{k-1}^{k-1}) / 2(\ell_{k-1}^k - \ell_k^k)$.
In MDGPS, we propose to use two step size adjustment rules. The first rule simply adapts the previous method to the case where we constrain the new local policy $\trajdist(\at|\st)$ against the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, instead of the previous local policy $\bar{\trajdist}(\at|\st)$. In this case, we simply replace $\ell_{k-1}^{k-1}$ with the expected cost under the previous global policy, given by $\ell_{k-1}^{k-1,\policy}$, obtained using its linearization $\bar{\policy}_\params(\at|\st)$. We call this the “classic” step size: $\epsilon^\prime = \epsilon (\ell_{k-1}^{k} - \ell_{k-1}^{k-1,\policy}) / 2(\ell_{k-1}^k - \ell_k^k)$.
However, we can also incorporate intuition from the bound in the previous section to obtain a more conservative step adjustment that reduces $\epsilon$ not only when the obtained local policy improvement doesn’t meet expectations, but also when we detect that the global policy is unable to reproduce the behavior of the local policy. In this case, reducing $\epsilon$ reduces the KL-divergence between the global and local policies which, as shown in the previous section, tightens the bound on the global policy return. As mentioned previously, directly optimizing the bound tends to perform poorly because the bound is quite loose. However, if we estimate the cost of the global policy using its linearization, we can instead adjust the step size based on a simple model of *global* policy cost. We use the same model for the change in cost, given by $\ell_k^{k,\policy} - \ell_{k-1}^{k-1,\policy} = a\epsilon^2 + b\epsilon$. However, for the term $\ell_k^k$, which reflects the actual cost of the new policy, we instead use the cost of the new global policy $\ell_k^{k,\policy}$, so that $a$ now models the additional loss due to *both* inaccurate dynamics and inaccurate projection: if $\ell_k^{k,\policy}$ is much worse than $\ell_{k-1}^{k}$, then either the dynamics were too local, or S-step failed to match the performance of the local policies. In either case, we decrease the step size.[^3] As before, we can solve for the new step size $\epsilon^\prime$ according to $\epsilon^\prime = \epsilon (\ell_{k-1}^{k} - \ell_{k-1}^{k-1,\policy}) / 2(\ell_{k-1}^{k} - \ell_k^{k,\policy})$. We call this the “global” step size. Details of how each quantity in this equation is computed are provided in Appendix \[app:step\].
Relation to Prior Work {#sec:prior_work}
======================
While we’ve discussed the connections between MDGPS and prior guided policy search methods, in this section we’ll also discuss the connections between our method and other policy search methods. One popular supervised policy learning methods is DAGGER [@rgb-rilsp-11], which also trains the policy using supervised learning, but does not attempt to adapt the teacher to provide better training data. MDGPS removes the assumption in DAGGER that the supervised learning stage has bounded error against an arbitrary teacher policy. MDGPS does not need to make this assumption, since the teacher can be adapted to the limitations of the global policy learning. This is particularly important when the global policy has computational or observational limitations, such as when learning to use camera images for partially observed control tasks or, as shown in our evaluation, blind peg insertion.
When we sample from the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, our method resembles policy gradient methods with KL-divergence constraints [@ps-rlmsp-08; @pma-reps-10; @slmja-trpo-15]. However, policy gradient methods update the policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$ at each iteration by linearizing with respect to the policy parameters, which often requires small steps for complex, nonlinear policies, such as neural networks. In contrast, we linearize in the space of time-varying linear dynamics, while the policy is optimized at each iteration with many steps of supervised learning (e.g. stochastic gradient descent). This makes MDGPS much better suited for quickly and efficiently training highly nonlinear, high-dimensional policies.
Experimental Evaluation {#sec:experiments}
=======================
We compare several variants of MDGPS and a prior guided policy search method based on Bregman ADMM (BADMM) [@levine2015end]. We evaluate all methods on one simulated robotic navigation task and two manipulation tasks. Guided policy search code, including BADMM and MDGPS methods, is available at `https://www.github.com/cbfinn/gps`.
[r]{}[0.25]{} {width="24.00000%"}
#### Obstacle Navigation.
In this task, a 2D point mass (grey) must navigate around obstacles to reach a target (shown in green), using velocities and positions relative to the target. We use $N=5$ initial states, with 5 samples per initial state per iteration. The target and obstacles are fixed, but the starting position varies.
#### Peg Insertion.
This task, which is more complex, requires controlling a 7 DoF 3D arm to insert a tight-fitting peg into a hole. The hole can be in different positions, and the state consists of joint angles, velocities, and end-effector positions relative to the target. This task is substantially more challenging physically. We use $N=9$ different hole positions, with 5 samples per initial state per iteration.
#### Blind Peg Insertion.
The last task is a blind variant of the peg insertion task, where the target-relative end effector positions are provided to the local policies, but not to the global policy $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$. This requires the global policy to search for the hole, since no input to the global policy can distinguish between the different initial state $\state_1^i$. This makes it much more challenging to adapt the global and local policies to each other, and makes it impossible for the global learner to succeed without adaptation of the local policies. We use $N=4$ different hole positions, with 5 samples per initial state per iteration.
The global policy for each task consists of a fully connected neural network with two hidden layers with $40$ rectified linear units. The same settings are used for MDGPS and the prior BADMM-based method, except for the difference in surrogate costs, constraints, and step size adjustment methods discussed in the paper. Results are presented in Figure \[fig:results\]. On the easier point mass and peg tasks, all of the methods achieve similar performance. However, the MDGPS methods are all substantially easier to apply to these tasks, since they have very few free hyperparameters. An initial step size must be selected, but the adaptive step size adjustment rules make this choice less important. In contrast, the BADMM method requires choosing an initial weight on the augmented Lagrangian term, an adjustment schedule for this term, a step size on the dual variables, and a step size for local policies, all of which have a substantial impact on the final performance of the method (the reported results are for the best setting of these parameters, identified with a hyperparameter sweep).
On the harder blind peg task, MDGPS consistently outperforms BADMM when sampling from the local policies (“off policy”), with both the classic and global step sizes. This is particularly apparent in the success rates in Table \[tbl:success\], which shows that the MDGPS policies succeed at actually inserting the peg into the hole more often and on more conditions. This suggests that our method is better able to improve global policies particularly in situations where informational or representational constraints make naïve imitation of the local policies insufficient to solve the task. On-policy sampling tends to learn slower, since the approximate projection causes the global policy to lag behind the local policy in performance, but this method is still able to consistently improve the global policies. Sampling from the global policies may be desirable in practice, since the global policies can directly use observations at runtime instead of requiring access to the state [@levine2015end]. The global step size also tends to be more conservative, but produces more consistent and monotonic improvement.
![Results for MDGPS variants and BADMM on each task. MDGPS is tested with local policy (“off policy”) and global policy (“on policy”) sampling (see Section \[sec:implementation\]), and both the “classic” and “global” step sizes (see Section \[sec:step\]). The vertical axis for the obstacle task shows the average distance between the point mass and the target. The vertical axis for the peg tasks shows the average distance between the bottom of the peg and the hole. Distances above 0.1, which is the depth of the hole (shown as a dotted line) indicate failure. All experiments are repeated three times, with the average performance and standard deviation shown in the plots.[]{data-label="fig:results"}](results.png){width="\textwidth"}
Iteration BADMM Off Pol., Classic Off Pol., Global On Pol., Classic On Pol., Global
-- ----------- --------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------
3 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 %
6 51.85 % **62.96 %** 22.22 % 48.15 % 33.33 %
9 51.85 % 77.78 % 74.07 % 77.78 % **81.48 %**
12 77.78 % 70.73 % **92.59 %** **92.59 %** 85.19 %
3 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 %
6 50.00 % **58.33 %** 25.00 % 33.33 % 25.00 %
9 58.33 % **75.00 %** 50.00 % 58.33 % 33.33 %
12 75.00 % 83.33 % **91.67 %** 58.33 % 58.33 %
: Success rates of each method on each peg insertion task. Success is defined as inserting the peg into the hole with a final distance of less than 0.06. Results are averaged over three runs.[]{data-label="tbl:success"}
Discussion and Future Work {#sec:discussion}
==========================
We presented a new guided policy search method that corresponds to mirror descent under linearity and convexity assumptions, and showed how prior guided policy search methods can be seen as approximating mirror descent. We provide a bound on the return of the global policy in the nonlinear case, and argue that an appropriate step size can provide improvement of the global policy in this case also. Our analysis provides us with the intuition to design an automated step size adjustment rule, and we illustrate empirically that our method achieves good results on a complex simulated robotic manipulation task while requiring substantially less tuning and hyperparameter optimization than prior guided policy search methods. Manual tuning and hyperparameter searches are a major challenge across a range of deep reinforcement learning algorithms, and developing scalable policy search methods that are simple and reliable is vital to enable further progress.
As discussed in Section \[sec:prior\_work\], MDGPS has interesting connections to other policy search methods. Like DAGGER [@rgb-rilsp-11], MDGPS uses supervised learning to train the policy, but unlike DAGGER, MDGPS does not assume that the learner is able to reproduce an arbitrary teacher’s behavior with bounded error, which makes it very appealing for tasks with partial observability or other limits on information, such as learning to use camera images for robotic manipulation [@levine2015end]. When sampling directly from the global policy, MDGPS also has close connections to policy gradient methods that take steps of fixed KL-divergence [@ps-rlmsp-08; @slmja-trpo-15], but with the steps taken in the space of trajectories rather than policy parameters, followed by a projection step. In future work, it would be interesting to explore this connection further, so as to develop new model-free policy gradient methods.
KL Divergence Between Gaussian Trajectory Distributions {#app:kldiv}
=======================================================
In this appendix, we derive the KL-divergence between two Gaussian trajectory distributions corresponding to time-varying linear-Gaussian dynamics $p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$ and two policies $p(\at|\st)$ and $q(\at|\st)$. The two policies induce Gaussian trajectory distributions (with block-diagonal covariances) according to $$p(\traj) = p(\state_1)\prod_{t=1}^T p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)p(\at|\st), \hspace{0.2in} q(\traj) = p(\state_1)\prod_{t=1}^T p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)q(\at|\st).$$ We can therefore derive their KL-divergence as $$\begin{aligned}
\kl(p(\traj) \| q(\traj)) &= E_{p(\traj)}\left[\log p(\traj) - \log q(\traj)\right] \\
&= E_{p(\traj)}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \log p(\at|\st) - \log q(\at|\st)\right] \\
&= \sum_{t=1}^T E_{p(\st,\at)} \left[ \log p(\at|\st) - \log q(\at|\st) \right] \\
&= \sum_{t=1}^T - E_{p(\st,\at)} \left[ \log q(\at|\st) \right] - E_{p(\st)}[\ent(p(\at|\st))]\\
&= \sum_{t=1}^T - E_{p(\st,\at)} \left[ \log q(\at|\st) \right] - \ent(p(\at|\st))\end{aligned}$$ where the second step follows because the dynamics and initial state distribution cancel, the third step follows by linearity of expectations, the fourth step from the definition of differential entropy, and the last step follows from the fact that the entropy of a conditional Gaussian distribution is independent on the quantity that it is conditioned on, since it depends only on the covariance and not the mean. We therefore have $$\kl(p(\traj) \| q(\traj)) = \sum_{t=1}^T - E_{p(\st,\at)} \left[ \log q(\at|\st) \right] - \ent(p(\at|\st)).$$ By the definition of KL-divergence, we can also write this as $$\kl(p(\traj) \| q(\traj)) = \sum_{t=1}^T E_{p(\st,\at)} \left[ \kl(p(\at|\st) \| q(\at \| \st)) \right].$$
Details of the MDGPS Algorithm {#app:mdgpsdetails}
==============================
A summary of the MDGPS algorithm appears in Algorithm \[alg:mdgps\], and is repeated below for convenience:
Generate samples $\mathcal{D}_i = \{\traj_{i,j}\}$ by running either $\trajdist_i$ or $\policy_{\params i}$ Fit linear-Gaussian dynamics $p_i(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$ using samples in $\mathcal{D}_i$ Fit linearized global policy $\bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\at|\st)$ using samples in $\mathcal{D}_i$ C-step: $\trajdist_i \leftarrow \arg\min_{\trajdist_i} E_{\trajdist_i(\traj)}[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)] \text{ such that } \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\traj)) \leq \epsilon$ S-step: $\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_\theta \sum_{t,i,j} \kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j}))$ (via supervised learning) Adjust $\epsilon$ (see Section \[sec:step\])
C-Step Details {#app:cstep}
--------------
The C-step solves the following constrained optimization problem: $$\trajdist_i \leftarrow \arg\min_{\trajdist_i} E_{\trajdist_i(\traj)}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)\right] \text{ such that } \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\traj)) \leq \epsilon.$$ The solution to this problem follows prior work [@la-lnnpg-14], and is reviewed here for completeness. First, the Lagrangian of this problem is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\obj(\trajdist_i,\eta) &= E_{\trajdist_i(\traj)}\left[\sum_{t=1}^T \cost(\st,\at)\right] + \eta( \kl(\trajdist_i(\traj) \| \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\traj)) - \epsilon) \\
&= \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)} [ \cost(\st,\at) - \eta \log \bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\at|\st) ] - \eta\ent(\trajdist(\at|\st)) - \eta\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where equality follows from the identity in Appendix \[app:kldiv\]. As discussed in prior work [@la-lnnpg-14], we can minimize this Lagrangian with respect to $\trajdist_i$ by solving an LQR problem (assuming a quadratic expansion of $\cost(\st,\at)$) with a surrogate cost $$\tilde{\cost}(\st,\at) = \frac{1}{\eta}\cost(\st,\at) - \log\bar{\policy}_{\params i}(\at|\st).$$ This follows because LQR can be shown to solve the following problem [@la-lnnpg-14] $$\trajdist_ i = \arg\min_{\trajdist_i} \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist_i(\st,\at)} \left[ \tilde{\cost}(\st,\at) \right] - \ent(\trajdist_i(\at|\st))$$ if we set $\trajdist_i(\at|\st) = \gauss(\Kpol_t \st + \kpol_t, \Quut\inv)$, where $\Kpol_t$ and $\kpol_t$ are the optimal feedback and feedforward terms, respectively, and $\Quut$ is the action component of the Q-function matrix computed by LQR, where the full Q-function is given by $$Q(\st,\at) = \frac{1}{2}\st\tr\Qxxt\st + \frac{1}{2}\at\tr\Quut\at + \at\tr\Quxt\st + \st\tr\Qxt + \at\tr\Qut.$$ This maximum entropy LQR solution also directly from the so-called Kalman duality, which describes a connection between LQR and Kalman smoothing.
Once we can minimize the Lagrangian with respect to $\trajdist_i$, we can solve the original constrained problem by using dual gradient descent to iteratively adjust the dual variable $\eta$. Since there is only a single dual variable, we can find it very efficiently by using a bracketing line search, exploiting the fact that the dual function is convex.
As discussed in the paper, the dynamics $\trajdist_i(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at)$ are estimated by using samples (drawn from either the local policy or the global policy) and linear regression. Following prior work [@la-lnnpg-14], the dynamics at each step are fitted using linear regression with a Gaussian mixture model prior. This prior incorporates samples from other time steps and previous iterations to allow the regression procedure to use a very small number of sampled trajectories.
S-Step Details
--------------
The step solves the following optimization problem: $$\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_\theta \sum_{t,i,j} \kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j})).$$ Since both $\policy_\params(\at|\st) = \gauss(\polmu(\st),\polsig(\st))$ and $\trajdist_i(\at|\st) = \gauss(\Kpol_{ti}\st + \kpol_{ti}, \ucovar_{ti})$ are assumed to be conditionally Gaussian, this objective can be rewritten in closed form as $$\begin{aligned}
\policy_\params \leftarrow \arg\min_\theta \sum_{t,i,j}\,\,\, &\trace[\ucovar_{ti}\inv\polsig(\state_{t,i,j})] - \log|\polsig(\state_{t,i,j})| + \\
&(\polmu(\state_{t,i,j}) - \trajmu_{ti}(\state_{t,i,j}))\ucovar_{ti}\inv(\polmu(\state_{t,i,j}) - \trajmu_{ti}(\state_{t,i,j})).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the last term is simply a weighted quadratic cost on the policy mean $\polmu(\state_{t,i,j}$, which lends itself to simple and straightforward optimization using stochastic gradient descent. In our implementation, we use a policy where the covariance $\polsig(\st)$ is independent of the state $\st$, and therefore we can solve for the covariance in closed form, as discussed in prior work [@levine2015end]. However, in general, the covariance could also be optimized using stochastic gradient descent.
Step Size Adjustment {#app:step}
--------------------
As discussed in Section \[sec:step\], the step size adjustment procedure requires estimating quantities of the type $\ell_m^k = \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\trajdist^k(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)]$, where $\trajdist^k(\st,\at)$ is the marginal of the local policy used to generate samples at iteration $k$ and the dynamics fitted at iteration $m$ (not to be confused with $\trajdist_i$, which we use to denote the local policy for the $i^\text{th}$ initial state, independent of the iteration number). We also use terms of the form $\ell_m^{k,\policy} = \sum_{t=1}^T E_{\bar{\policy}_\params^k(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)]$, which give the expected cost under the dynamics at iteration $m$ and the linearized global policy at iteration $k$. Specifically, we require $\ell_{k-1}^{k-1}$, $\ell_{k-1}^k$, and $\ell_k^k$, as well as the corresponding global policy terms $\ell_{k-1}^{k-1,\policy}$, $\ell_{k-1}^{k,\policy}$, and $\ell_k^{k,\policy}$.
All of these terms can be computed analytically, since the fitted dynamics, local policies, and linearized global policy $\bar{\policy}_\params(\at|\st)$ are all linear-Gaussian. The state-action marginals $\trajdist(\st,\at)$ in linear-Gaussian policies can be computed simply by propagating Gaussian densities forward in time, according to $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\st,\at} &= \left[ \begin{array}{l} \mu_{\st} \\ \Kpol_t \mu_{\st} + \kpol_t \end{array} \right] & \Sigma_{\st,\at} &= \left[ \begin{array}{l l}
\Sigma_{\st} & \Sigma_{\st}\Kpol_t\tr \\
\Kpol_t \Sigma_{\st} & \Kpol_t \Sigma_{\st} \Kpol_t\tr + \ucovar_t
\end{array}
\right] \\
\mu_{\state_{t+1}} &= \ft \mu_{\st,\at} + \fct & \Sigma_{\state_{t+1}} &= \ft \Sigma_{\st,\at} \ft\tr + \noise_t\end{aligned}$$ where we have $p(\state_{t+1}|\st,\at) = \gauss(\ft(\st,\at)\tr + \fct,\noise_t)$ and $\trajdist(\at|\st) = \gauss(\Kpol_t\st + \kpol_t,\ucovart)$, and then we can estimate the expectation of the cost at time $t$ simply by integrating the quadratic cost under the Gaussian state-action marginals.
Global Policy Cost Bounds {#app:bounds}
=========================
In this appendix, we prove the bound on the policy cost discussed in Section \[sec:bounding\]. The proof combines the earlier results from Ross et al. [@rgb-rilsp-11] and Schulman et al. [@slmja-trpo-15], and extends them to the case of finite-horizon episodic tasks.
Policy State Distribution Bound {#app:distro_bound}
-------------------------------
We begin by proving Lemma \[lemma:distro\_bound\], which we restate below with slightly simplified notation, replacing $\policy_\params$ by $q$:
Let $\epsilon_t = \max_{\st} \kl(p(\at|\st) \| q(\at|\st)$. Then $\tv(p(\st)\| q(\st)) \leq 2 \sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$.
The proof first requires introducing a lemma that relates the total variation divergence $\max_{\st} \|p(\at|\st) - q(\at|\st)\|_1$ between two policies to the probability that the policies will take the same action in a discrete setting (extensions to the continuous setting are also possible):
\[lemma:mix\] Assume that $\max_{\st} \|p(\at|\st) - q(\at|\st)\|_1 \leq \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$, then the probability that $p$ and $q$ take the same action at time step $t$ is $1-\sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$.
The proof for this lemma was presented by Schulman et al. [@slmja-trpo-15]. We can use it to bound the state distribution difference as following. First, we are acting according to $p(\at|\st)$, the probability that the same action would have been taken by $q(\at|\st)$, based on Lemma \[lemma:mix\], is $(1-\sqrt{2\epsilon_t})$, so the probability that all actions up to time $t$ would have been taken by $q(\at|\st)$ is given by $\prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})$. We can therefore express the state distribution $p(\st)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
p(\st) &= \left[\prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right] q(\st) + \left(1 - \prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}}) \right) \tilde{p}(\st) \\
&= \left[\prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right] [q(\st) - \tilde{p}(\st)] + \tilde{p}(\st),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{p}(\st)$ is some other distribution. In order to bound $\tv(p(\st) \| q(\st)) = \|p(\st) - q(\st)\|_1$, we can substitute this equation into $\|p(\st) - q(\st)\|_1$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\|p(\st) - q(\st)\|_1 &= \left\| \left[\prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right] [q(\st) - \tilde{p}(\st)] + \tilde{p}(\st) - q(\st) \right\| \\
&= \left\| \left[1 - \prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right] [q(\st) - \tilde{p}(\st)] \right\| \\
&= \left[1 - \prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right] \left\| q(\st) - \tilde{p}(\st) \right\| \\
&\leq 2\left[1 - \prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}})\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality comes from the fact that $\left\| q(\st) - \tilde{p}(\st) \right\| \leq 2$ for discrete distributions. With continuous densities, we could extend the result by taking the limit of an infinitely fine discretization. Next, we note that $$\prod_{t^\prime = 1}^t (1 - \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}}) \geq 1 - \sum_{t^\prime}^t \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}},$$ and therefore we have $$\|p(\st) - q(\st)\|_1 \leq 2\sum_{t^\prime = 1}^t \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}}$$ This completes the proof.
Total Policy Cost Bound {#app:cost_bound}
-----------------------
In this appendix, we use the result above to prove Lemma \[lemma:cost\_bound\]. This result is based on Ross et al. [@rgb-rilsp-11], but extends the proof to the case of time-varying finite-horizon systems. We first restate the lemma under the same notation as the previous appendix:
If $\tv(\trajdist(\st)\| \policy_\params(\st)) \leq 2 \sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}$, then we can bound the total cost of $\policy_\params$ as $$\sum_{t=1}^T E_{\policy_\params(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] \leq \sum_{t=1}^T \left[ E_{\trajdist(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] + 2 \sqrt{\epsilon_t} Q_{\text{max},t}\right],$$ where $Q_{\text{max},t} = \sum_{t^\prime=t}^T \max_{\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime}}\cost(\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime})$, the maximum total cost from time $t$ to $T$.
We bound the cost of $q$ at time step $t$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
E_{q(\st, \at)}[\cost(\st, \at)] &= \langle q(\st, \at), \cost(\st, \at) \rangle \\
&= \langle q(\st, \at) - p(\st) q(\at|\st), \cost(\st, \at) \rangle + \langle p(\st) q(\at|\st), \cost(\st, \at) \rangle \\
&= \langle q(\at|\st) [q(\st) - p(\st)], \cost(\st, \at) \rangle + \langle p(\st) [q(\at|\st) - p(\at|\st)], \cost(\st, \at) \rangle + E_{p(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st, \at)] \\
&\leq E_{p(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st, \at)] + \|q(\st) - p(\st)\|_1 \max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at) + \|q(\at|\st) - p(\at|\st)\|_1 \max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at) \\
&\leq E_{p(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st, \at)] + \max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at) \sqrt{2\epsilon_t} + 2\max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at)\sum_{t^\prime = 1}^t \sqrt{2\epsilon_{t^\prime}} \end{aligned}$$ If we add up the above quantity over all time $t$, we get $$\sum_{t=1}^T E_{q(\st, \at)}[\cost(\st, \at)] \leq \sum_{t=1}^T E_{p(\st, \at)}[\cost(\st, \at)]
+ \sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon_t}\max_{\st,\at}\cost(\st,\at)
+ 2\sum_{t=1}^T \max_{\st,\at} \cost(\st,\at) \sum_{t^\prime=1}^t \sqrt{2\epsilon_t^\prime}$$ which we can rewrite as $$\sum_{t=1}^T E_{q(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] \leq \sum_{t=1}^T \left[ E_{p(\st,\at)}[\cost(\st,\at)] + \sqrt{2\epsilon_t} \max_{\st, \at} \cost(\st, \at) + 2\sqrt{2\epsilon_t} Q_{\text{max},t} \right]$$ where $Q_{\text{max},t} = \sum_{t^\prime=t}^T \max_{\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime}} \cost(\state_{t^\prime},\action_{t^\prime})$.
[^1]: As mentioned previously, the initial state $\state_1^i$ of each local policy $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ is assumed to be drawn from $p(\state_1)$, hence the outer sum corresponds to Monte Carlo integration of the expectation under $p(\state_1)$.
[^2]: Note that we flip the KL-divergence inside the expectation, following [@levine2015end]. We found that this produced better results. The intuition behind this is that, because $\log \trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ is proportional to the Q-function of $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ (see Appendix \[app:cstep\]), $\kl(\policy_\params(\at|\state_{t,i,j}) \| \trajdist_i(\at|\state_{t,i,j})$ minimizes the cost-to-go under $\trajdist_i(\at|\st)$ with respect to $\policy_\params(\at|\st)$, which provides for a more informative objective than the unweighted likelihood in Equation (\[eqn:mirrorkl\]).
[^3]: Although we showed before that the discrepancy depends on $\sum_{t=1}^T \sqrt{2\epsilon}_t$, here we use $\epsilon^2$. This is a simplification, but the net result is the same: when the global policy is worse than expected, $\epsilon$ is reduced.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A decomposed generalised Chaplygin gas with energy flux from dark energy to dark matter is shown to alleviate the tension between EDGES data and the cosmological standard model. Using EDGES data the agreement with the standard model is only marginal. When SNe Ia, CMB and BAO data are included a small deviation from $\Lambda$CDM is predicted.'
author:
- 'C. Pigozzo$^{1}$, S. Carneiro$^{1}$ and J. C. Fabris$^{2,3}$'
title: 'Joint analysis of EDGES $21$-cm line observations with standard candles and rulers in $\Lambda$CDM and non-adiabatic gCg models'
---
EDGES observations of the hydrogen $21$-cm line transition are in tension with the standard cosmological model [@Nature]. In spite of some discussion about the foreground subtraction [@critica1; @critica2], this has lead to many proposals of explanations based on alternative cosmologies. The tension is alleviated for example in models with energy flux from dark energy to dark matter, because, for the same present amount of matter, in these models the Hubble function is attenuated at intermediate redshifts (see e.g. [@chineses]). In this short note we present a joint analysis of EDGES data combined with standard candles and rulers, in the broader context of a non-adiabatic generalised Chaplygin gas, obtaining a good concordance for negative values of the Chaplygin parameter, that is, an energy flux from dark energy to dark matter[^1].
The $21$-cm line brightness temperature relative to the CMB background temperature $T_{\text{CMB}}$ is given by [@Nature; @chineses] $$\label{1}
T_{21}(z) = \frac{T_{\text{S}}(z) - T_{\text{CMB}}(z)}{1+z}\, \tau_{\nu_0}(z),$$ with $$\label{2}
\tau_{\nu_0}(z) \approx 0.053\, x_{\text{HI}}\, \Omega_{b0}\, h \left[ \frac{T_{\text{CMB}}(z)}{T_{\text{S}}(z)} \right] \frac{(1+z)^2}{E(z)},$$ where $E(z) = H(z)/H_0$ is the adimensional Hubble function, and $H_0 = 100\, h$ km/s.Mpc. At $z = 17.2$ it was measured by EDGES as $\hat{T}_{21} = -500^{+200}_{-500}$ mK ($3\sigma$), in tension with the standard model prediction $T_{21} \approx -209$ mK. In the above formulae, $T_{\text{S}}$ is the $21$-cm spin temperature, assumed to be equal to the gas temperature at this redshift, $T_{\text{S}} \approx 7.3$ K. The fraction of neutral hydrogen is assumed to be $x_{\text{HI}} = 1$.
Once the errors on the 21 cm-line measurement are asymmetrical, the log-likelihood adopted was a variable Gaussian [@asymmetric] written as $$\ln L = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{[\hat{T}_{21}-T_{21}(z=17.2)]^2}{V+[T_{21}(z=17.2)-\hat{T}_{21}]V'} ,$$ where $\hat{T}_{21}$ is the measured temperature and $$V = |\sigma_-|\sigma_+ \quad \rm{and} \quad V' = \sigma_+-|\sigma_-|.$$ When $|\sigma_-|=\sigma_+$ it recovers the usual symmetric Gaussian log-likelihood. The asymmetric likelihood is shown in Fig. 1.
{width="45.00000%"}
We will include two standard rulers in our analysis of EDGES results. The first is given by the position of the first peak in the CMB spectrum of anisotropies, more precisely the CMB acoustic scale $${\theta_*} = \frac{r_{ls}}{D_A},$$ where $D_A$ is the comoving angular diameter distance to the last scattering surface, $$D_A = \int_0^{z_{ls}} \frac{c}{H(z)},$$ and $r_{ls} = r_s(z_{ls})$ is the acoustic horizon $$r_s(z) = \int_z^\infty \frac{c_s}{H(z')} dz'$$ at the last scattering. The sound speed is given by $$\frac{c_s}{c} = \left[ 3 + \frac{9\Omega_{b0}}{4\Omega_{\gamma 0}} (1+z)^{-1} \right]^{-1/2},$$ where $\Omega_{b0}$ and $\Omega_{\gamma 0} = 2.47 \times 10^{-5}\, h^{-2}$ are the density parameters of baryons and photons, respectively. The observed value of the angular scale is $100\theta_* = 1.04109 \pm 0.00030$ [@Planck]. The second ruler, related to BAO’s observations, is the acoustic horizon $r_d = r_s (z_d)$ at the drag epoch, determined by Verde [*et al.*]{} as $r_d^h \equiv r_d h = (101.2 \pm 2.3)$ Mpc [@Verde]. Both $z_{ls}$ and $z_d$ were evaluated from recombination fitting formulae [@fittingformulae].
We complement the analysis by fitting the luminosity distances to JLA [@JLA] and Pantheon [@Pantheon] type Ia supernovas. As gaussian priors (see Table I), we will take the Riess [*et al.*]{} local value of the Hubble-Lemaître parameter $h = 0.7348\pm 0.0166$ [@Riess18], and the Cooke [*et al.*]{} value for the baryonic density parameter $\Omega_{b0} h^2 = 0.02226 \pm 0.00023$, which comes from nucleosynthesis constraints [@Cooke].
Our tests will be performed with two different models. The first is the standard model, for which the indication of a tension has been manifest. This tension will be verified by testing an extension of the standard model given by the generalised Chaplygin gas [@gCg1; @gCg2; @gCg3; @gCg4; @gCg5; @gCg6; @gCg7; @gCg8], with a Hubble function given, with the addition of radiation, by $$E(z)^2 = \left[ (1 - \Omega_{m0}) +
\Omega_{m0} (1 + z)^{3(1 + \alpha)} \right]^{1/(1 + \alpha)} + \Omega_{R0}\, (1 + z)^4.$$ The binomial expansion of the brackets has a leading term $\Omega_{m0} (1+z)^3$, which means that, for the present purpose of background tests, the baryonic content can be absorbed in the above defined gas. For $\alpha = 0$ we recover the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Perturbative tests are outside the scope of this paper, but let us comment that, although the adiabatic gCg is ruled out by the observed matter power spectrum owing to oscillations and instabilities [@waga], some non-adiabatic versions have zero sound speed and present a good concordance when tested against background and LSS observations [@wands21; @wands22; @wands23; @non-adiabatic1; @non-adiabatic2; @wang; @cassio; @pedro; @micol].
In Fig. 2 (left panel) we show the Hubble parameter $E(z)$ at $z = 17.2$ as function of $\alpha$ for $\Omega_{m0} = 0.31$. It evidences a suppression for negative values of $\alpha$, which leads through (\[1\])-(\[2\]) to more negative values of $T_{21}$. In the right panel we plot this temperature as a function of $\alpha$. For positive values of $\alpha$, the temperature does not change significantly, but it suffers a strong variation in the range $-1 < \alpha < 0$ (for $\alpha < -1$ the gCg inverts its behaviour, acting as a cosmological constant at early times and as matter in the asymptotic future).
{width="42.00000%"} {width="42.00000%"}
The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence regions for EDGES and JLA observations are shown in the left panel of Fig. 3 and the corresponding likelihoods for $\alpha$ can be seen in the right panel. There is a clear preference for negative values of the interaction parameter, i.e. an energy flux from the dark energy to the dark matter components of the generalised Chaplygin gas. This preference is also clear in the combined likelihoods shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5 we present the likelihoods and confidence regions of the joint analysis including $\theta_*$ and $r_d^h$, which also includes the priors imposed on the Hubble-Lemaître parameter and baryons density. The combined data can be well accommodated with a matter density parameter $\Omega_{m0} \approx 0.3$ and a Hubble-Lemaître parameter $h \approx 0.7$, with a best-fit for the gCg parameter slightly negative. The standard model with $\alpha = 0$ is not ruled out, but its concordance value for the matter density parameter is in slight tension with Planck’s best-fit [@Planck]. This tension is indeed manifest if only the EDGES data are considered. The $2\sigma$ confidence intervals are given on Table II.
Some mechanisms have been recently proposed in order to explain the anomaly observed in the EDGES measurement of the 21 cm line at high redshift. The decay of dark matter into particles of the Standard Model is one of them [@barkana; @decay]. Interaction between dark matter and dark energy is another possibility. The Chaplygin gas model studied here fits in the spirit of the last proposal. Such model has already shown many interesting results even at perturbative level if non-adiabatic perturbations are allowed. In what concerns the EDGES data, the results obtained are compatible with SNe Ia data, and the $\Lambda$CDM particular case is admitted only marginally. Such tension is alleviated if CMB and BAO data are included, but the $\Lambda$CDM model is not the preferred scenario.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are thankful to J.A. de Freitas Pacheco for useful discussions. Work partially supported by CNPq and FAPES.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="39.00000%"}
{width="70.00000%"}
{width="70.00000%"}
Free parameters Priors
-------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------
$H_0$ (km/s/Mpc) $73.48\pm1.66$ Gaussian [@Riess18]
$\Omega_{b0}h^2$ $0.02226\pm0.00023$ Gaussian [@Cooke]
$\Omega_{dm0}h^2$ $[ 0.001, 1 ]$ Uniform
$\alpha$ $[ -0.99, 1 ]$ Uniform
$\alpha_{SNe}$ $[ 0, 1 ]$ Uniform
$\beta_{SNe}$ $[ 0, 4 ]$ Uniform
$M$ $[ -22,-16 ]$ Uniform
$\Delta_M$ $[ -1,1 ]$ Uniform
: Free parameters and their adopted priors. The parameter space was explored through PyMultiNest module [@pymultinest], with 1500 livepoints and sampling efficiency equal to 0.5. All other PyMultiNest parameters were set to default ones.[]{data-label="tab:priors"}
\
Data $\alpha$ $\Omega_{m0}$ $\chi^2_r$
-- --------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------
EDGES+priors $ < 0.24$ $0.30^{+0.34}_{-0.27}$ $10^{-9}$
EDGES+JLA+priors $ < -0.31$ $0.38^{+0.09}_{-0.10} $ $0.931$
EDGES+JLA+$r_dh$+Planck18+priors $0.01^{+0.30}_{-0.27}$ $0.28\pm0.08$ $0.937$
EDGES+Pantheon+priors $-0.50\pm0.40$ $0.36\pm0.08$ $0.987$
EDGES+Pantheon+$r_dh$+Planck18+priors $-0.02^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$ $0.29\pm0.06$ $0.987$
: $2\sigma$ intervals with JLA and Pantheon and its reduced $\chi^2$.
\
J. D. Bowman [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**555**]{}, 67 (2018).
R. Hills, G. Kulkarni, P. D. Meerburg and E. Puchwein, Nature [**564**]{}, E32 (2018).
R. F. Bradley, K. Tauscher, D. Rapetti and J. O. Burns, Astrophys. J. [**874**]{}, 153 (2019).
Y. Wang and G. B. Zhao, Astrophys. J. [**869**]{}, 26 (2018).
W. Yang, S. Pan, S. Vagnozzi, E. Di Valentino, D. F. Mota and S. Capozziello, arXiv:1907.05344 \[astro-ph.CO\].
R. Barlow, arXiv:physics/0406120 \[physics.data-an\].
N. Aghanim [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1807.06209 \[astro-ph.CO\]
L. Verde, J. L. Bernal, A. F. Heavens and R. Jimenez, MNRAS [**467**]{}, 731 (2017).
W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. [**471**]{}, 2 (1996).
M. Betoule [*et al.*]{}, A&A [**568**]{}, A22 (2014).
D. M. Scolnic [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**859**]{}, 101 (2018).
A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**855**]{}, 2 (2018).
R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, K. M. Nollett and R. Jorgenson, Astrophys. J. [**830**]{}, 148 (2016).
A. Yu. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. [**B511**]{}, 265 (2001).
J. C. Fabris, S. V. B. Gonçalves and P. E. de Souza, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**34**]{}, 53 (2002).
N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper and R. D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. [**B535**]{}, 17 (2002).
M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{}, 043507 (2002).
A. Dev, D. Jain and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{}, 023515 (2003).
J. S. Alcaniz, D. Jain and A. Dev, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{}, 043514 (2003).
V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik and U. Moschella, Phys.Rev. [**D67**]{}, 063509 (2003).
V. Gorini, A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, O. F. Piattella and A. A. Starobinsky,\
JCAP [**0802**]{}, 016 (2008).
H. Sandvik, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga and I. Waga, Phys.Rev. [**D69**]{}, 123524 (2004).
R. R. R. Reis, I. Waga, M. O. Calvão and S. E. Jorás, Phys. Rev. [**D68**]{}, 061302 (2003).
M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{}, 083519 (2004).
Y. Wang, D. Wands, L. Xu, J. De-Santiago and A. Hojjati, Phys. Rev. [**D87**]{}, 083503 (2013).
H. A. Borges, S. Carneiro, J. C. Fabris and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. [**B727**]{}, 37 (2013).
S. Carneiro and C. Pigozzo, JCAP [**1410**]{}, 060 (2014).
Y. Wang, D. Wands, G. B. Zhao and L. Xu, Phys. Rev. [**D90**]{}, 023502 (2014).
C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro, J. S. Alcaniz, H. A. Borges and J. C. Fabris, JCAP [**1605**]{}, 022 (2016).
S. Carneiro, P. C. de Holanda, C. Pigozzo and F. Sobreira, Phys. Rev. [**D100**]{}, 023505 (2019).
M. Benetti, W. Miranda, H. A. Borges, C. Pigozzo, S. Carneiro and J. S. Alcaniz, arXiv:1908.07213 \[astro-ph.CO\].
R. Barkana, Nature [**555**]{}, 71 (2018).
K. Cheung, J.-L. Kuoa, K.-W. Ng and Y.-L. Sming Tsai, Phys. Lett. [**B789**]{}, 137 (2019).
J. Buchner [*et al.*]{}, A&A [**564**]{}, A125 (2014).
[^1]: For an analysis with only positive values of the Chaplygin parameter and with a modified gCg, see [@valentina].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
[github.com/marcinwrochna/sallow/releases/tag/v1.0](https://github.com/marcinwrochna/sallow/releases/tag/v1.0)\
[10.5281/zenodo.3870565](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3870565)
We describe a heuristic algorithm for computing treedepth decompositions, submitted for the [PACE 2020](https://pacechallenge.org/2020) challenge. It relies on a variety of greedy algorithms computing elimination orderings, as well as a Divide & Conquer approach on balanced cuts obtained using a from-scratch reimplementation of the 2016 FlowCutter algorithm by Hamann & Strasser [@HamannS18].
author:
- Marcin Wrochna
bibliography:
- '\\jobname.bib'
date: June 2020
title: '[Sallow – a heuristic algorithm for treedepth decompositions]{}'
---
Orderings and elimination
=========================
We start by recalling a few useful notions and facts (experts will recognize we are essentially describing the well-known statement that $\operatorname{td}(G) = \operatorname{wcol}_\infty(G)$, see e.g. [@sparsityTreedepth Lemma 6.5]).
Treedepth has many equivalent definitions. Small treedepth can be certified as usual by a treedepth decomposition (also known as a Trémaux tree) – it suffices to specify the $\operatorname{\texttt{parent}}$ of each vertex in the tree. A corresponding $\operatorname{\texttt{ordering}}$ is any linear ordering of vertices such that parents come before children – it can be obtained from a $\operatorname{\texttt{parent}}$ vector by any topological sorting algorithm, for example. In turn, any linear $\operatorname{\texttt{ordering}}$ of vertices can be turned into a treedepth decomposition by an elimination process: repeatedly remove the last vertex in the ordering and turn its neighbourhood into a clique. The $\operatorname{\texttt{parent}}$ of the removed vertex is set to the latest vertex in the neighbourhood.
It is easy to check this results in a new valid treedepth decomposition. Moreover, turning a decomposition into an ordering and back cannot increase the depth. To see this, observe that by induction, at any point in the elimination process, the neighbourhood of the removed vertex consists only of its ancestors (in the original decomposition), because all later vertices were removed, hence all introduced edges are still in the ancestor-descendant relationship. This implies in particular that the new parent of each vertex is an ancestor in the original decomposition.
A more static look at the elimination process is through *strongly* and *weakly* reachable vertices. Fix a vertex $v$. A vertex $x$ is in the neighbourhood of $v$ at the moment $v$ is eliminated if and only if $x$ is earlier in the ordering and can be reached, in the original graph, via a path whose internal vertices are later than $v$ in the ordering (= have been eliminated). We say $x$ is *strongly reachable* from $v$ (in the given graph and ordering). So this neighbourhood is the set of strongly reachable vertices (in the graph $G$ with ordering $L$), usually denoted $\operatorname{SReach}_{\infty}[G,L,v]$. Similarly $x$ is *weakly reachable* from $v$ if $x$ is earlier and can be reached via a path whose internal vertices are later than $x$ (instead of “later than $v$”). Equivalently, this relation is the transitive closure of strong reachability. The set of weakly reachable vertices is denoted $\operatorname{WReach}_{\infty}[G,L,v]$ – it is equal to the set of ancestors of $v$ in the treedepth decomposition obtained by elimination.
To give some context, the maximum size of $\operatorname{SReach}_{\infty}[G,L,v]$ over vertices $v$ is the *strong $\infty$-colouring number* of $(G,L)$ and its minimum over all orderings $L$ is equal to $\operatorname{tw}(G) + 1$ [@Arnborg85 Theorem 3.1]. The maximum size of $\operatorname{WReach}_{\infty}[G,L,v]$ over vertices $v$ (hence the depth of the resulting treedepth decomposition) is the *weak $\infty$-colouring number* of $(G,L)$ and its minimum over all orderings $L$ is equal to $\operatorname{td}(G)$. The $\infty$ here is customary because considering only paths of length at most $k$ leads to similar definitions of strong and weak $k$-colouring numbers, which are important in the theory of sparse graphs, see e.g. [@HeuvelMQRS17].
A third, more efficient look at the elimination process comes from the observation that descendants of $v$, in the resulting treedepth decomposition, are exactly vertices reachable in the subgraph induced by vertices later than or equal to $v$ (in the ordering). We can thus define a *building process* on an ordering as follows: we process vertices starting from the last, maintaining connected components of the subgraph induced by vertices process so far. This is sufficient to build the same treedepth decomposition, without changing the graph: we maintain the treedepth decomposition of the subgraph induced by processed vertices (using a $\operatorname{\texttt{parent}}$ vector) and represent each component by the root of the corresponding tree (equivalently, the earliest vertex of the component). When processing a vertex $v$, for each neighbour $y$ later than $v$ in the ordering, to update components we only have to merge $y$’s component with $v$ (initially a singleton). To update the decomposition, we find the root of $y$’s component and make it a child of $v$, which thus becomes the new root. Thus $y$’s parent is the latest weakly reachable vertex, as expected.
Greedy algorithms
=================
The elimination and building processes suggest heuristics for finding treedepth decomposition. For example, we can start with vertices ordered decreasingly by any notion of centrality (e.g. the degree in the original graph), since we expect higher vertices in optimal decompositions to be more ‘central’. Moreover, we can update this ‘centrality score’ of unprocessed vertices on the fly: we maintain a heap of unprocessed vertices with the minimum score at the top, popping and processing a vertex until the heap is empty.
By elimination
--------------
In the elimination process, we update the score of a vertex $v$ based on (a linear combination of)
- its height (one plus the max height of neighbours eliminated so far; once we decide to eliminate $v$ this becomes the height of the subtree rooted at $v$ in the resulting decomposition);
- its degree (in the partially eliminated graph; once we decide to eliminate $v$ this becomes $|\operatorname{SReach}_{\infty}[G,L,v]|$ in the resulting ordering);
- some initial, static score.
Consider a graph with $n$ vertices, $m$ edges, and suppose we stop when unable to obtain a decomposition of depth better than $d$. In the elimination process, we can then assume that the neighbourhood of every vertex at every step is smaller than $d$. Simulating it then requires $\Theta(nd^2)$ time and space in the worst case, because the graph can have that many edges in the middle of the process. This bound is also sufficient; to do the simulation we maintain neighbourhood lists of the partially eliminated graph as `std::vector`s sorted by vertex name (not by the ordering we’re about to compute), so that the union of neighbourhoods can be computed by merge-sort (when turning $v$’s neighbourhood into a clique). Note however that we cannot compute parents on the fly, since the ordering of unprocessed vertices is not yet decided; we do this in a second pass, using the faster building approach once the ordering is fixed. See Algorithm \[alg:elim\] below.
For the initial score, the final implementation only uses the height of vertices in the best previously obtained decomposition. For the parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ that give the linear combination defining the score, the best choice for a single run seems to be to choose non-zero $\alpha$, much larger $\beta$, while $\gamma$ can be zero (e.g. $\langle1,9,0\rangle$). On the other hand, repeating the algorithm with a variety of different parameters often finds significantly better solutions.
`ordering` := $\langle\rangle$\
`height` := $\langle 1,\dots,1\rangle$\
initialize heap with $v \quad \mapsto \quad \alpha \cdot |\texttt{g}[v]|\ +\ \beta \cdot \texttt{height}[v]\ +\ \gamma \cdot \texttt{score}[v]$\
`root` := first in `ordering`\
`depth` := $\texttt{height}[\texttt{root}]$\
compute `parent` from `ordering`\
By building
-----------
The $\Theta(nd^2)$ time and space bound of the elimination process can be prohibitive for huge graphs of large treedepth. Instead, the building process can be simulated in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}(\min(m \cdot \alpha(n), n d))$ time by maintaining components with the classic union-find data structure (where $\alpha$ is the inverse Ackerman function [@TarjanL84] and the latter bound follows from the fact that for each vertex, its pointer in the structure only goes up the tree). We note that this also allows to check the correctness of a treedepth decomposition (by replacing the assignment $\operatorname{\texttt{parent}}[y] := v$ with whatever the original parent was and checking it is a descendant of $v$) in the same running time; this can be significantly faster than the straightforward ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}(md)$ method when $d$ is large.
The details are similar as in Algorithm \[alg:elim\], see Algorithm \[alg:build\]. One change is that $\texttt{g}[v]$ does not represent the neighbourhood of a vertex after elimination; instead, it represents the graph after contracting processed components. For a root vertex $r$ of a component $C$ (starting from singleton components), $\texttt{g}[r]$ stores the neighbours of that component. For a non-root vertex $\texttt{g}[v]$ is cleared (it is important to actually free the memory using `std::vector::shrink_to_fit()`; calling `clear()` keeps the capacity unchanged). This guarantees that the total size never increases. This also means the $\alpha$ part of the score is less meaningful; using $\alpha \cdot |g[x]|$ below would be the same as $\alpha \cdot |N_G(x)|$ (the original degree, since $x$ is not processed yet). Instead we use $\alpha \cdot \max(|g[x]|, |g[v]|)$ as a slightly better heuristic. This does result in noticeably worse results compared to the elimination version.
Moreover, we maintain a union-find structure with pointers $\texttt{ancestor}[v]$. We decided not to balance unions by size or rank, instead of opting for the more natural choice: $\texttt{ancestor}[v]$ is always some ancestor in the treedepth decomposition computed so far ($\texttt{ancestor}[v]$ is $\bot$ for unprocessed vertices). This theoretically spoils the $m \alpha(n)$ running time guarantee, but simplifies the implementation, and we expect the trees to be shallow anyway.
`ordering` := $\langle\rangle$\
`parent` := $\langle\bot,\dots,\bot\rangle$\
`ancestor` := $\langle\bot,\dots,\bot\rangle$\
`height` := $\langle 1,\dots,1\rangle$\
initialize heap with $v \quad \mapsto \quad \alpha \cdot |\texttt{g}[v]|\ +\ \beta \cdot 1\ +\ \gamma \cdot \texttt{score}[v]$\
Super-fast version with lookahead
---------------------------------
In Algorithm \[alg:build\] the cost of computing $\texttt{g}[v]$ is still significant (though much lower compared to the elimination version). A super-fast version can be obtained by removing $\texttt{g}[v]$; however the $\texttt{height}$ of unprocessed vertices cannot be maintained exactly then. In that case the heap is useless and we can simply do the building process with a fixed ordering by initial score.
However, we can significantly improve this super-fast version with a simple lookahead. Instead of processing the last unprocessed vertex, we check the last $\ell$ unprocessed vertices, compute what their height would be at this point, and choose the minimum height. For $\ell=2$ this is almost as fast as a DFS; for $\ell=64$ this is still faster than other versions and results in significantly better depth than DFS, often giving a reasonable ballpark estimate. Nevertheless we essentially always use the full version of Algorithm \[alg:build\] as well, unless we know that the super-fast estimates are good enough (e.g. in recursive runs).
By building with lookahead
--------------------------
A similar idea can be used to get the best of the elimination and building versions. The problem with the building version is that we do not have access to the degree of a vertex after eliminations, for evaluating the heuristic score. A work-around is to do this evaluation exactly (by computing unions of neighbourhoods) for a few vertices close to the top of the heap. In fact, a re-evaluation can only increase the score, pushing a vertex down, so it suffices to re-evaluate and update the top vertex of the heap some constant $\ell$ number of times (completely forgetting the computed unions of neighbourhoods afterwards). We can stop as soon as the top vertex stays at the top after re-evaluation, so even high constants $\ell$ turn out to be quite affordable. For $\ell=1024$, this results in an algorithm that seems just as good as greedy by elimination, yet avoids the heavy memory usage in huge graphs of large treedepth.
All in all, on the public instances of the PACE 2020 challenge, the total score (sum of $\frac{\text{best known depth}}{\text{algorithm's depth}}$ over all tests) and total running time was roughly (with $\langle\alpha,\beta,\gamma\rangle=\langle 1,9,0\rangle$):
- 37% in 1 minute for the “super-fast greedy” version with $\ell=64$,\
- 63% in 8 minutes for the basic “greedy by building” version (Algorithm \[alg:build\]),\
- 72% in 15 minutes for the “building with lookahead $\ell=1024$” version,\
- 86% in 3000 minutes for the “building with lookahead $\ell=1024$” version running 30 minutes on each instance with various $\langle\alpha,\beta,\gamma\rangle$,\
- 96% in 3000 minutes for the final algorithm with Divide & Conquer.
(single-thread on a i7-8550U CPU with `-O3 -march=ivybridge -flto`).
Divide & Conquer
================
The other main component of the submitted algorithm is a simple divide & conquer idea: find a possibly small balanced cut, remove it, recurse into connected components, and output a treedepth decomposition with the cut arranged in a line above the recursively obtained decompositions.
To find balanced cuts we use the FlowCutter algorithm submitted for the PACE 2016 challenge by Ben Strasser. It is a crucial part here as well, but the idea and details are already very well described in a paper by Hamman and Strasser [@HamannS18] (see also some further details in [@Strasser17]). In this submission it is only perhaps noteworthy that the algorithm has been reimplemented from scratch, in an attempt to optimize it (it is after all the main bottleneck on most large instances). The only semantic difference however is that the new implementation works directly on vertex cuts and vertex flows. Unfortunately, this adds some technical complexity, since for example augmenting paths of vertex flows can revisit a vertex twice. An actual experimental comparison remains to be done, but this seems to matter less than how the cuts are actually used.
Due to time constraints of the author, the final algorithm uses the greedy and FlowCutter components in suboptimal ways, in a rather fragile and unprincipled patchwork. It starts with greedy algorithms and then takes the first cut of at least a given balance yielded by FlowCutter and recurses. Afterwards FlowCutter is ran again, without using the fact that in one run it can output several cuts of increasing balance and size. Recursive results are also never used again, instead the algorithm just runs in a loop with more and more costly recursions.
We attempted modifying FlowCutter to judge balance not based on sizes of the two sides, but on estimates of their treedepth (using callbacks). It appears this did not bring significant improvements to the final result, so this modification is turned off in the submitted version.
To speed things up a final feature is that of cutoffs. A bad cutoff $d$ tells the algorithm to abandon any attempt that won’t lead to a decomposition of depth strictly smaller than $d$. For example we use the best know decomposition’s depth as a bad cutoff most of the time. A good cutoff $d$ tells the algorithm to return as soon as it can output a decomposition of depth at most $d$. For example we use the maximum depth in sibling branches computed so far. The estimates obtained at early phases of the algorithm are also used to cut recursion attempts that are unlikely to yield better decompositions. We also use a lower bound based on the degeneracy of a graph and the longest path found in a DFS to quickly finish in some easy cases.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author is very grateful to the [PACE 2020](https://pacechallenge.org/2020) organizers at the University of Warsaw and the OPTIL.io team at the Poznań University of Technology for making this challenge possible. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 714532, PI: Stanislav Živný).
(0,0) (392,10) (382,-50)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study local conservation laws for evolution equations in two independent variables. In particular, we present normal forms for the equations admitting one or two low-order conservation laws. Examples include Harry Dym equation, Korteweg–de-Vries-type equations, and Schwarzian KdV equation. It is also shown that for linear evolution equations all their conservation laws are (modulo trivial conserved vectors) at most quadratic in the dependent variable and its derivatives.'
---
**Conservation Laws and Normal Forms\
of Evolution Equations**
Roman O. POPOVYCH $^\dag$ and Artur SERGYEYEV $^\ddag$
*$^{\dag}$ Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Nordbergstra[ß]{}e 15, A-1090 Wien, Austria*
*$\phantom{^{\dag}}$ Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, 3 Tereshchenkivska Str., Kyiv-4, Ukraine*
*$^{\ddag}$ Mathematical Institute, Silesian University in Opava, Na Rybníčku 1, 746 01 Opava,\
$\phantom{^{\dag}}$ Czech Republic*
$\phantom{^{\dag,\ddag}}$E-mail: *$^\dag$rop@imath.kiev.ua, $^\ddag$Artur.Sergyeyev@math.slu.cz*
Introduction
============
The role played in the sciences by linear and nonlinear evolution equations and, in particular, by conservation laws thereof, is hard to overestimate (recall e.g. linear and nonlinear Schrödinger equations and the Korteweg–de Vries (KdV) equation in physics, reaction-diffusion systems in chemistry and biology, and the Black–Scholes equation in the finance, to name just a few). For instance, the discovery of higher conservation laws for the KdV equations provided an important milestone on the way that has eventually lead to the discovery of the inverse scattering transform and the modern theory of integrable systems, see e.g. . However, the theory of conservation laws for evolution equations is still far from being complete even for the simplest case of two independent variables, and in the present paper we address some issues of the theory in question for this very case.
We shall deal with an evolution equation in two independent variables, $$\label{EqGenEvol}
u_t=F(t,x,u_0,u_1,\dots,u_n),\quad n\ge 2,\quad F_{u_n}\neq 0,$$ where $u_j\equiv {\partial}^j u/{\partial}x^j$, $u_0\equiv u$, and $F_{u_j}={\partial}F/{\partial}u_j$. We shall also employ, depending on convenience or necessity, the following notation for low-order derivatives: $u_x=u_1$, $u_{xx}=u_2$, and $u_{xxx}=u_3$.
There is a considerable body of results on conservation laws of evolution equations of the form . For instance, in the seminal paper the authors studied, [*inter alia*]{}, conservation laws of Eq. with ${\partial}F/{\partial}t=0$ for $n=2$. They proved that the possible dimensions of spaces of inequivalent conservation laws for such equations are 0, 1, 2 and $\infty$, and described the equations possessing spaces of conservation laws of these dimensions (the precise definitions of equivalence and order of conservation laws are given in the next section). These results were further generalized in for the case when $F$ explicitly depends on $t$.
Important results on conservation laws of , typically under the assumptions of polynomiality and $t,x$-independence of $F$ and of the conservation laws themselves, were obtained in [@ag1; @ag2; @ag3; @ag4; @fol1; @fol2; @gal; @kap]. However, for general Eq. there is no simple picture analogous to that of the second-order case discussed above. For instance, unlike the second-order case, there exist odd-order evolution equations that possess infinitely many inequivalent conservation laws of increasing orders without being linearizable. Rather, such equations are integrable via the inverse scattering transform, the famous KdV equation providing a prime example of such behavior, see e.g. and references therein; for the fifth-order equations see [@dss].
Note that many results on symmetries and conservation laws were obtained using the formal symmetry approach and modifications thereof, see e.g. the recent survey [@miksok] and references therein, in particular [@miksok0; @svso]. For instance, it was shown that an equation of even order ($n=2m$) has no conservation laws (modulo trivial ones) of order greater than $m$, see [@ag1; @fol1; @Ibragimov1985; @ig] for details. There also exists a closely related approach to the study of symmetries and conservation laws of evolution equations, the so-called symbolic method, see [@mnw; @sw1; @sw2; @sw3] and references therein for details.
However, many important questions concerning the conservation laws of evolution equations were not answered so far. For example, we are not aware of any significant advances in the study of normal forms of evolution equations admitting low-order conservation laws considered in . In the present paper we provide such normal forms with respect to contact or point transformations for equations admitting one or two low-order conservation laws, respectively, see Theorems \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] and \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\] below. Let us stress that in what follows we restrict ourselves to considering only [*local*]{} conservation laws whose densities and fluxes depend only on the independent and dependent variables and a finite number of the derivatives of the latter.
The complete description of conservation laws for [*linear*]{} evolution equations with $t,x$-dependent coefficients was also missing so far. Below we show that linear even-order equations of the form can only possess conservation laws linear in $u_j$ for all $j=0,1,2,\dots$ while the odd-order equations can further admit the conservation laws (at most) quadratic in $u_j$, see Theorems \[lin-cl-th1\] and \[lin-cl-th2\], Corollary \[peolin\] and Theorem \[poolin\] below. This naturally generalizes some earlier results from [@ag3; @gal]; cf. also [@ashton]. The generation of linear and quadratic conservation laws for linear differential equations is also discussed in some depth in [@Olver1993 Section 5.3].
Below we denote by ${\mathop{\rm CL}\nolimits}(\mathcal E)$ the space of local conservation laws of $\mathcal E$ (cf. Section \[SectionOnAuxiliaryStatements\]), where $\mathcal E$ denotes a fixed equation from the class . In what follows $D_t$ and $D_x$ stand for the total derivatives (see e.g. [@Olver1993] for details) with respect to the variables $t$ and $x$, $$D_t={\partial}_t+u_t{\partial}_u+u_{tt}{\partial}_{u_t}+u_{tx}{\partial}_{u_x}+\cdots,\quad
D_x={\partial}_x+u_x{\partial}_u+u_{tx}{\partial}_{u_t}+u_{xx}{\partial}_{u_x}+\cdots.$$ As usual, the subscripts like $t$, $x$, $u$, $u_x$, etc. stand for the partial derivatives in the respective variables.
Admissible transformations of evolution equations {#SectionOnAdmissibleContactTransformationsOfEvolutionEquations}
=================================================
The contact transformations mapping an equation from class into another equation from the same class are well known [@Magadeev1993] to have the form $$\label{EqContactTransOfGenEvolEqs}
\tilde t=T(t), \quad
\tilde x=X(t,x,u,u_x), \quad
\tilde u=U(t,x,u,u_x).$$ The functions $T$, $X$ and $U$ must satisfy the nondegeneracy assumptions, namely, $T_t\ne0$ and $$\label{EqNondegeneracyAssumptionForContactTransOfGenEvolEqs}
{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_x&X_u&X_{u_x}\\U_x&U_u&U_{u_x}\end{array}\right)=2,$$ and the contact condition $$\label{EqContactConditionForContactTransOfGenEvolEqs}
(U_x+U_uu_x)X_{u_x}=(X_x+X_uu_x)U_{u_x}.$$ The transformation is uniquely extended to the derivative $u_x$ and to the higher derivatives by the formulas $\tilde u_{\tilde x}=V(t,x,u,u_x)$ and $\tilde u_k\equiv{\partial}^k \tilde u/{\partial}\tilde x^k=((1/D_xX)D_x)^kV$, where $$V=\frac{U_x+U_uu_x}{X_x+X_uu_x}\quad\mbox{or}\quad V=\frac{U_{u_x}}{X_{u_x}}$$ if $X_x+X_uu_x\ne0$ or $X_{u_x}\ne0$, respectively; the possibility of simultaneous vanishing of these two quantities is ruled out by (\[EqNondegeneracyAssumptionForContactTransOfGenEvolEqs\]).
The transformed equation reads $\tilde u_{\tilde t}=\tilde F$ where $$\label{EqTransRightHandSideOfGenEvolEqs}
\tilde F=\frac{U_u-X_uV}{T_t}F+\frac{U_t-X_tV}{T_t},$$ and $(X_u,U_u)\ne(0,0)$ because of and .
Any transformation of the form leaves the class invariant, and therefore its extension to an arbitrary element $F$ belongs to the contact equivalence group $G^\sim_{\rm c}$ of class , so there are no other elements in $G^\sim_{\rm c}$. In other words, the equivalence group $G^\sim_{\rm c}$ generates the whole set of admissible contact transformations in the class , i.e., this class is normalized with respect to contact transformations, see for details.
The above results can be summarized as follows.
The class of equations is contact-normalized. The contact equivalence group $G^\sim_{\rm c}$ of the class is formed by the transformations , satisfying conditions and and prolonged to the arbitrary element $F$ by .
Furthermore, the class is also point-normalized. The point equivalence group $G^\sim_{\rm p}$ of this class consists of the transformations of the form $$\label{EqPointTransOfGenEvolEqs}
\tilde t=T(t),\quad \tilde x=X(t,x,u),\quad \tilde u=U(t,x,u),\quad
\tilde F=\frac\Delta{T_tD_xX}F+\frac{U_tD_xX-X_tD_xU}{T_tD_xX},$$ where $T$, $X$ and $U$ are arbitrary smooth functions that satisfy the nondegeneracy conditions $T_t\ne0$ and $\Delta=X_xU_u-X_uU_x\ne0$.
Notice that there exist subclasses of the class whose sets of admissible contact transformations are [*exhausted*]{} by point transformations.
In the present paper we do not consider more general transformations, e.g., differential substitutions such as the Cole–Hopf transformation.
Some basic results on conservation laws {#SectionOnAuxiliaryStatements}
=======================================
It is well known that for any evolution equation we can assume without loss of generality that the associated quantities like symmetries, cosymmetries, densities, etc., can be taken to be independent of the $t$-derivatives or mixed derivatives of $u$. We shall stick to this assumption throughout the rest of the paper.
Following [@Olver1993] we shall refer to a (smooth) function of $t$, $x$ and a finite number of $u_j$ as to a [*differential function*]{}. Given a differential function $f$, its [*order*]{} (denoted by ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}f$) is the greatest integer $k$ such that $f_{u_k}\neq 0$ but $f_{u_j}=0$ for all $j>k$. For $f=f(t,x)$ we assume that ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}f=0$.
Thus, for a (fixed) evolution equation , which we denote by $\mathcal E$ as before, we lose no generality [@Olver1993] in considering only the [*conserved vectors*]{} of the form $(\rho,\sigma)$, where $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are differential functions which satisfy the condition $$\label{cl0}
D_t\rho+D_x\sigma=0 \bmod \check{\mathcal E},$$ and $\check{\mathcal E}$ means the equation $\mathcal E$ together with all its differential consequences. Here $\rho$ is the [*density*]{} and $\sigma$ is the [*flux*]{} for the conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$. Let $$\frac{\delta}{\delta u}=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}(-D_x)^i{\partial}_{u_i}, \quad
f_*=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}f_{u_i}D_x^i, \quad
f_*^\dagger=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}(-D_x)^i\circ f_{u_i},$$ denote the operator of variational derivative, the Fréchet derivative of a differential function $f$, and its formal adjoint, respectively. With this notation in mind we readily infer that the condition can be rewritten as $\rho_t+\rho_* F+D_x\sigma=0$. As $\rho_* F=F\delta\rho/\delta u+D_x\zeta$ for some differential function $\zeta$, see e.g. [@Ibragimov1985 Section 22.5], there exists a differential function $\Psi$ (in fact, $\Psi=-\zeta-\sigma$) such that $$\label{cl0a}
\rho_t+F\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta u}=D_x\Psi.$$
A conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ is called *trivial* if it satisfies the condition $D_t\rho+D_x\sigma=0$ on the entire jet space. It is easily seen that the conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ is trivial if and only if $\rho\in\mathop{\rm Im} D_x$, i.e., there exists a differential function $\zeta$ such that $\rho=D_x\zeta$. Two conserved vectors are [*equivalent*]{} if they differ by a trivial conserved vector. We shall call a [*conservation law*]{} of $\mathcal E$ an equivalence class of conserved vectors of $\mathcal E$. The set ${\mathop{\rm CL}\nolimits}(\mathcal E)$ of conservation laws of $\mathcal E$ is a vector space, and the zero element of this space is the conservation law being the equivalence class of trivial conserved vectors. This is why nonzero conservation laws are usually called [*nontrivial*]{}.
For any conservation law $\mathcal L$ of $\mathcal E$ there exists a unique differential function $\gamma$ called the [*characteristic*]{} of $\mathcal L$ such that for any conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ associated with $\mathcal L$ (we shall write this as $(\rho,\sigma)\in \mathcal L$) there exists a trivial conserved vector $(\tilde\rho,\tilde\sigma)$ satisfying the condition $$\label{clch}
D_t(\rho+\tilde\rho)+D_x(\sigma+\tilde\sigma)=\gamma (u_t-F).$$ It is important to stress that, unlike , the above equation holds on the entire jet space rather than merely modulo $\check{\mathcal E}$.
The characteristic $\gamma$ of any conservation law satisfies the equation (see e.g. [@Olver1993]) $$\label{cosym}
D_t\gamma+F_*^\dagger\gamma=0\bmod\check{\mathcal E},
\qquad\mbox{or equivalently,}\qquad
\gamma_t+\gamma_*F+F_*^\dagger\gamma=0.$$ However, in general a solution of is not necessarily a characteristic of some conservation law for . Solutions of are called [*cosymmetries*]{}, see e.g. [@Blaszak].
It can be shown that the characteristic of the conservation law associated with a conserved vector of the form $(\rho,\sigma)$ equals $\delta\rho/\delta u$. This yields a necessary and sufficient condition for a cosymmetry $\gamma$ to be a characteristic of a conservation law (see e.g. [@Olver1993]): $\gamma_*=\gamma_*^\dagger$. This condition means simply that the Fréchet derivative of $\gamma$ is formally self-adjoint.
The following results are well known, see e.g. [@fol1] for Lemma \[LemmaOnFormOfConsVecsOfEvolEqs\].
\[LemmaOnFormOfConsVecsOfEvolEqs2\] Suppose that an equation from the class admits a nontrivial conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$, where ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\rho=k>0$, and $\rho_{u_k u_k}=0$. Then the conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ is equivalent to a conserved vector $(\tilde\rho,\tilde\sigma)$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\tilde{\rho}\leqslant k-1$.
By assumption, $\rho=\rho^1 u_k+\rho^0$, and hence $\sigma=-\rho^1
D_x^{k-1} (F)+\sigma^0$, where $\rho^1=\rho^1(t,x,u,u_1,\dots,u_{k-1})$, $\rho^0=\rho^0(t,x,u,u_1,\dots,u_{k-1})$, and $\sigma^0=\sigma^0(t,x,u,u_1,\dots,u_{k+n})$. Put $\tilde
\rho=\rho-D_x\Phi$ and $\tilde\sigma=\sigma+D_t\Phi$, where $\Phi=\int\rho^1 du_{k-1}$. Then $\tilde\rho_{u_k}=0$, $\tilde\sigma_{u_{k+n}}=0$ and $(\tilde\rho,\tilde\sigma)$ is a conserved vector equivalent to $(\rho,\sigma)$, and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\tilde{\rho}\leqslant k-1$.
In what follows, for any given conservation law $\mathcal L$ we shall, unless otherwise explicitly stated, choose a representative (that is, the conserved vector) with the lowest possible order $k$ of the associated density $\rho$. The order in question (i.e., the greatest integer $k$ such that $\rho_{u_ku_k}\neq 0$ but $\rho_{u_j}=0$ for all $j>k$) will be called the [*density order*]{} of $\mathcal L$ and denoted by ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L$. It equals one half of the order of the associated characteristic.
\[LemmaOnFormOfConsVecsOfEvolEqs\] For any conservation law $\mathcal L$ of a $(1+1)$-dimensional even-order ($n=2q$) evolution equation of the form we have ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant q$.
Evolution equations having low-order conservation laws {#SectionOnEvolutionEquationsHavingLow-OrderConservationLaws}
======================================================
Contact and point equivalence transformations can be used for bringing equations from the class that admit (at least) one or two nontrivial low-order conservation laws into certain special forms. This is achieved through bringing the conservation laws in question to normal forms.
\[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] Any pair $(\mathcal E,\mathcal L)$, where $\mathcal E$ is an equation of the form and $\mathcal L$ is a nontrivial conservation law of $\mathcal E$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant 1$ is $G^\sim_{\rm c}$-equivalent to a pair $(\tilde{\mathcal E},\tilde{\mathcal L})$, where $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ is an equation of the same form and $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ is a conservation law of $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ with the characteristic equal to $1$.
Let $\mathcal T\in G^\sim_{\rm c}$ map an equation $\mathcal E$ into (another) equation $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ from the same class , see Section \[SectionOnAdmissibleContactTransformationsOfEvolutionEquations\]. Quite obviously, the inverse $\mathcal T^{-1}$ of $\mathcal T$ induces (through pullback) a mapping from the space ${\mathop{\rm CL}\nolimits}(\mathcal E)$ of conservation laws of $\mathcal E$ to ${\mathop{\rm CL}\nolimits}(\tilde{\mathcal E})$. The conserved vectors of $\mathcal E$ are transformed into those of $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ according to the formula $$\tilde \rho=\frac \rho{D_xX}, \quad \tilde \sigma=\frac \sigma{T_t}+\frac {D_tX}{D_xX}\frac \rho{T_t}.$$ Now let an equation $\mathcal E$ from the class have a nontrivial conservation law $\mathcal L$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant1$. Fix a conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ associated with $\mathcal L$, and set $T=t$. The density $\tilde \rho$ of the transformed conserved vector $(\tilde \rho,\tilde \sigma)$ is easily seen to depend at most on $\tilde t$, $\tilde x$, $\tilde u$, $\tilde u_{\tilde x}$ and $\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}$. Moreover, it is immediate that $\tilde\rho$ is linear in $\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}$, so we can pass to an equivalent conserved vector $(\bar\rho,\bar\sigma)$ such that ${\partial}\bar\rho/{\partial}\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}=0$, and hence for the transformed counterpart $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ of $\mathcal L$ we have ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\mathrm{d}} \tilde{\mathcal L}\leqslant1$.
Next, the conservation law $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ associated with $(\tilde \rho,\tilde \sigma)$ has characteristic $1$ if and only if there exists a function $\tilde\Phi=\tilde\Phi(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde u,\tilde u_{\tilde x})$ such that $\tilde\rho=\tilde u+D_{\tilde x}\tilde\Phi$. Upon going back to the old coordinates $x, t, u, u_x$ and bearing in mind that $\tilde u=U(t,x,u,u_x)$ and $\tilde x=X(t,x,u,u_x)$ this boils down to $D_x\Phi+UD_xX=\rho$, where $\Phi(t,x,u,u_x)=\tilde\Phi(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde u,\tilde u_{\tilde x})$. Splitting the equation $D_x\Phi+UD_xX=\rho$ with respect to $u_{xx}$ yields the system $$\label{EqCLsOfEvolEqsSystemForReductionOf1CL}
\Phi_x+UX_x+(\Phi_u+UX_u)u_x=\rho, \quad \Phi_{u_x}+U X_{u_x}=0.$$ This system in conjunction with the contact condition has, [*inter alia*]{}, the following differential consequence: $$\Phi_u+UX_u=\rho_{u_x}.$$ It is obtained as follows. We subtract the result of action of the operator ${\partial}_x+u_x{\partial}_u$ on the second equation of from the partial $u_x$-derivative of the first equation of while taking into account the contact condition . Moreover, the system also implies the equation $\Phi_x+UX_x=\rho-u_x\rho_{u_x}$. Thus, we arrive at the system $$\label{EqCLsOfEvolEqsSystemForReductionOf1CL2}
\Phi_x+UX_x=\rho-u_x\rho_{u_x}, \quad \Phi_u+UX_u=\rho_{u_x}, \quad \Phi_{u_x}+UX_{u_x}=0.$$ Reversing these steps shows that the system implies and . Hence the combined system of and is equivalent to .
To complete the proof, it suffices to check that for any function $\rho=\rho(t,x,u,u_x)$ with $(\rho_u,\rho_{u_x})\ne(0,0)$ the system has a solution $(X,U,\Phi)$ which satisfies the nondegeneracy condition .
Consider first the case $\rho_{u_xu_x}\ne0$ and seek for solutions with $X_{u_x}\ne0$. The equation $ \quad \Phi_{u_x}+UX_{u_x}=0$ implies that $\Phi_{u_x}\ne0$ and $U=-\Phi_{u_x}/X_{u_x}$. Then the remaining equations in take the form $$\label{EqCLsOfEvolEqsSystemForReductionOf1CL3}
\Phi_x-\frac{X_x}{X_{u_x}}\Phi_{u_x}=\rho-u_x\rho_{u_x}, \quad \Phi_u-\frac{X_u}{X_{u_x}}\Phi_{u_x}=\rho_{u_x}.$$ Eq. can be considered as an overdetermined system with respect to $\Phi$. The compatibility condition for this system is $$\rho_{u_xu_x}X_x+u_x\rho_{u_xu_x}X_u+(\rho_u-u_x\rho_{uu_x}-\rho_{xu_x})X_{u_x}=0;$$ it should be treated as an equation for $X$. As $\rho_{u_xu_x}\ne0$ by assumption, the equation in question has a local solution $X^0$ with $X^0_{u_x}\ne0$. Substituting $X^0$ into yields a compatible partial differential system for $\Phi$. Take a local solution $\Phi^0$ of this system and set $U^0=-\Phi^0_{u_x}/X^0_{u_x}$. The chosen triple $(X^0,U^0,\Phi^0)$ satisfies .
The nondegeneracy condition is also satisfied. Indeed, if we assume the converse, then $U=\Psi(t,X)$ for some function $\Psi$ of two arguments, and implies the equality $$\rho=\Phi_x+\Psi X_x+(\Phi_u+\Psi X_u)u_x+(\Phi_{u_x}+\Psi X_{u_x})u_{xx}=D_x(\Phi+\textstyle\int\!\Psi\,dX),$$ i.e., $(\rho,\sigma)$ is a trivial conserved vector, which contradicts the initial assumption on $(\rho,\sigma)$.
Now turn to the case when $\rho_{u_xu_x}=0$. Then up to the equivalence of conserved vectors we can assume that $\rho_{u_x}=0$ and $\rho_u\ne0$, where the latter condition ensures nontriviality of the associated conserved vector. The triple $(X,U,\Phi)=(x,\rho,0)$ obviously satisfies and , and the result follows.
\[CorollaryOnOne0OrderConsLawOfEvolEqs\] Any pair $(\mathcal E,\mathcal L)$, where $\mathcal E$ is an equation of the form and $\mathcal L$ is a nontrivial conservation law of $\mathcal E$ with the density order 0 is $G^\sim_{\rm p}$-equivalent to a pair $(\tilde{\mathcal E},\tilde{\mathcal L})$, where $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ also is an equation of form and $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ is a conservation law of $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ with the characteristic equal to $1$.
\[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithOne1stOrderConsLaw\] An equation $\mathcal E$ from class admits a nontrivial conservation law $\mathcal L$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L=0$) if and only if it can be locally reduced by a contact (resp. point) transformation to the form $$\label{EqCanonicalFormOfEvolEqsWithOne1stOrderConsLaw}
\tilde{u}_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}G(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde{u}_0,\dots,\tilde{u}_{n-1}),\quad
G_{\tilde{u}_{n-1}}\ne0.$$
Note that upon setting $n=3$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L=0$ in this corollary we recover Theorem 1.1 from [@fol2].
Fix a nontrivial conservation law $\mathcal L$ of $\mathcal E$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L=0$). By Theorem \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] (resp. Corollary \[CorollaryOnOne0OrderConsLawOfEvolEqs\]), the pair $(\mathcal E,\mathcal L)$ is reduced by a contact (resp. point) transformation to a pair $(\tilde{\mathcal E},\tilde{\mathcal L})$, where the equation $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ has the form $\tilde u_{\tilde t}=\tilde F(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde u_0,\dots,\tilde u_n)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ is its conservation law with the unit characteristic. Therefore, the equality $D_{\tilde t}\tilde \rho+D_{\tilde x}\tilde \sigma=\tilde u_{\tilde t}-\tilde F$ is satisfied for a conserved vector $(\tilde \rho,\tilde \sigma)$ from $\tilde{\mathcal L}$, i.e., up to a summand being a null divergence we have $\tilde \rho=\tilde u$ and $\tilde F=-D_{\tilde x}\tilde \sigma$. To complete the proof, it suffices to put $G=-\tilde \sigma$.
Conversely, let the equation $\mathcal E$ be locally reducible by a contact (resp. point) transformation $\mathcal T$ to the equation $\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}G(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde{u}_0,\dots,\tilde{u}_{n-1})$, where $G_{\tilde{u}_{n-1}}\ne0$. The transformed equation $\tilde u_{\tilde
t}=D_{\tilde x}G$ admits at least the conservation law $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ with the unit characteristic. The preimage $\mathcal L$ of $\tilde{\mathcal L}$ with respect to $\mathcal T$ is a nontrivial conservation law of $\mathcal E$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L\leqslant1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal
L=0$).
\[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithTwo1thAndLowOrderConsLaws\] If an equation $\mathcal E$ of the form with $n\geqslant4$ (resp. $n\geqslant5$) has two linearly independent conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$, where ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm I}\leqslant1$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}\leqslant n/2-1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}<n/2-1$) then it can be locally reduced by a contact transformation to the form where $G$ is linear fractional (resp. linear) with respect to $\tilde u_{n-1}$, i.e., $$G=\frac{G_1\tilde u_{n-1}+G_0}{G_3\tilde u_{n-1}+G_2} \quad(\mbox{resp. } G=G_1\tilde u_{n-1}+G_0),$$ where $G_0$, …, $G_3$ (resp. $G_0$ and $G_1$) are differential functions of order less than $n-1$. If ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm I}=0$ then the contact transformation in question is a prolongation of a point transformation.=-1
Without loss of generality we can assume that ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm I}\leqslant{\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}$. By Theorem \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] and Corollary \[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithOne1stOrderConsLaw\], the pair $(\mathcal E,\mathcal L^{\rm I})$ is reduced by a contact transformation to a pair $(\tilde{\mathcal E},\tilde{\mathcal L}^{\rm I})$, where the equation $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ is of form and the conservation law $\tilde{\mathcal L}^{\rm I}$ has the density $\tilde u$. The transformed conservation law $\tilde{\mathcal L}^{\rm II}$ satisfies the same inequality as the original one, $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$, i.e., ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\tilde{\mathcal L}^{\rm II}\leqslant n/2-1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\tilde{\mathcal L}^{\rm II}<n/2-1$) if $n\geqslant4$ (resp. $n\geqslant5$). Below we omit tildes over the transformed variables for convenience and assume that the conservation law $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ possesses the density $u$ and, therefore, the equation $\mathcal E$ has the form . Let $(\rho^{\rm II},\sigma^{\rm II})$ be a conserved vector associated with $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\rho^{\rm II}={\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}$. By , it satisfies the condition $ \rho^{\rm II}_t+(D_xG)\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u=D_x\Psi $ for some differential function $\Psi$. The last equality can be rewritten as $$\label{Grho}
\rho^{\rm II}_t-GD_x(\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)=D_x\Phi,$$ where $\Phi=\Psi-G \delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u$. Note that $D_x(\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)\ne0$ because otherwise the conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ are linearly dependent. As ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\rho^{\rm II}_t<n-1$, ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}G=n-1$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}D_x(\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)\leqslant n-1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}D_x(\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)<n-1$), we have ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\Phi<n-1$. Finally, as $D_x (\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)$ must be linear in the highest-order $x$-derivative of $u$ it contains, expressing $G$ from (\[Grho\]) and taking into account the above inequalities for ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}D_x(\delta\rho^{\rm II}/\delta u)$ immediately yields the desired result.
\[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\] Let $\mathcal E$ be an equation of the form and $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ be linearly independent conservation laws of $\mathcal E$ of density order 0. Any such triple $(\mathcal E,\mathcal L^{\rm I},\mathcal L^{\rm II})$ is $\smash{G^\sim_{\rm p}}$-equivalent to a triple $(\tilde{\mathcal E},\tilde{\mathcal L^{\rm I}},\tilde{\mathcal L^{\rm II}})$, where $\tilde{\mathcal E}$ is an equation from the same class that admits conservation laws $\tilde{\mathcal L^{\rm I}}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal L^{\rm II}}$ with the characteristics equal to 1 and $\tilde x$, respectively.
Let $(\rho^i,\sigma^i)\in\mathcal L^i$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\rho^i=0$, $i={\rm I,II}$. Then $\gamma^i=\rho^i_u$ is the characteristic of $\mathcal L^i$, $i={\rm I,II}$. Moreover, $\gamma^{\rm I}$ and $\gamma^{\rm II}$ are linearly independent differential functions in view of the linear independence of conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$. Therefore, we have $(\lambda_x,\lambda_u)\ne(0,0)$, where $\lambda=\gamma^{\rm II}/\gamma^{\rm I}$. (Indeed, otherwise the substitution of these characteristics into would imply that $\lambda_t=0$ as well, i.e., the characteristics $\gamma^{\rm I}$ and $\gamma^{\rm II}$ would be linearly dependent.)
We will prove the existence of (and, in fact, construct) a point equivalence transformation of the form with $T(t)=t$ such that the transformed conserved vectors $(\tilde \rho^{\rm I},\tilde \sigma^{\rm I})$ and $(\tilde \rho^{\rm II},\tilde \sigma^{\rm II})$ are equivalent to the conserved vectors with the densities $\tilde u$ and $\tilde x\tilde u$, respectively. In other words, we want to have $\tilde \rho^{\rm I}=\tilde u+D_{\tilde x}\Phi$ and $\tilde \rho^{\rm II}=\tilde x\tilde u+D_{\tilde x}\Psi$ for some functions $\Phi=\Phi(t,x,u)$ and $\Psi=\Psi(t,x,u)$. In the old coordinates these conditions take the form $D_x\Phi+UD_xX=\rho^{\rm I}$ and $D_x\Psi+XUD_xX=\rho^{\rm II}$. Splitting them with respect to $u_x$ yields $$\begin{array}{l}\Phi_x+UX_x=\rho^{\rm I},\\[1ex] \Phi_u+UX_u=0\end{array}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\begin{array}{l}\Psi_x+XUX_x=\rho^{\rm II},\\[1ex]\Psi_u+XUX_u=0.\end{array}$$ After the elimination of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ from these systems through cross-differentiation, we arrive at the conditions $X_xU_u-X_uU_x=\rho^{\rm I}_u$ and $\rho^{\rm I}_uX=\rho^{\rm II}_u$. If we set $X=\lambda=\rho^{\rm II}_u/\rho^{\rm I}_u$ then $(X_x,X_u)\ne(0,0)$. This ensures existence of a function $U=U(t,x,u)$ which locally satisfies the equation $X_xU_u-X_uU_x=\rho^{\rm I}_u$. It is obvious that the so chosen functions $X$ and $U$ are functionally independent and that the above systems are then compatible with respect to $\Phi$ and $\Psi$, and hence the point transformation we sought for does exist.
\[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithTwo0thOrderConsLaws\] An equation $\mathcal E$ of the form has (at least) two linearly independent conservation laws of density order 0 if and only if it can be locally reduced by a point transformation to the form $$\label{cf1x}
\tilde{u}_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2H(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde{u}_0,\dots,\tilde{u}_{n-2}), \quad
H_{\tilde{u}_{n-2}}\ne0.$$
If $\mathcal E$ of the form admits (at least) two linearly independent conservation laws of density order 0, then by Theorem \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\] we can assume (modulo a suitably chosen point transformation, if necessary) that $\mathcal E$ has the conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ with the characteristics 1 and $x$, respectively. Then there exist conserved vectors $(\rho^{\rm I},\sigma^{\rm I})\in\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $(\rho^{\rm II},\sigma^{\rm II})\in\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ such that $$D_t\rho^{\rm I}+D_x\sigma^{\rm I}=u_t-F, \quad D_t\rho^{\rm II}+D_x\sigma^{\rm II}=x(u_t-F).$$ Up to the equivalence of conserved vectors modulo trivial ones we have $\rho^{\rm I}=u$ and $\rho^{\rm II}=xu$. Hence $D_x\sigma^{\rm I}=-F$ and $D_x\sigma^{\rm II}=-xF$. Combining these equalities, we find that $\sigma^{\rm I}=-D_x(\sigma^{\rm II}-x\sigma^{\rm I})$, i.e., $F=D_x^2(\sigma^{\rm II}-x\sigma^{\rm I})$. As a result, we can represent the equation $\mathcal E$ in the form $u_t=D_x^2H$, where $H=\sigma^{\rm II}-x\sigma^{\rm I}$, ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}H=n-2$.
Conversely, assume that $\mathcal E$ is reduced to the equation $\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2H(\tilde t,\tilde x,\tilde
u,\dots,\tilde u_{n-2})$, where $H_{\tilde u_{n-2}}\ne0$, through a point transformation $\mathcal T$. The transformed equation $\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2H$ admits at least two linearly independent conservation laws, in particular, those with the characteristics 1 and $\tilde x$. Their preimages under $\mathcal T$ are linearly independent conservation laws of $\mathcal E$ whose density orders are zero, and the result follows.
\[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithTwo1thAndLowOrderConsLaws2\] If an equation $\mathcal E$ of the form with $n\geqslant5$ (resp. $2\leqslant n\leqslant4$) has two linearly independent conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ with ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm I}\leqslant1$ and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}<n/2-1$ (resp. ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm I}={\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}_{\rm d}\mathcal L^{\rm II}=0$), then the right-hand side $F$ of $\mathcal E$ has the form $$F=F_3 u_n+F_2 u_{n-1}^2+F_1u_{n-1}+F_0,$$ where $F_0$, …, $F_3$ are differential functions of order less than $n-1$.
If in the proof of Corollary \[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithTwo0thOrderConsLaws\] we replace the conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ by linear combinations thereof, $\hat{\mathcal L}^{\rm I}=a_{11}\mathcal L^{\rm I}+a_{12}\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ and $\hat{\mathcal L}^{\rm II}=a_{21}\mathcal L^{\rm I}+a_{22}\mathcal L^{\rm II}$, where $a_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2$, are arbitrary constants such that $a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21}\ne0$, then the associated equations of the form are related through the transformation $$\hat t =\tilde t, \quad
\hat x=\frac{a_{22}\tilde x+a_{21}}{a_{12}\tilde x+a_{11}}, \quad
\hat u=\frac{(a_{12}\tilde x+a_{11})^3}{a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21}}\tilde u, \quad
\hat H=\frac{a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21}}{a_{12}\tilde x+a_{11}}H,$$ where $\hat t$, $\hat x$, $\hat u$ and the differential function $\hat H$ correspond to the conservation laws $\hat{\mathcal L}^{\rm I, II}$. Such transformations, considered for all admissible values of $a_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2$, form a subgroup $\mathcal G$ of the point equivalence group for the class of equations of the form . Thus, up to the $\mathcal G$-equivalence we can assume that the form of the equation $\mathcal E$ is associated with the two-dimensional [*subspace*]{} spanned by its conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ rather than with $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ [*per se*]{}.
Examples: third-order evolution equations {#SectionOnExamplesOfThird-orderEvolutionEqs}
=========================================
We start with the so-called Harry Dym (HD) equation, see e.g. [@Ibragimov1985 Section 20.2] and references therein for more details: $$u_t=u^3 u_{xxx}.$$ The subspace of its conservation laws of density order not greater than one is five-dimensional and generated by the zero-order conservation laws $\mathcal L^i$, $i={\rm I},\dots, {\rm IV}$, with the densities $\rho^{\rm I}=u^{-2}$, $\rho^{\rm II}=xu^{-2}$, $\rho^{\rm III}=x^2u^{-2}$, and $\rho^{\rm IV}=u^{-1}$, and the first-order conservation law $\mathcal L^V$ with the density $\rho^{\rm V}=u_x^2u^{-1}$.
The first three densities agree in the sense that $\rho^{\rm II}/\rho^{\rm I}=\rho^{\rm III}/\rho^{\rm II}$. Hence upon introducing new variables $\tilde t=-2t{\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits}u$, $\tilde x=x$, $\tilde u=u^{-2}$ obtained by applying Theorem \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\] to $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$, the HD equation can be rewritten in an even more specific than , and also well-known, conservative form $
\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^3(\tilde u^{-1/2}).
$ (We transformed $t$ above in order to simplify the transformed equation.) The transformed equation obviously admits conservation laws with the characteristics equal to 1, $x$ and $x^2$.
For the pair of conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm IV}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ Theorem \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\] yields the transformation $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=-2/u$, $\tilde u=x/2$ which maps the HD equation into the equation $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2\left(\frac1{2\tilde x^3\tilde u_{\tilde x}^2}\right).$$
The conservation law $\mathcal L^{\rm V}$ is mapped into a conservation law with the characteristic $1$ by the contact transformation $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=u_x^2/u$, $\tilde u=u-2u/u_x$, $\tilde u=u^2/u_x^3$ constructed using the method from the proof of Theorem \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\]. The corresponding transformed equation reads $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}\left(\frac{-\tilde x^8\tilde u_{\tilde x}^6}
{4(2\tilde x\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}+3\tilde u_{\tilde x})^2}\right).$$
Consider now the class of KdV-type equations $$\label{kdvtype}
u_t=u_{xxx}+f(u)u_x.$$ Any equation from this class admits at least three conservation laws $\mathcal L^i$, $i={\rm I},\dots, {\rm III}$, with the densities $\rho^{\rm I}=u$, $\rho^{\rm II}=u^2/2$, $\rho^{\rm III}=-u_x^2/2+\check f(u)$, where ${\partial}\hat f/{\partial}u=f$, ${\partial}\check f/{\partial}u=\hat f$. It is straightforward to verify that if ${\partial}^3 f/{\partial}u^3\neq 0$ these conservation laws form a basis in the space of the conservation laws of density order not greater than one.
The reduction to the form using $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ (resp. $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$) according to Theorem \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] is immediate. The conservation law $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ gives rise to the identity transformation and the representation $u_t=D_x(u_{xx}+\hat f(u))$ for . The transformation associated with $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ is $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=x$ and $\tilde u=\rho^{\rm II}=u^2/2$. It maps equation into $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}\left(\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}
-\frac34\frac{\tilde u_{\tilde x}^2}{\tilde u}
+\varepsilon\sqrt{2\tilde u}\hat f(\varepsilon\sqrt{2\tilde u})-\check f(\varepsilon\sqrt{2\tilde u}) \right),$$ where $\varepsilon={\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits}u$.
Now consider the conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ and apply Theorem \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\]. We can directly follow the procedure from the proof of this theorem and set $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=\rho^{\rm II}_u=u$ and $\tilde u=x$. This is nothing but the hodograph transformation interchanging $x$ and $u$. It reduces equation to the equation (cf. [@fol2]) $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2\left(\frac1{2\tilde u_{\tilde x}^2}-\check f(\tilde x) \right).$$
The KdV equation, i.e., equation with $f(u)=u$, possesses one more linearly independent zero-order conservation law $\mathcal L^{\rm IV}$ with the density $\rho^{\rm IV}=xu+tu^2/2$, cf. . This gives more possibilities for reduction to the forms and .
In analogy with the previous example, we find that the transformation associated with $\mathcal L^{\rm IV}$ is $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=x$ and $\tilde u=\rho^{\rm IV}=xu+tu^2/2$. It maps the KdV equation into $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}\left(\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}
-\frac32\frac{\tilde t}Z\tilde u_{\tilde x}^2-3\frac{\tilde x}{Z}\tilde u_{\tilde x}
\pm\frac{Z^{3/2}}{3\tilde t^2}+3\frac{\tilde u}Z-\frac{\tilde x}{\tilde t}\tilde u-\frac{\tilde x^3}{3\tilde t^2}
\right),$$ where $Z=\tilde x^2+2\tilde t\tilde u$.
For the pair of the conservation laws $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm IV}$ we have the transformation of the form $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=\rho^{\rm IV}_u=x+tu$ and $\tilde u=u$, and the transformed equation reads $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}\left(\frac{\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}}{(1-t\tilde u_{\tilde x})^3} \right)
=D_{\tilde x}^2\left(\frac{(1-t\tilde u_{\tilde x})^{-2}}{2t}\right).$$
Another pair of the conservation laws, $\mathcal L^{\rm II}$ and $\mathcal L^{\rm IV}$, gives rise to a more complicated transformation $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde x=x/u+t$, $\tilde u=u^3/3$, and a more cumbersome transformed equation, $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}^2\left(\frac
{((\tilde x-\tilde t)\tilde u_{\tilde x}+6\tilde u)\tilde u_{\tilde x}}
{2((\tilde x-\tilde t)\tilde u_{\tilde x}+3\tilde u)^2}
\right).$$ Note that exhaustive lists of one- and two-dimensional subspaces of zero-order conservation laws of the KdV equation that are not equivalent with respect to the Lie point symmetry group of the latter are $\{\langle\mathcal L^{\rm I}\rangle,\langle\mathcal L^{\rm II}\rangle,\langle\mathcal L^{\rm IV}\rangle\}$ and $\{\langle\mathcal L^{\rm I},\mathcal L^{\rm II}\rangle,\langle\mathcal L^{\rm I},
\mathcal L^{\rm IV}\rangle,\langle\mathcal L^{\rm II},\mathcal L^{\rm IV}\rangle\}$, respectively. Therefore, the above description of normal forms and related to zero-order conservation laws of the KdV equation is complete modulo the action of the Lie point symmetry group of the KdV equation, cf. Remark 1.
The Schwarzian KdV equation $$u_t=u_{xxx}-\frac32\frac{u_{xx}^2}{u_x}$$ possesses no zero-order conservation laws. The subspace of its first-order conservation laws is spanned by the conservation laws $\mathcal L^i$, $i={\rm I},\dots, {\rm III}$, with the densities $\rho^{\rm I}=1/u_x$, $\rho^{\rm II}=u/u_x$, $\rho^{\rm III}=u^2/u_x$. For transforming $\mathcal L^{\rm I}$ into a conservation law with the density $u$, we construct, following the proof of Theorem \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\], the contact transformation $$\tilde t=t,\quad
\tilde x=u_x,\quad
\tilde x=\frac{2x}{u_x^2}-\frac{2u}{u_x^3},\quad
\tilde u=-\frac{4x}{u_x^3}+\frac{6u}{u_x^4},$$ which maps the Schwarzian KdV equation into $$\tilde u_{\tilde t}=D_{\tilde x}\left(\frac{-4\tilde x^{-5}}
{(\tilde x^2\tilde u_{\tilde x\tilde x}+6\tilde x\tilde u_{\tilde x}+6\tilde u)^2} \right).$$
Further examples of normal forms for low-order nonlinear evolution equations, including physically relevant examples like the nonlinear diffusion-convection equations, can be found in .
Conservation laws of linear evolution equations {#SectionOnCLsOfLinEvolEqs}
===============================================
Any linear partial differential equation admits conservation laws whose characteristics depend on independent variables only and run through the set of solutions of the adjoint equation. The corresponding conserved vectors are linear with respect to the unknown function and its derivatives. It is natural to call the conservation laws of this kind *linear* [@Olver1993 Section 5.3]. Let us stress that, following the literature, here and below we allow for a slight abuse of terminology by calling a conservation law linear (resp. quadratic) when it contains a conserved vector which is linear (resp. quadratic) in the totality of variables $u_0,u_1,u_2,\dots$.
The problem of describing other kinds of conservation laws for general linear partial differential equations is quite difficult. However, it can be solved for certain special classes of equations including linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equations.
Consider an equation $\mathcal E$ of form , where the function $F$ is linear in $u_0$, …, $u_n$, i.e., $$F=\mathfrak F\,u=\sum_{i=0}^n A^i(t,x)u_i, \quad\mbox{where}\quad
\mathfrak F=\sum_{i=0}^n A^i(t,x)D_x^i, \quad A^n\ne0.$$ Thus, the equation $\mathcal E$ reads $$\label{lineq}
u_t=\mathfrak F\,u.$$ Then the condition for cosymmetries takes the form $$D_t\gamma+\mathfrak F^\dagger\gamma=0\bmod\check{\mathcal E}, \quad\mbox{where}\quad
\mathfrak F^\dagger=\sum_{i=0}^n (-D_x)^i\circ A^i(t,x).$$ The operator $\mathfrak F^\dagger$ is the formal adjoint of $\mathfrak F$. Writing out the condition yields $$\label{EqForCharsOfLinEvolEqs}
\gamma_t +\sum_k\gamma_{u_k}\sum_{i=0}^n\sum_{j=0}^k\binom kj
A^i_{k-j}u_{i+j}+\sum_{i=0}^n(-1)^i\sum_{s=0}^i\binom is
A^i_{i-s}D_x^s\gamma =0,$$ where $A_j^i={\partial}^j A^i/{\partial}x^j$.
A function $v=v(t,x)$ is a cosymmetry of the equation $\mathcal E$ if and only if it is a solution of the [*adjoint*]{} equation $\mathcal E^*$: $$\label{ale}
v_t+\mathfrak F^\dagger v=0.$$ Any cosymmetry of $\mathcal E$ that does not depend on $u$ and the derivatives thereof is a characteristic of a linear conservation law of $\mathcal E$, and any linear conservation law of $\mathcal E$ has a characteristic of this form. Namely, a solution $v=v(t,x)$ of the adjoint equation $\mathcal E^*$ corresponds to the conserved vector $(\rho,\sigma)$ of $\mathcal E$ with $\rho=v(t,x) u$ and $\sigma=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\sigma^i(t,x)u_i$. The coefficients $\sigma^i$ are found recursively from the equations $$\label{sigma-lin}
\sigma^{n-1}=-v A^n, \quad \sigma^i=-v A^{i+1}-\sigma^{i+1}_x, \quad
i=n-2,\dots,0.$$
It turns out that [*all*]{} cosymmetries of [*even-order*]{} equations (\[lineq\]) are of this form.
\[lin-cl-th1\] For any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation of even order, all its cosymmetries depend only on $x$ and $t$, and the space of all cosymmetries is isomorphic to the solution space of the associated adjoint equation.
Suppose that there exists a $\nu\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ such that $\gamma_{u_\nu}\ne0$ and denote $$r=\max\{\nu\in\mathbb
N\cup\{0\}\mid \gamma_{u_\nu}\ne0\}.$$
For even $n$ vanishing of the coefficient at $u_{n+r}$ in yields the equation $2A^n
\gamma_{u_r}=0$, whence $\gamma_{u_r}=0$. This contradicts the original assumption, and hence $\gamma$ depends only on $t$ and $x$.
\[peolin\] For any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation of even order its space of conservation laws is exhausted by linear ones and is isomorphic to the solution space of the corresponding adjoint equation.
For odd $n$ things become somewhat more involved.
\[lin-cl-th2\] For any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation of odd order, all its cosymmetries are affine in the totality of variables $u_0,u_1,u_2,\dots$.
In contrast with the case of even $n$, now the coefficient at $u_{n+r}$ in vanishes identically. Requiring the coefficient at $u_{n+r-1}$ in to vanish yields $$n A^n_0 D_x\gamma_{u_r}=(2A^{n-1}_0+(r-1-n)A^n_1)\gamma_{u_r},$$ so $\gamma_{u_r}$ depends only on $t$ and $x$. Using this result while evaluating the coefficient at $u_{n+r-2}$ yields $$n A^n_0
D_x\gamma_{u_{r-1}}=(2A^{n-1}_0+(r-1-n)A^n_1)\gamma_{u_{r-1}}+\psi^{r-1},$$ where $\psi^{r-1}$ is a function of $t$ and $x$, which is expressed via $\gamma_{u_r}$ and $A^i$; the explicit form of $\psi^{r-1}$ is not important here. Thus, $\gamma_{u_{r-1}}$ also depends only on $t$ and $x$. Iterating the above procedure allows us to conclude that the function $\gamma$ is affine in $u_0,\dots,u_r$, that is, $$\label{gammarep}
\gamma=\Gamma u+v(t,x), \quad \Gamma=\sum_{k=0}^r g^k(t,x)D_x^k,$$ and the result follows.
Note that if we restrict ourselves to the case of polynomial cosymmetries for equations with constant coefficients, then upon combining Theorems \[lin-cl-th1\] and \[lin-cl-th2\] we recover (part of) Proposition 1 of [@gal].
For the equations (\[lineq\]) with $\mathfrak F^\dagger=-\mathfrak F$ the determining equations for cosymmetries and for characteristics of generalized symmetries coincide. This observation in conjunction with Theorem \[lin-cl-th2\] implies the following assertion (cf. [@shsh]).
\[asa\] For any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation (\[lineq\]) of odd order such that $\mathfrak F^\dagger=-\mathfrak F$, all its generalized symmetries are affine in $u_j$ for all $j$.
Now let us get back to the general case of with odd $n$. Substituting the representation for $\gamma$ into reveals that $v=v(t,x)$ satisfies the adjoint equation (\[ale\]) which is decoupled from the equations for $g^i$. Thus, $v$ is a cosymmetry [*per se*]{}. Just as before, to any such cosymmetry there corresponds a linear conservation law with the density $\rho=v(t,x) u$. However, the issue of existence of conservation laws associated with cosymmetries linear in $u_j$ is nontrivial.
Indeed, let $\gamma=\Gamma u$. As we want $\gamma$ to be a characteristic of a conservation law, we should require that $\gamma\in\mathop{\rm Im}\delta/\delta u$ (cf. Section \[SectionOnAuxiliaryStatements\]). Hence, the operator $\Gamma$ should be formally self-adjoint and, in particular, its order should be even (note, however, that if $\Gamma$ is not formally self-adjoint, we can take its formally self-adjoint part $\tilde\Gamma=(\Gamma+\Gamma^\dagger)/2$; $\tilde\gamma=\tilde\Gamma u$ is easily verified to be a cosymmetry if so is $\gamma$). The density of the conservation law associated with the characteristic $\gamma$ reads, up to the usual addition of a total $x$-derivative of something, $\rho=\frac12u\Gamma u$. Without loss of generality we can also assume the corresponding flux to be quadratic in $u_0$, $u_1$, …, see Theorem 5.104 of [@Olver1993], so the conservation law in question is *quadratic*, and we obtain the following result.
\[poolin\] For any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation of odd order, the space of its conservation laws is spanned by linear and quadratic ones.
For linear conservation laws with the densities of the form $\rho=v(t,x)u$ where $v$ solves the adjoint equation we still have (\[sigma-lin\]).
Now turn to the quadratic conservation laws. The differential function $\Gamma u$ is a characteristic of a conservation law for $\mathcal E$ if and only if the operator $\Gamma$ satisfies the following equivalent conditions:
1\) it maps the solutions of the equation $\mathcal E$ into solutions of the adjoint equation $\mathcal E^*$;
2\) ${\partial}\Gamma/{\partial}t+\Gamma\mathfrak F+\mathfrak F^\dagger\Gamma=0$;
3\) $({\partial}_t+\mathfrak F^\dagger)\Gamma=\Gamma({\partial}_t-\mathfrak F)$, i.e., the operator $\Gamma({\partial}_t-\mathfrak F)$ is formally skew-adjoint.
Note that if the operator $\mathfrak F$ is formally skew-adjoint ($\mathfrak
F^\dagger=-\mathfrak F$) then the operators ${\partial}_t-\mathfrak F$ and $\Gamma$ commute: $[{\partial}_t-\mathfrak F,\Gamma]=0$, i.e., $\Gamma$ is a symmetry operator for the equation $\mathcal E$.
Any linear equation admits a symmetry $u\partial_u$, and the associated operator $\Gamma$ is the identity operator which is obviously formally self-adjoint. Combining this result with the above we obtain the following assertion.
Any linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equation (\[lineq\]) of odd order such that $\mathfrak F^\dagger=-\mathfrak F$ possesses a conservation law with the density $\rho=u^2$.
Moreover, linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equations of odd order can possess infinite series of quadratic conservation laws of arbitrarily high orders, as illustrated by the following example.
Consider the equation $$\label{e3}
u_t=u_{xxx}.$$ It is straightforward to verify that in this case the determining equations for cosymmetries and characteristics of (generalized) symmetries coincide because Eq. is identical with its adjoint.
Denote by $\mathcal{S}$ the space of all generalized symmetries of and let $\mathcal{Q}$ be the space of symmetries of the form $f(t,x){\partial}_u$, where $f$ solves : $f_t=f_{xxx}$. By Corollary \[asa\] the quotient space $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{Q}$ is exhausted by linear generalized symmetries. Successively solving the determining equations (cf. e.g. [@agn]) we find that the space $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{Q}$ is spanned by the symmetries of the form $(D_x^k \Upsilon^l\,u){\partial}_u$, where $k,l=0,1,2,\dots$ and $\Upsilon=x + 3 t D_x^2$.
As the determining equations for symmetries and cosymmetries of coincide, the space of cosymmetries for is spanned by the following objects:
1\) the cosymmetries of the form $f(t,x)$ where $u=f(t,x)$ is any solution of ;
2\) the cosymmetries of the form $D_x^k \Upsilon^l\,u$, where $k,l=0,1,2,\dots$.
Any cosymmetry of the first kind is associated with a conservation law with the density $\rho=f(t,x) u$. As for cosymmetries of the second kind, only those with even $k=2m$ are characteristics of the conservation laws. The conservation laws in question can (modulo trivial ones) be chosen to be quadratic, with the densities $\rho_{lm}=\frac12 u\,D_x^{m} \Upsilon^l
D_x^{m}u$ and the density orders $l+m$, $l,m=0,1,2\dots$.
However, there also exist linear $(1+1)$-dimensional evolution equations of odd order which have no quadratic conservation laws.
The operator $\mathfrak F=D_x^3+x$ associated with the equations $$\label{e4}
u_t=u_{xxx}+xu$$ is not formally skew-adjoint. Equation possesses nontrivial symmetries which are linear combinations of the operators $((D_x^3+x)^k(D_x+t)^l\,u){\partial}_u$ but they cannot be employed for construction of quadratic conservation laws of in the above fashion.
In fact, all cosymmetries of depend only on $x$ and $t$, and therefore this equation has no quadratic conservation laws.
Indeed, using the proof by contradiction, suppose that has a cosymmetry $\gamma=\Gamma u$, and ${\mathop{\rm ord}\nolimits}\gamma=r$, i.e., $g^r\ne0$. The condition ${\partial}\Gamma/{\partial}t+\Gamma\mathfrak F+\mathfrak
F^\dagger\Gamma=0$ implies the following system of determining equations for the coefficients of $\Gamma$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e4DetEq1}
3g^i_x=(i+3)g^{i+3}+g^{i+2}_t-g^{i+2}_{xxx}+2xg^{i+2}-3g^{i+1}_{xx},\quad i=1,\dots,r,
\\ \label{e4DetEq2}
2g^2+g^1_t-g^1_{xxx}+2xg^1-3g^0_{xx}=0,
\\ \label{e4DetEq3}
g^1+g^0_t-g^0_{xxx}+2xg^0=0,\end{gathered}$$ where the functions $g^{r+3}$, $g^{r+2}$ and $g^{r+1}$ vanish by definition. We successively integrate starting from the equations with the greatest value of $i$ and going down. The equations for $i=r$ and $i=r-1$ imply that the coefficients $g^r$ and $g^{r-1}$ depend on $t$ but not on $x$. Proceeding by induction, we find that for any $j=0,\dots,r$ the function $g^{r-j}$ is a polynomial in $x$ of degree $2[j/2]$. The ratio of the coefficient at the highest power of $x$ in $g^{r-j}$ to $g^r$ (resp. $g^{r-1}$) is a constant if $j$ is even (resp. odd). Then and imply $g^r=0$ and $g^{r-1}=0$. This contradicts our assumption that $g^r\ne0$, and the result follows.
Conclusions {#SectionConclusion}
===========
In this paper we have presented normal forms for the evolution equations in two independent variables possessing low-order conservation laws, see Theorems \[TheoremOnOneConsLawOfEvolEqs\] and \[TheoremOnTwoConsLawOfEvolEqs\], and Corollaries \[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithOne1stOrderConsLaw\]–\[CorollaryOnFormOfEvolEqsWithTwo1thAndLowOrderConsLaws2\] for details. Using these normal forms considerably simplifies the construction of nonlocal variables associated with the conservation laws in question and hence the study of the Abelian coverings and nonlocal symmetries, including potential symmetries, for the equations in question in spirit of , and references therein. As these normal forms are associated, up to a certain natural equivalence (see Remark 1), with the [*subspaces*]{} spanned by conservation laws rather than conservation laws [*per se*]{}, we are naturally led to pose the problem of classification of inequivalent subspaces of (low-order) conservation laws for the classes or special cases of evolution equations of interest.
As for the [*linear*]{} evolution equations in two independent variables, we have shown that their conservation laws are (modulo trivial conserved vectors, of course) at most quadratic in the dependent variable and the derivatives thereof, see Theorem \[lin-cl-th1\]. Moreover, for the linear evolution equations of even order their conservation laws are at most linear in these quantities, and the associated densities can be chosen to have the form of a product of the dependent variable with a solution of the adjoint equation (Theorem \[lin-cl-th2\]). It is natural to ask whether similar results can be obtained for more general linear PDEs (cf. [@shsh] for the case of symmetries), and we intend to address this issue in our future work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The research of R.O.P. was supported by the project P20632 of the Austrian Science Fund. The research of A.S. was supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MŠMT ČR) under grant MSM 4781305904, and by Silesian University in Opava under grant IGS 2/2009. The authors are pleased to thank M. Kunzinger for stimulating discussions. A.S. gratefully acknowledges the warm hospitality extended to him by the Department of Mathematics of the University of Vienna during his visits in the course of preparation of the present paper.
It is our great pleasure to thank the referees for useful suggestions that have considerably improved the paper.
[99]{} =0ex
Abellanas L. and Galindo A., Conserved densities for nonlinear evolution equations. I. Even order case, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{} (1979), 1239–1243.
Abellanas L. and Galindo A., Conserved densities for nonlinear evolution equations. II. Odd order case, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**22**]{} (1981), 445–448.
Abellanas L. and Galindo A., Conserved densities for linear evolution systems, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**79**]{} (1981), 341–351.
Abellanas L. and Galindo A., Evolution equations with high order conservation laws, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**24**]{} (1983), 504–509.
Ashton A.C.L., Conservation laws and non-Lie symmetries for linear PDEs, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (2008), 316–332.
Błaszak M., [*Multi-Hamiltonian theory of dynamical systems*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
Bocharov A.V., Chetverikov V.N., Duzhin S.V., Khor’kova N.G., Krasil’shchik I.S., Samokhin A.V., Torkhov Yu.N., Verbovetsky A.M., and Vinogradov A.M., [*Symmetries and conservation laws for differential equations of mathematical physics*]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999.
Bryant R.L. and Griffiths P.A., Characteristic cohomology of differential systems II: Conservation laws for a class of parabolic equations, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**78**]{} (1995), 531–676.
Drinfel’d V.G., Svinolupov S.I., Sokolov V.V., Classification of fifth-order evolution equations having an infinite series of conservation laws, [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ukrain. SSR*]{} Ser. A 1985, no. 10, 8–10 (in Russian).
Foltinek K., Conservation laws of evolution equations: generic non-existence, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**235**]{} (1999), 356–379.
Foltinek K., Third-order scalar evolution equations with conservation laws, [*Selecta Math. (N.S.)*]{} [**8**]{} (2002), 201–235.
Galindo A., Constants of motion for linear evolution systems, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (1981), 293–301.
Ibragimov N.H., [*Transformation groups applied to mathematical physics*]{}, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1985.
Igonin S., Conservation laws for multidimensional systems and related linear algebra problems, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**35**]{} (2002), 10607–10617.
Kaptsov O.I., Classification of evolution equations by conservation laws, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**16**]{} (1982), 61–63.
Kunzinger M. and Popovych R.O., Potential conservation laws, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**49**]{} (2008), 103506, 34 pp.; arXiv:0803.1156.
Magadeev B.A., On group classification of nonlinear evolution equations, [*Algebra i Analiz*]{} [**5**]{} (1993), 141–156 (in Russian); English translation in [*St. Petersburg Math. J.*]{} [**5**]{} (1994), 345–359.
Mikhailov A.V., Novikov V.S., and Wang J.P., Symbolic representation and classification of integrable systems, in [*Algebraic theory of differential equations*]{}, M.A.H. MacCallum and A.V. Mikhailov eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 156–216.
Mikhailov A.V., Shabat A.B. and Sokolov V.V., Symmetries of differential equations and the problem of integrability, in [*What is integrability?*]{}, ed. by V.E. Zakharov, Springer, Berlin, 1991, pp. 115–184.
Mikhailov A.V. and Sokolov V.V., Symmetries of differential equations and the problem of integrability, in [*Integrability*]{}, ed. by A.V. Mikhailov, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 19–98.
Miura R.M., Gardner C.S., and Kruskal M.D., Korteweg–de Vries equation and generalizations. II. Existence of conservation laws and constants of motion, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{} (1968), 1204–1209.
Newell A.C., [*Solitons in mathematics and physics*]{}, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1985.
Nikitin A.G., Complete set of symmetry operators of the Schrödinger equation, [*Ukrainian Math. J.*]{} [**43**]{} (1991), 1413–1418.
Olver P.J., [*Applications of Lie groups to differential equations*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
Popovych R.O. and Ivanova N.M., Hierarchy of conservation laws of diffusion–convection equations, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{} (2005), 043502, 22 pp.; arXiv:math-ph/0407008.
Popovych R.O., Kunzinger M., and Eshraghi H., Admissible point transformations of nonlinear Schrodinger equations, [*Acta Appl. Math.*]{} [**109**]{} (2010), 315–359; arXiv:math-ph/0611061.
Popovych R.O., Kunzinger M. and Ivanova N.M., Conservation laws and potential symmetries of linear parabolic equations, [*Acta Appl. Math.*]{} [**100**]{} (2008), 113–185; arXiv:0706.0443.
Popovych R.O. and Samoilenko A.M., Local conservation laws of second-order evolution equations, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**41**]{} (2008), 362002, 11 pp.; arXiv:0806.2765.
Sanders J.A. and Wang J.P., Classification of conservation laws for KdV-like equations, [*Math. Comput. Simulation*]{} [**44**]{} (1997), 471–481.
Sanders J.A. and Wang J.P., The symbolic method and cosymmetry integrability of evolution equations, in [*International Conference on Differential Equations (Berlin, 1999)*]{}, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 824–831.
Sanders J.A. and Wang J.P., Number theory and the symmetry classification of integrable systems, in [*Integrability*]{}, A.V. Mikhailov ed., Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 89–118.
Sergyeyev A., On recursion operators and nonlocal symmetries of evolution equations, in [*Proceedings of the Seminar on Differential Geometry*]{}, Silesian University in Opava, Opava, 2000, pp. 159–173; arXiv:nlin/0012011.
Shapovalov A.V. and Shirokov I.V., Symmetry algebras of linear differential equations, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*]{} [**92**]{} (1992), 697–703.
Svinolupov S.I. and Sokolov V.V., Evolution equations with nontrivial conservation laws, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**16**]{} (1982), 317–319.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It is observed that hypervelocity space dust, which is continuously bombarding the Earth, creates immense momentum flows in the atmosphere. Some of this fast space dust inevitably will interact with the atmospheric system, transferring energy and moving particles around, with various possible consequences. This paper examines, with supporting estimates, the possibility that through collisions, the Earth-grazing component of space dust can facilitate planetary escape of atmospheric particles, whether they be the atoms and molecules forming the atmosphere or bigger sized particles. As one interesting outcome, floating in the Earth’s atmosphere are a variety of particles containing the telltale signs of Earth’s organic story, including microbial life and life essential molecules. This paper will assess the ability for this space dust collision mechanism to propel some of these biological constituents into space.'
author:
- Arjun Berera
title: Space dust collisions as a planetary escape mechanism
---
Edinburgh 2016/12
In press [*Astrobiology*]{}, 2017
Introduction
============
A huge amount of space dust enters the Earth, on the scale of $~\approx 10^5$ kilograms per day, that is composed of dust particles of varying masses from $10^{-18}$ to $1$ gram and enters the Earth’s atmosphere at very high speeds $~\approx 10-70 {\rm km/s}$ @kw86 [@lb93; @flynn2002; @csfbkch; @plane]. This hypervelocity space dust forms immense and sustained momentum flows in the atmosphere. For particles that form the thermosphere or above or reach there from the ground, if they collide with this space dust, they can be displaced, altered in form or carried off by incoming space dust. This may have consequences for weather and wind, but most intriguing and the focus of this paper, is the possibility that such collisions can give particles in the atmosphere the necessary escape velocity and upward trajectory to escape Earth’s gravity. Two types of particles that will be considered are either light elements/molecules that form Earth’s atmosphere or bigger particles capable of harboring life or life essential molecules. The former possibility implies an exchange mechanism of atmospheric constituents amongst widely separated planetary bodies. The latter, and perhaps most interesting possibility, addresses basic questions about the origin of life, with similarities to the Classical Panspermia mechanism @arrhenius1908, except space dust rather than radiation scrapes up life in the upper atmosphere. One should approach the application of this space dust collision mechanism to panspermia cautiously, since there are several complicating factors and they will be considered in this paper. However the prospects are intriquing and so worth exploring. Earth harbors the greatest, perhaps only, concentration of life and its biologically produced molecules within this local region of our Galaxy. The idea that microbial life and its constituents are exchanged between planets would gain further scientific footing by establishing that natural processes on Earth send out its biological constituents into the Solar System.
Realizing gravitational escape for small particles presents a few difficulties. First it requires upward forces that can accelerate these particles up to escape velocity level. On the one hand, if this is done at too low an altitude, the stratosphere or below, the atmospheric density is so high that drag forces will rapidly slow fast moving particles. Moreover these particles will also undergo immense heating to the point of even evaporating. For these reasons, even though wind, lightning, volcanoes etc... all would be capable of imparting huge forces at these lower altitudes, they would not be able, even in principle, to accelerate particles intact up to escape velocity. On the other hand, at very high altitudes, at the upper part of the mesosphere and into the thermosphere, particles moving at escape velocity levels would not suffer such great drag and heating effects and so could escape the Earth’s gravity and cruise into outer space. As such, only in the higher atmosphere would it even be possible that the atoms and molecules found there could be propelled into space by space dust collisions. As for larger particles capable of harboring biological constituents, the most likely scenario for thrusting them into space would require a double stage approach, whereby they are first hurled into the lower thermosphere region or higher by some mechanism and then given an even stronger kick by fast space dust collision, which eventually leads to escape velocity and an exit from the Earth’s gravity.
Drag force and surface temperature
----------------------------------
Consider the forces that act on a particle of mass $m$ at an altitude $z$ above sea level. First there is the downward gravitational force, which for altitudes within a few hundred kilometers of sea level, can be approximated as just a constant $m g$ with $g \approx 9.8 {\rm m/s^2}$. Second is the drag force in the direction opposite the motion of the particle, $$\frac{d v}{dt} = -\frac{3 \Gamma \rho_a}{4 \rho r} v^2 \;,
\label{dragv}$$ where $v$ is the speed of the particle, $\rho_a$ is the atmospheric mass density, $\rho$ is the particle mass density, $r$ is the particle radius, and $\Gamma \approx 1$ is the atmospheric drag coefficient. The atmospheric density @hkl52 [@nrlmsise00; @brekke13] as function of altitude $z$ is $\rho_a(z) \approx (1.2 \times 10^3 {\rm g}/{\rm m}^{3}) \exp\left(-{z}/{7.04}\right)$, which is valid to within approximately a factor $2-3$ and up to an altitude around $150 {\rm km}$. Third a particle at speed $v$ will get heated from collisions with the molecules in the air as $$\alpha \frac{1}{2} \rho_a 4 \pi r^2 v^3 = 4 \pi r^2 \sigma T^4 \;,
\label{tempeq}$$ where the LHS is the rate of energy gained by the particle from the kinetic energy of the molecules in the air and the RHS is the blackbody rate at which the particle radiates the energy, leading to a surface temperature $T$. Here $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $\alpha$ is the fraction of the total kinetic energy of the air molecules that stick to the moving particle, which we will set to $\alpha = 1$. There can also be a heat capacity term on the RHS of Eq. (\[tempeq\]), but for small particles of micron size or a couple of orders of magnitude bigger, this term can be ignored @whipple50
Estimates
=========
Let us first make some estimates on the speed that small particles, whether they be the space dust or particles sitting in the atmosphere, are able to achieve in the atmosphere, accounting for drag and gravitational forces and surface temperature levels. For atmospheric elements and molecules, the scenario proposed in this paper is that as the space dust moves through the atmosphere, some of the atoms and molecules that it is made of get stuck to the space dust. Since these atoms and molecules will be of negligible mass compared to the space dust, after collision the space dust will simply maintain the same speed it had. For bigger particles capable of harboring microbial life, the collision dynamics can range from a simple elastic collision, to the small particle sticking to the space dust particle, to fragmentation/vaporization of one or both particles in the collision. Note however this paper focuses on interplanetary space dust which has a velocity range when coming to Earth of $~\approx 10-70 {\rm km/s}$. Collisions between small grains in this velocity range have been shown in @bd95 to not completely destroy them. Some percent of the colliding grains do undergo fragmentation/vaporization, but some portion also remains intact. At the same time, since the velocity range for the fast space dust is still some factors higher than escape velocity, provided the incoming space dust particle is the same or bigger size than the small particle in the atmosphere it collides with, both the case of elastic collision and where the atmospheric particle sticks to the incoming space dust particle will result in a final velocity still around the same as the incoming velocity of the space dust. Although some fraction of the two colliding particles may fragment or vaporize @bd95, given the huge energy being transferred in this process, it still is plausible that portions of the two colliding particles ultimately emerge with high velocity, capable of escaping the Earth’s gravity.
Speed and altitude
------------------
To make some estimates, for the space dust, it has typical density $\rho_s \approx 2 \times 10^6 {\rm g}/{\rm m}^{3}$. The small atmospheric particles struck by this space dust may contain life related quantities,such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, life related molecules like DNA, RNA, etc... For example a typical bacteria has a mass around $\sim 10^{-12} - 10^{-13} {\rm g}$ and and a length around $r \approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$. Other biological constituents will have approximately similar density. The small atmospheric particles will be approximated as spherical and have a density $\rho_p$ the same as the space dust.
![Deceleration due to atmospheric drag forces and surface temperature as function of altitude for a particle of radius $r = 10^{-6} m$ moving through the atmosphere at speed of $20 {\rm km/s}$[]{data-label="fig1"}](dvtplot2lfe.eps){width="31pc"}
Focusing first at higher altitudes, the speeds of interest here are near escape velocity, so in the ${\rm km/s}$ range, or within an order of magnitude around this. As the interest is in vertical motion, atmospheric densities experienced by these fast moving particles at these speeds will change substantially within timescales of around a second. The effect of the gravitational acceleration is in the ${\rm m/s^2}$ range and so can be ignored, since it will be a small effect on particles of ${\rm km/s}$ speeds. For a particle of radius $r = 10^{-6} {\rm m}$ and speed $20 {\rm km/s}$, the results for the deceleration from Eq. (\[dragv\]) and surface temperature from Eq. (\[tempeq\]) are shown in Figure \[fig1\]. In particular the deceleration from atmospheric drag at altitudes $110,130,$ and $150 {\rm km}$ from Eq. (\[dragv\]) respectively is around (in ${\rm km/s^2}$) $-30,-2$, and $-0.1$, as shown in Figure \[fig1\]. These expressions scale quadratically with speed, so for every factor two less in speed, these expression decrease by a factor four. Moreover they scale inverse with the radius, so for every order of magnitude increase in $r$ these expressions decrease by an order of magnitude. Estimating also the surface temperature from Eq. (\[tempeq\]) at the same speed of $20 {\rm km/s}$ for the same altitudes $110,130$, and $150 {\rm km}$, gives respectively $~\approx 2000,1000, 500$ K as shown in Figure \[fig1\]. These expressions scale to the $3/4$th power with speed and are independent of the particle radius. So for example at $150 {\rm km}$ altitude, if the speed is around a factor two smaller, so just around escape velocity $11.2 {\rm km/s}$, the surface temperatures will be within the range where biological life can be sustained. From these simplified expressions, it suggests the minimum altitude of around $150 {\rm km}$ above which a single collision to escape velocity can allow a particle to cruise free of the Earth’s gravity, unhindered by atmospheric drag and heating effects.
At much lower altitudes, our estimates show it is very difficult to accelerate particles to any substantial speed. For example at an altitude of $20 {\rm km}$, where micron and larger sized particles are known to be found in the atmosphere with some containing microbial life, the drag force and surface temperature remain adequately small only for speeds at most $~\stackrel{<}{\sim}~20~{\rm m/s}$ and the particle radius needs to be in the millimeter or larger range. This speed is low enough that the gravitational force is relevant, and will pull such particles down unless they experience frequent upward forces to maintain this upward speed. At around $50 {\rm km}$ altitude, drag forces and surface temperature are small for particles with speed $~\stackrel{<}{\sim} 30 {\rm m/s}$ and radius larger than around $10^{-5} {\rm m}$. At around $85 {\rm km}$, which is approximately the highest altitude that particles from volcanic eruptions are believed to have reached @verbeek1884 [@sr81; @ludlam57], drag forces and surface temperatures become small for speeds $~\stackrel{<}{\sim}~0.5~{\rm km/s}$ and particle radius larger than $10^{-6} {\rm m}$.
Flux of hypervelocity space dust with grazing trajectories
----------------------------------------------------------
Next we need to consider what is the rate at which fast moving space dust collides with particles in the atmosphere. We are interested in collisions that accelerate particles upward to higher altitude and eventually escape from the Earth’s gravity. Space dust is bombarding the Earth from all directions. Although much of of this dust will get pulled down by Earth’s gravity and fall to the ground, given the high entry speeds of this dust in the order of and even much bigger than escape velocity levels, some of the dust that enters the Earth’s atmosphere will then graze through it. For larger sized meteorites, such phenomenon is well known and is visible in spectacular fireballs that streak through the sky, sometimes accompanied also with meteor showers. Some fraction of the lighter space dust will also simply pass through the Earth’s atmosphere. For a space dust particle that is grazing past the Earth, just beyond the point where it moves exactly parallel to the ground beneath it, this space dust will be moving with an increasing upward incline relative to the ground immediately below it. It is beyond this point that if it collides with particles in the atmosphere it will give them an upward force, accelerating them to higher altitudes. At very high altitudes around $150 {\rm km}$ and higher, we saw from the above estimates that at escape velocity level, drag and heating effects are not significant. Above this altitude, fast moving space dust will not heat up significantly and will continue to move fast. Anticipating that the chances of space dust hitting small particles in the atmosphere is a rare event, which will be verified below, it will be assumed that a given atmospheric particle may have at most one or two collision with space dust. If this is to provide adequate momentum to the particle, the fast space dust needs to be at least the same or greater mass than the particle it hits. In such collisions, by momentum conservation, a considerable portion of debris after collision will then leave with about the same speed and direction as the incoming fast particle that initially hit it. If such a collision by a fast moving space dust particle with some upward velocity happened at high enough altitude, then the struck particle, whether attaching itself to the incoming space dust particle or scattering elastically/semi-elastically, could be accelerated to escape velocity level. If that small particle contained any biological constituents, these would be thrust out into space, free of the Earth’s gravity.
Alternatively at lower altitudes, where atmospheric drag forces and heating effects prohibit particles from moving very fast, space dust with some upward momentum colliding with particles in the atmosphere would accelerate them to sub-escape velocity levels, but possibly still high enough to push the particles substantially further up in the atmosphere. Once higher up, a second collision could then serve to propel the particle out into space. This possibility at lower altitudes is by no means the only mechanism for elevating particles upward and may not even be a significant mechanism to achieve this. Other forces are known to provide particles with upward velocity from lower altitudes such as weather phenomenon, atmospheric electric fields during thunderstorms @pasko2002 [@dld], gravito-photophoresis @rohatschek96, mesospheric and thermospheric vertical wind @wg74 [@rb76; @rscmla84; @ketal09; @ermr11] and volcanic eruptions @ludlam57 [@wshw78; @tthgr09]. Nevertheless since the effects of collisions with fast moving space dust is being examined, for completeness this process at lower altitudes is also considered.
![Earth-grazing space dust approaches point at altitude $z$ from within angle $\theta$ and has some upward component of momemtum[]{data-label="fig2"}](tangentc.eps){width="31pc"}
In order to estimate the chance of occurrence of space dust collisions with particles in the atmosphere, it requires the flux of space dust moving upward away from the Earth at a given point that is a normal distance $z$ above the ground, as shown in Figure \[fig2\]. At this zenith point consider the plane that is parallel to the Earth’s surface just beneath it, also known as the plane defined by the astronomical horizon around this point. Space dust particles coming to this zenith point from beneath this plane will have some upward component of momentum. From this zenith point, lines extending tangent to the Earth’s surface, thus to the true horizon, in all directions define a cone. The region between the astronomical horizon plane and this cone section, as shown in Figure \[fig2\], is the maximum region in which Earth-grazing space dust approaching this zenith point will have some upward component of velocity. The angle between the astronomical plane and this cone is $\theta \equiv \sqrt{2z/R_e} \ll 1$, where $R_e \approx 6400 {\rm km}$ ($ \gg z$) is the radius of the Earth. The space dust flux that can pass this zenith point from all directions forms a solid angle region of $2 \pi + 2 \pi \theta$. Assuming a uniform distribution of space dust flux from all directions heading to this zenith point, then the approximate fraction of this flux with some component of upward velocity is $~\approx \sqrt{2z/R_e}$. Space dust that is not moving upward can still impart transverse momentum on an atmospheric particle during a collision that could have some upward component. Also for space dust moving toward the point z within an angle $\theta$ above the astronomical horizon plane, a forward collision of it with an atmospheric particle will give it an Earth-grazing trajectory which initially moves downward with respect to the ground beneath it but eventually will move upward. Another possibility is when the fast space dust collides with atmospheric particles, they could fragment from the high impact collision. Given that the space dust speed can be many factors higher than the required escape velocity, even if the collision results in a fragmentation of the atmospheric particle, there is adequate kinetic energy present in such collisions that some emerging fragments could still be capable of having speed at escape velocity level. For the order of magnitude estimates of interest here, all these details will not be treated.
There has been considerable work in determining the amount and mass distribution of space dust bombarding the Earth @kw86 [@lb93; @flynn2002; @csfbkch; @plane]. Measurements show that the Earth receives roughly $10^7 - 10^8$ kilograms per year of space dust. Estimates from ground and satellite measurements also show that the flux to the Earth is in the neighborhood of about $10^9$ grams of space dust per year for each decade of particle mass from $10^{-9} {\rm g}$ to $10^{-2} {\rm g}$ @kw86 [@lb93; @flynn2002; @plane]. Based on the arguments given above, the fraction of this space dust flux that will have some upward velocity is for example at $z=20 {\rm km}$, $\sqrt{2z/R_e} \approx 0.08$, whereas at $z=150 {\rm km}$ it is $\sqrt{2z/R_e} \approx 0.2$.
Planetary escape of small particles in the higher atmosphere
------------------------------------------------------------
Examine a particle sitting high in the atmosphere at altitude $150 {\rm km}$ with mass $10^{-11} {\rm g}$. Assuming a typical matter density of $2 {\rm g/cm^3}$ this implies a particle radius $r_p \approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$. This mass and size correspond to, for example, a collection of several bacteria or some bacteria packed in some dirt or water. If a fast moving space dust particle that is grazing the Earth at this altitude with mass at or above that of this small particle, collides with it, the result will be this small particle then emerges with approximately the same speed and direction as the incoming space dust particle. Using the measurements of space dust flux by @kw86 [@lb93; @flynn2002; @csfbkch; @plane], space dust with radius $10^{-6}{\rm m}$, $10^{-5} {\rm m}$, $10^{-4} {\rm m}$, and $10^{-3} {\rm m}$ have particle flux, $f$, in ${\rm m}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1}$ of order $10^{-3}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-8}$, and $10^{-12}$ respectively. Based on our above estimates, at the altitude of $150 {\rm km}$, these numbers need to be multiplied by $0.2$ to obtain the corresponding flux, $f_u$, of space dust particles with some upward velocity. The rate at which this upward fast moving space dust will collide with a particle in the atmosphere is $R = \sigma f_u$, where $\sigma = \pi (r_p + r_s)^2$ is the classical hard sphere cross section between the particle $p$ and the space dust $s$. Calculating, we find at $150 {\rm km}$ altitude the collision rate is dominated by space dust particles of radius at or below $r_s \approx 10^{-4} {\rm m}$, with $R \approx 2 \times 10^{-15} {\rm s}^{-1}$. To put this value for the rate in perspective, if there was one atmospheric particle with radius at or less than $\approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$ within each meter squared column of the atmosphere all around the Earth at or above this altitude, it would lead to about one such particle being accelerated upward to escape velocity every second. To see this another way, if we ask what is the smallest number of such atmospheric particles that need to be found at this altitude at any given time, so that there is a chance that at least one particle attains upward speed around escape velocity level within the course of one year, we find this requires as little as one particle in every $10^7 {\rm m}^2$ surface area of the atmosphere at or above this altitude. Note that for atmospheric particles up to radius $r_p \stackrel{<}{\sim} 10^{-4} {\rm m}$ the estimate for the rate $R$ goes down by only a factor two or so. For atmospheric particles bigger than this, the rate then decreases by a few orders of magnitude for each order of magnitude increase in radius. This is because the particle flux of space dust of radius bigger than around a millimeter decreases significantly.
In the above analysis, the focus was on small sized space dust in the micron to millimeter range, but the same basic idea will extend to other sized space dust and meteoroids. For example there will also be on roughly a daily basis the few larger centimeter to meter sized meteoroids grazing past the Earth @flynn2002 [@plane]. For those grazing above $~\approx 150 {\rm km}$, such meteoroids could collide with particles in the atmosphere and send them out into space. Its possible in such cases that the atmospheric particles may even attach to the grazing meteoriod, adding the bonus of further protection once in the harsh space environment. Also sizeable space dust flux has been measured down to nanometer and smaller sizes @csfbkch, which could impart momentum on similar or smaller sized particles, such as molecules or tiny microbes, in the higher atmosphere.
Planetary escape of atoms and molecules comprising the higher atmosphere
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypervelocity space dust also has a role in the collection and exchange of chemical constituents amongst planetary atmospheres. This has similarities to the impact ejection mechanism @nkmm2012, only here for smaller scale fast dust particles. At altitudes above where it can abalate, $\approx 130 {\rm km}$, an Earth-grazing space dust particle can collide with the elements and molecules in the atmosphere, which could stick to it and get carried out to space. At lower altitude, the space dust will abalate or fall to the Earth, releasing all its content, amongst which the lighter elements collected from that dust particle’s journey to Earth will disperse into the atmosphere. To get some idea of scale, for a space dust particle of radius $r_s$, if it travels a distance $d$ at altitude around $z$ through the atmosphere of density $\rho_a(z)$, it will sweep through an amount of mass $\Delta m = \alpha \rho_a(z) 4 \pi r_s^2 d$ in the air, where $\alpha$ is the fraction of the atmospheric elements and molecules that stick to the space dust particle. The maximum mass will be swept where $\rho_a(z)$ is largest, thus at the lowest possible altitude safe from abalation, so somewhere around $130-150 {\rm km}$. Moreover once above around $150 {\rm km}$, the atmospheric density requires an altitude increase of around $50 {\rm km}$ to decrease by an order of magnitude @brekke13. As such, most of the mass swept from the atmosphere by space dust will occur in the altitude range between around $130 - 200 {\rm km}$. Evaluating the density at $\rho_a(150 {\rm km})$, setting $d = 50 {\rm km}$, and $\alpha =1$ gives $\Delta m = \rho_a(150 {\rm km}) 4 \pi r_s^2 50 {\rm km}$. Multiplying by the flux of space dust with some upward velocity over the surface of the Earth at this altitude, $f_u 4 \pi R_e^2$ and adding up the contribution over all sizes of space dust, we find the mass of air collected by space dust and escaping to space is around $10^{-2} {\rm g}$ every second. This can maybe increase by another order of magnitude by estimating at a slightly lower altitude like $130 {\rm km}$ or extending the distance $d$.
The thermosphere region dominantly contains oxygen, nitrogen and helium, so these will be the main elements that will be swept up by space dust. The amount escaping is much less than the approximate $3$ kilograms of hydrogen escaping every second, but for these heavier elements this space dust mechanism would be competitive or even dominant to Jeans escape and other mechanisms @hd76 [@cz09]. Escape via space dust will propel these elements at high speed into space. Eventually they could reach other terrestrial bodies, thereby providing an exchange mechanism for atmospheric elements amongst planets. During the long transit time through the Solar System and beyond, space dust will also collect the light elements, mostly hydrogen, that are present in dilute quantities in space. The space dust will then deliver all these light elements/molecules to the host planetary object it eventually crashes into at journey’s end. One possible consequence is smaller terrestrial bodies may beable to sustain their atmospheres longer because the incoming space dust keeps reintroducing light elements.
Discussion of mechanisms pushing small particles from lower to higher atmosphere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For small, micron sized particles, there are several mechanisms that have been discussed in the literature that can push them from the lower atmosphere up to the higher attmosphere, where a collision with fast dust conceivably could then thrust them into space. We will review some of these possibilities. However first, let us explore another such mechanism which so far has not been explored, following the same theme, that of space dust colliding with particles at lower altitudes and pushing them upward. From our earlier estimates of allowed particle speeds, we see at lower altitudes drag and heating will inhibit small sub-millimeter sized particles from acquiring anything even close to the escape velocity range. Equivalently, fast space dust, as it comes down into the lower atmosphere will also heat up and slow down. The heating will cause this dust to fragment. Detailed estimates of ablation show than once the radius of the fast moving space dust is below around $\approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$, the particle becomes efficient enough to radiate its heat and it seizes to ablate @plane [@whipple50; @hughes97; @cagb10]. If it is assumed the entire flux of space dust by the time it reaches the lower altitudes below $100 {\rm km}$ has fragmented into particles of radius $10^{-6} {\rm m}$, based on the flux data in @kw86 [@lb93; @flynn2002; @plane; @csfbkch] we estimate the flux below this altitude would be $0.1 {\rm m}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1}$. This is a crude model, but it should allow us to make some initial estimates. For altitudes around $50 {\rm km}$ or below, atmospheric drag forces will prohibit particles from gaining speeds beyond tens of ${\rm m/s}$, thus attaining very little increase in altitude and quickly succumbing to the downward force of gravity. At or above $85 {\rm km}$ our estimates on drag and heating show that a single collision with space dust could thrust a small atmospheric particle of radius $~\approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$ up to $150 {\rm km}$. This is interesting, since up to this altitude there are mechanisms such as volcanic eruption that at least in rare cases are known to propel particles, and its an altitude at which small particles are observed such as those helping to form noctilucent clouds @ludlam57. At $85 {\rm km}$ altitude $\sqrt{2z/R} = 0.16$, so the upward flux of the space dust we estimate to be $f_u \approx 2 \times 10^{-2} {\rm m}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1}$. If the number density of atmospheric particles of radius $~\approx 10^{-6} {\rm m}$ at altitude a few kilometers thickness around $85 {\rm km}$ were $~\approx 1/{\rm m}^3$, then our estimates show the space dust collision mechanism could push enough particles up to altitude $150 {\rm km}$ to attain the minimum density up there to allow, based on our earlier calculation, for the chance of a second collision to propel at least one such particle free of the Earth’s gravity in a year.
To make further progress with these estimates, a better understanding of the distribution of small particles in the atmosphere is needed. Up to the middle of the stratosphere, so altitudes up to $35 {\rm km}$, various measurements have shown there are small particles of radius within an order of magnitude range of a micron and in concentrations within a couple of orders of magnitude of one per ${\rm cm}^3$ @rosen64 [@xszzi; @hht; @ycjczz; @ursem16]. Measurements have even shown that amongst the particles are bacteria @ursem16 [@wwnr03; @griffin04]. At the upper end of the troposphere at around $10 {\rm km}$ altitude after hurricanes, bacteria number concentrations were found to be as high as $0.1 {\rm cm}^{-3}$ @dretal13. Even higher up at $41 {\rm km}$, bacteria have been detected @wwnr03 [@ursem16]. Further up noctilucent clouds at altitudes of $80 - 100 {\rm km}$ provide evidence that small particle matter must reside, although the origin of particles this high up is argued both as terrestrial and from space dust @dld [@rohatschek96; @ursem16; @wwnr03; @ludlam57].
There also are various mechanisms that to varying degree are known capable of sending small particles high up into the atmosphere. Hurricanes and other strong weather activity can thrust particles up the troposphere. Volcanoes can thrust ash well into the stratosphere @wshw78 [@tthgr09]. From the powerful eruption by Krakatao in 1883 @verbeek1884 [@sr81] there are suggestions that dust from the volcanic ash diffused up to $85 {\rm km}$ and has been regarded as a source for noctilucent clouds that appeared at the time @ludlam57. Blue jets and sprites from the tops of thunderclouds in the troposphere have speeds in the thousands of meters per second so offer a powerful source to thrust particles upward into the stratosphere or higher @pasko2002. The process of gravito-photophoresis, arising from irradiation of particles by sunlight, has been shown can elevate micron scale particles to altitudes upward of $80 {\rm km}$ @rohatschek96. Mesospheric and thermospheric upward vertical winds have been measured in the tens to hundreds of ${\rm m/s}$ @wg74 [@rb76; @rscmla84; @ketal09; @ermr11]. These mechanisms along with space dust collisions in the lower atmosphere seem suggestive that some micron sized particles can get pushed up well into the thermosphere.
Shock pressure during collision
-------------------------------
Another concern for this mechanism is, if atmospheric particles are thrust into space by a hard collision, if any microbes are present in those particles can they withstand such powerful hits. The possibility for such atmospheric particles to to be destroyed through processes like fragmentation and vaporization are not too significant up to collision speeds of interest here $\stackrel{<}{\sim} 50 {\rm km/s}$ @bd95. However the shock pressure created during such collisions is a concern, with studies showing that bacteria can survive collisions with shock pressure at least up to $50 {\rm GPa}$ @setal07 [@psbjac13]. For an initially stationary atmospheric particle or radius $r_p$, if it is impacted by another particle at velocity $v_s$, the collision time would be approximately the time it takes the impinging particle to travel the size of the initially stationary particle, $\Delta t \sim r_p/v_s$. If the stationary particle emerges from this collision with velocity approximately the same as the incoming particle, then the force from this collision would be $\Delta p/\Delta t = m_p v_s^2/r_p$, where $m_p = 4 \pi r_p^3 \rho_p/3$ is the mass of the stationary particle and $\rho_p$ its density. So the approximate shock pressure on the particle would be $\sim 4 \rho_p v^2/3$. For a particle emerging at velocity $11.2 {\rm km/s}$ and $\rho_p = 2 \times 10^6 {\rm g/m^3}$ this leads to a shock pressure of $\sim 3 \times 10^2 {\rm GPa}$, which is less than an order of magnitude higher than the survival limits tested so far. If imparting only the velocity needed to reach an orbit around the Earth $~\approx 7.8 {\rm km/s}$ is considered, it leads to a shock pressure $~\approx 10^2 {\rm GPa}$, which is within a factor two of the survival range from the tests that have been done. If the particle is already moving fast and just needs an increase in velocity of a few ${\rm km/s}$ to reach escape velocity, then the shock pressure would be well below $50 {\rm GPa}$. Also if the collision is with a particle containing many microbes packed together, some may absorb the main impact of the collision, while leaving others intact. Moreover if the organisms undergoing the collision are in an anhydrobiotic state, they would better withstand the shock pressure and in addition would be greatly reduced in mass, so also making it easier to accelerate them to high speed. From these considerations we find that the impact shock is a key limiting factor in controlling the amount of microbial life that will be able to escape the Earth from fast space dust collisions.
Discussion
==========
Should some microbial particles manage the perilous journey upward and out of the Earth’s gravity, the question remains how well they will survive in the harsh environment of space. Bacterial spores have been left on the exterior of the International Space Station at altitude $\approx 400 {\rm km}$, in a near vacuum environment of space, where there is nearly no water, considerable radiation, and with temperatures ranging from 332K on the sun side to 252K on the shadow side, and have survived 1.5 years @hetal12. Other experiments with bacteria @hetal01 and lichens @setal05 have shown survival of these organisms also openly exposed to the vacuum of space, with its radiation and extreme temperatures. A small invertebrate animal, the tardigrade is even more resilient, surviving extreme temperature, heat, pressure, and radiation @horikawa11 and has been shown to survive in space @jonsson08. Thermophiles are known to survive in temperatures reaching up to 400K @tetal08. Thus for microbes that manage the hypervelocity escape from the Earth, it seems some would be hardy enough to also survive in the region of space nearby Earth. If these microbes continued to journey further out in the Solar System, radiation levels would decrease but temperatures would get much more cold down to 40K at the outer part of the Solar System. Tardigrades have been tested and shown to survive at liquid nitrogen temperatures 77K @rw92 and even near absolute zero @becquerel50. Note that further tests of microbes at very low temperatures and for long duration could be done at the Large Hadron Collider facility at CERN, which has a functioning cryogenic unit containing liquid helium cooled down to 1.9K.
If biological constituents have been escaping the Earth continuously, even in tiny amounts, over its lifespan, then it would suggest floating out in the Solar System there is information about the evolutionary history of microbial life over the time of the Earth’s existence. Once a particle escapes from Earth, it could circulate around the Solar System, possibly eventually landing on another planet or even returning back to Earth. Such a particle would have a much better chance for survival if upon escape, it was quickly swept up by an oncoming comet, asteroid or other near Earth object. Even if the escaped particle only contained organic molecules or microbes that were killed on their journey out of Earth, such complex organic systems may still act as blueprints in suitable environments to speed up the development of life through assisting self-replication, self-organization, abiogensis and various other potential mechanisms.
Once atoms, molecules or even bigger sized particle escape from Earth, they could still remain within the gravitational bound of the Solar System and circulate around, possibly eventually landing on another planet or even returning back to Earth. Another possibility is the particle gains enough speed to leave the Solar System altogether. Since the Earth is rotating at $~\approx 30 {\rm km/s}$ around the sun, a particle escaping the Earth generally would emerge with speed in the tens of ${\rm km/s}$. If the speed exceeds around $42 {\rm km/s}$, it would be fast enough, if unencumbered and headed in the right direction, to escape the gravitational bound of the Solar System. Upon emerging from the Solar System, such a particle could still have a speed in the same order of tens of ${\rm km/s}$, so that over the lifespan of the Earth of four billion years, particles emerging from Earth by this manner in principle could have travelled out as far as tens of kiloparsecs. This material horizon, as could be called the maximum distance on pure kinematic grounds that a material particle from Earth could travel outward based on natural processes, would cover most of our Galactic disk, and interestingly would be far enough out to reach the Earth-like or potentially habitable planets that have been identified. As such, these estimates show the exchange of atoms, molecules and even small biological constituents amongst these distant Earth-like planets, can not on kinematic grounds be entirely excluded. Numerical studies show it would be extremely improbable for a meteorite originating from a planet in one solar system to fall onto a planet in another Solar System @melosh2003. The same conclusion is likely to follow for the small particles propelled into space by the space dust collision mechanism we are considering in this paper. Moreover the long time spent in the harsh space environment in such distant journeys would lead to considerable exposure to radiation and cosmic rays that most likely would destroy any biological life. It is possible that some of the organic molecules contained in these small particles may survive. Their unique sequences coming from different stellar systems could therefore intermix and have some influence in the development of biological processes amongst distant solar systems.
Collisions of huge meteorites with the Earth are a well known mechanism for raising large amounts of material from the Earth out into space, some of it possibly containing microbial life @melosh85 [@gdlb05]. Although this is a potential mechanism for throwing microbial life into space, it occurs very rarely, on geological time scales. This microbial life once in the harsh space environment would have the best chances of survival if around the time of the impact other near Earth objects, like asteroids, comets etc..., in the Solar System were also sweeping past the Earth and collected the microbial debris, thus helping to protect this life and facilitate its transfer to larger planetary bodies. In contrast, the mechanism suggested in this paper at best could propel only a small amount of Earth’s biological constituents into space. However the influx of space dust is continuous, so the process of expelling particles could occur more frequently and so possibly increasing the chances that some of it is collected by an asteroid, comet or other near Earth object as it comes past the Earth. Note that if this space dust collision mechanism succeeded to propel just one small particle containing life from a planetary system like Earth into space even just every several thousands of years, that still implies that many such events would have occurred over geological timescales. The key estimate made in this paper is that even for a vanishingly small concentration of small particles harboring microbial life in the upper atmosphere, the space dust collision mechanism still provides the possibility for several escape events over geological timescales.
Huge amounts of microbial life need not have to escape from Earth, but what is equally important is that they escape at the right time, so as to be collected by a body that can allow that life to flourish and multiply. Also the space dust collision mechanism proposed here is as likely to be occurring in the present as in the past. As such it can be tested as it occurs in the present rather than requiring the modelling and assumptions needed for testing huge meteor strikes from the distant past. However for both mechanisms, whether huge meteor stike or space dust collision, there is the common concern whether microbial life can survive the impact of the collision. Just as many investigations have gone in studying the meteor mechanism, much more investigation will be needed for the space dust mechanism proposed in this paper. This paper has made order of magnitude estimates. For the application to the escape of atoms/molecules forming the atmosphere and the escape of bigger particles, better modelling of Earth-grazing space dust flux would improve our estimates. In addition, for the application to the escape of larger particles, more information is needed about the density of small, micron sized and larger, particles in the mesosphere and higher. Direct measurement of the density of such small particles in the higher atmosphere, into the mesosphere and above, would benefit not just the further development of this mechanism but would provide further knowledge about the constituents making up the atmosphere, which may be useful elsewhere such as climate science. Collecting particles by high altitude balloons, sounding rockets, or higher up at $400 {\rm km}$ by the International Space Station are possibilities. Conceivably the vast amount of man-made space junk orbiting around the Earth, primarily at altitudes around $750 {\rm km}$, would contain useful information about both the incoming flux of space dust and outgoing flow of small particles from Earth. Since some of this debris has been orbiting for decades and the over million objects are distributed all around the Earth, they contain long time and spatially well distributed information. Possibly microbes have even become housed in some of it, albeit in a dormant state, or complex organic molecules can be found there. Remote analysis of this space junk and conceivable retrieval of some of it in the future would allow assessing its science content.
The influx of hypervelocity space dust creates huge and sustained momentum flows in the planetary atmosphere. This paper is the first to observe that fast space dust particles inevitibly will sometimes collide with particles residing in the atmosphere and cause them to be moved around and may thrust some out into space. Hypervelocity space dust is a unique entity in planetary systems like our Solar System, which is able to go past and enter the atmosphere of planets, collect samples of those planets and deposit samples of other planets. The entire system of fast space dust in a planetary system thus contains the atoms, molecules and possibly even microbial life, from all the planets and provides a means to mix them up amongst the different planets. For collecting atoms and molecules that form atmospheres, the mechanism proposed in this paper is fairly straightforward. For collecting life and life related molecules this mechanism has interesting features, but many detailed issues would still need to be studied. The violent collisions involved in this mechanism could make it difficult for life to remain intact. There are several possible collision scenarios that would all need to be explored to get a definitive answer to this problem. But even if life itself does not remain intact, it could still permit the complex molecules associated with life to get propelled into space, and that is also interesting for the panspermia process. Since space dust is ubiquitous all over the Solar System and is believed to exist in interstellar and probably intergalactic space, the mechanism proposed in this paper for propelling small particles into space could provide a universal mechanism both for the exchange of the atomic and molecular constituents between distant planetary atmospheres and for initiating the first step of the panspermia process.
I thank Javier Martin-Torres and David Hochberg for helpful discussions. This research was supported by the Science Technology Funding Council (STFC).
Arrhenius, S. (1908), Worlds in the making: the evolution of the Universe, New York, Harper and Row.
Becquerel, P. (1950), La suspension de la vie au dessous de 1/20K absolu par demagnetization adiabatique de l’alun de fer dans le vide les plus eleve, *Acad. Sci. Paris* [231]{}, 261-263.
Borkowski, K. J. and Dwek, E. (1995), The fragmentation and vaporization of dust in grain-grain collisions, *Astrophys. J.*[454]{}, 254-276.
Brekke, A. (2013), [*Physics of the Upper Polar Atmosphere*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Carpenter, J. D., [*et al.*]{} (2007), Nanometer hypervelocity dust impacts in low Earth orbit, *J. Geophys. Res.* [112]{}, E08008.
Correira, J., Aikin, A. C., Grebowsky, J. M., and Burrows, J. P. (2010), Metal concentration in the upper atmosphere during meteor showers, *Atmospheric Chem. Phys.* [10]{}, 909-917.
Dehel, T., Lorge, F., Dickinson, M. (2008), Uplift of microorganisms by electric fields above thunderstorms, *J. Electrostatics* [66]{} 463-466.
DeLeon-Rodriguez, N., [*et al.*]{} (2013), Microbiome of the upper troposphere: Species composition and prevalence, effects of tropical storms, and atmospheric implications, *PNAS* [110]{}, 2575-2580.
de Niem, D., K[ü]{}hrt, E., Morbidelli, A., and Motschmann, U. (2012), Atmospheric erosion and replenishment induced by impacts upon the Earth and Mars during heavy bombardment, *Icarus* [221]{}, 495-507.
Eswaraiah, S., Ratnam, M. V., Murthy, V. K., and Rao, S. V. B. (2011), Low-latitude mesospheric vertical winds observed using VHF radar, *J. Geophys. Res.* [116]{}, D22117.
Flynn, G. J. (2002) in [*Meteors in the earth’s atmosphere*]{}, ed. E. Murad and I. P. Williams, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gladman, B., Dones, L., Levison, H. F., and Burns, J. A. (2005), Impact seeding and re-seeding in the inner solar system, *Astrobiology* [5]{}, 483-496.
Griffin, D. W. (2004), Terrestrial microorganisms at an altitude 20,000 m in Earth’s atmosphere, *Aerobiologia* [20]{}, 135-140.
Havens, R. J., Koll, R. T., and LaGow, H. E. (1952), The pressure, density, and temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to 160 kilometers, *J. Geophys. Res.* [57]{}, 59-72.
Heintzenberg, J., Hermann, M., Theiss, D. (2003), Out of Africa: high aerosol concentrations in the upper troposphere over Africa, *Atmos. Chem. Phys.* [3]{}, 1191-1198.
Horikawa, D. D. (2011), Survival of Tardigrades in extreme environments: a model animal for astrobiology, Altenbach, A. V., [*et al.*]{} (Eds.), [*Anoxia: Evidence for Eukaryote Survival and Paleontological Strategies, Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats and Astrobiology*]{} [21]{}, 205-217.
Horneck, G. [*et al.*]{} (2012), Resistance of bacterial endospores to outer space for planetary protection purposes - experiment PROJECT of the EXPOSE-E mission, *Astrobiology* [12]{}, 445-456.
Horneck, G. [*et al.*]{} (2001), Protection of bacterial spores in space, a contribution to the discussion on panspermia, *Orig. Life Evol. Biosph.* [31]{}, 527-547.
Hughes, D. (1997), Meteors and cosmic dust, *Endeavor* [21]{}, 31-35. Hunten, D. M. and Donahue, T. M. (1976), Hydrogen loss from the terrestrial planets, *Ann. Rev. Earth and Planetary Sci.*, 4, 265-292.
J[ö]{}nsson, K. I., Rabbow, E., Schill, R. O., Harms-Ringdahl, M., and Rettberg, P. (2008), Tardigrades survive exposure to space in low Earth orbit, *Curr. Biol.* [18]{}, R729-R731.
Kurihara, J., [*et al.*]{} (2009), Temperature enhancements and vertical winds in the lower thermosphere associated with auroral heating during the DELTA campaign, *J. Geophys. Res.* [114]{}, A12306.
Kyte, F. T. and Wasson, J. T. (1986), Accretion rate of extraterrestrial matter: iridium deposited 33 to 67 million years ago, *Science* 232, 1225-1229.
Love, S. G. and Brownlee, D. E. (1993), A direct measurement of the terrestrial mass accretion rate of cosmic dust, *Science* [262]{}, 550-553.
Ludlam, F. (1957), Noctilucent clouds, *Tellus* [9]{}, 341-364.
Melosh, H. J. (1985), Ejection of rock fragments from planetary bodies, *Geology* [13]{}, 144-148.
Melosh, H. J. (2003), Exchange of meteorites (and Life?) between stellar systems, *Astrobiology* [3]{}, 207-215.
Pasko, V. P., Stanley, M. A., Mathews, J. D., Inan, U. S., and Wood, T. G. (2002), Electric discharge from a thundercloud to to the lower ionosphere, *Nature* [416]{}, 152-154.
Picone, J. M., Hedin, A. E., Drob, D. P., and Aikin, A. C. (2002), NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: statistical comparisons scientific issues, *J. Geophys. Res.* [107]{}, 1468.
Plane, J. M. C. (2012), Cosmic dust in the earth’s atmosphere, *Chem. Soc. Rev.* [41]{}, 6507-6518.
Price, M. C., Solscheid, C., Burchell, M. J., Josse, L., Adamek, N., and Cole, M. J. (2013), Survival of yeast spores in hypervelocity impact events up to velocities of $7.4 {\rm km} {\rm s}^{-1}$, *Icarus* [222]{}, 263-272.
Ramlov, H. and Westh, P. (1992), Survival of the cryptobiotic eutardigrade Adorybiotus coronifer during cooling to -196C: effect of cooling rate, trehalose level, and short-term acclimation, *Cryobiology* [29]{}, 125-130.
Rastogi, P. K. and Bowhill, S. A. (1976), Scattering of radio waves from the mesosphere - 2. Evidence for intermittent mesospheric turbulence, *J. Atmos. and Terres. Phys.* [38]{}, 449 - 462.
Rees, D., [*et al.*]{} (1984), The generation of vertical thermospheric winds and gravity waves at auroral latitudes - I. observations and vertical winds, *Planet. Space Sci.* [32]{}, 667-684.
Rohatschek, H. (1996), Levitation of stratospheric and mesospheric aerosols by gravito-photophoresis, *J. Aerosol. Sci.* [27]{}, 467-475.
Rosen, J. M. (1964), The vertical distribution of dust to 30 kilometers, *J. Geophysical Res.* [69]{}, 4673-4676.
Sancho, L. G. [*et al.*]{} (2005), Lichens survive in space: results fron the 2005 LICHENS experiment. *Astrobiology* [7]{}, 443-454.
Self, S. and Rampino, M. R. (1981), The 1883 eruption of Krakatau, *Nature* [294]{}, 669-704.
St[ö]{}ffler, D. [*et al.*]{} (2007), Experimental evidence for the potential impact ejection of viable microorganisms from Mars and Mars-like planets, *Icarus* [186]{}, 585-588.
Takai, K. [*et al.*]{} (2008), Cell proliferation at 122C and isotopically heavy $CH_4$ production by a hyperthermophilic methanogen under high-pressure cultivation, *PNAS* [105]{}, 10949-10954.
Tupper, A., Textor, C., Herzog, M., Graf, H., and Richards, M. S. (2009), Tall clouds from small eruptions: the sensitivity of eruption height and fine ask content to tropospheric instability, *Nat. Hazards* [51]{}, 375-401.
Ursem, B. (2016), Climate shifts and the role of nano structured particles in the atmosphere, *Atmospheric and Climate sciences* [6]{}, 51.
Verbeek, R. D. M. (1884), The Krakatoa eruption, *Nature* [30]{}, 10-15.
Wainwright, M., Wickramasinghe, N. C., Narlikar, J. V., and Rajaratnam, P. (2003), Microorganisms clutured from stratospheric air samples obtained at 41 km, *FEMS Microbio. Letters* [218]{}, 161-165.
Whipple, F. L. (1950), The theory of micro-meteorites. Part 1. In an isothermal atmosphere, *Nat. Acad. Sciences* [36]{}, 689-695.
Wilson, L., Sparks, R. S. J., Huang, T. C., and Watson, N. D. (1978), The control of volcanic column heights by eruption energetics and dynamics, *J. Geophys. Res.* [83]{}, 1829-1836.
Woodman, R. F. and Guillen, A. (1974), Radar Observations of Winds and Turbulence in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, *J. Atmos. Sci.* [31]{}, 493-505.
Xu, L., Shi, G., Zhang, L., Zhou, J., and Iwasaka, Y. (2003), Number concentration, size distribution, and fine particle fraction of tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols, *China Particuology* [1]{}, 201-205.
Yin, Y., Chen, Q., Jin, L., Chen, B., Zhu, S., and Zhang, X. (2012), The effects of deep convection on the concentration and size distribution of aerosal particles within the upper troposhere: A case study, *J. Geophysical Res.* [117]{}, D22202.
Zahnle, K. J. and Catling, D. C. (2009), The planetary air leak, *Sci. Am.*, 300, 36-43.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Our aim is to investigate the tidal interaction in High-mass X-ray Binaries and Symbiotic stars in order to determine in which objects the rotation of the mass donors is synchronized or pseudosynchronized with the orbital motion of the compact companion. We find that the Be/X-ray binaries are not synchronized and the orbital periods of the systems are greater than the rotational periods of the mass donors. The giant and supergiant High-mass X-ray binaries and symbiotic stars are close to synchronization. We compare the rotation of mass donors in symbiotics with the projected rotational velocities of field giants and find that the M giants in S-type symbiotics rotate on average 1.5 times faster than the field M giants. We find that the projected rotational velocity of the red giant in symbiotic star MWC 560 is $= 8.2 \pm 1.5$ , and estimate its rotational period to be $P_{\rm rot}$ = 144 - 306 days. Using the theoretical predictions of tidal interaction and pseudosynchronization, we estimate the orbital eccentricity $e=0.68-0.82$.'
author:
- 'Kiril Stoyanov & Radoslav Zamanov'
title: 'Rotation of the Mass Donors in High-mass X-ray Binaries and Symbiotic Stars'
---
[2]{}
Introduction
============
A High-mass X-ray binary system consists of a compact object (a neutron star or a black hole) accreting material from an O or B companion star. They are divided into Be/X-ray binaries (main-sequence star as a companion) and Giant/Supergiant X-ray binaries (giant or supergiant star as a companion). Accretion of matter is different for both types of X-ray binaries. In the Be/X-ray binaries, the compact object crosses the circumstellar disc and accretes matter from that disk. In the giant/supergiant X-ray binaries, the mass donor ejects a slow and dense wind radially outflowing from the equator and the compact object directly accretes the stellar wind through Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion.
Symbiotic stars are interacting binaries, consisting of an evolved giant (either a normal red giant in S-types symbiotics or a Mira-type variable in D-types symbiotics) transferring mass to a hot and luminous white dwarf or neutron star. The symbiotic stars are surrounded by a rich and luminous nebula resulting from the presence of both an evolved giant with a heavy mass-loss and of a hot companion abundant in ionizing photons and often emanating its own wind.
Synchronization and Pseudosynchronization
=========================================
In a binary with a circular orbit the rotational period of the primary, P$_{rot}$, reaches an equilibrium value at the orbital period, $P_{orb}=P_{rot}$. In other words the synchronous rotation (synchronization) means that the rotational period is equal to the orbital period. In a binary with an eccentric orbit, the corresponding equilibrium is reached at a value of $P_{rot}$ which is less than $P_{orb}$, the amount less being a function solely of the orbital eccentricity $e$. In practice, in a binary with an eccentric orbit the tidal force acts to synchronize the rotation of the mass donor with the motion of the compact object at the periastron - pseudosynchronous rotation. To calculate the period of pseudosynchronization, P$_{ps}$, we use (Hut 1981): $$P_{ps} = \frac{(1+3e^2+\frac{3}{8}e^4)(1-e^2)^\frac{3}{2}}{1+\frac{15}{2}e^2+
\frac{45}{8}e^4+\frac{5}{16}e^6} P_{orb}.
\label{Eq-ps}$$
Stars with radiative envelopes
------------------------------
Following Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) the circularization timescale for stars with radiative envelopes is: $$\frac{1}{{\tau}_{circ}}=
\frac{21}{2} \left( \frac{G M_1}{R_1^3} \right)^\frac{1}{2}
q_2 \left(1 + q_2 \right)^\frac{11}{6} E_2 \left(\frac{R_1}{a} \right)^\frac{21}{2},
\label{circ_re}$$ where M$_1$ and R$_1$ are the mass and the radius of the primary respectively, q$_2$ is the mass ratio M$_2/$M$_1$, and $a$ is the semi-major axis. The second-order tidal coefficient E$_2$ = 1.592 $\times 10^{-9} M_1^{2.84}$.
The synchronization time scale is given as, $$\tau_{sync} = K \tau_{circ},
\label{sync_re}$$ where K is: $$K \approx \frac{0.015}{r_g} \, \frac{1 + q_2}{q_2} \left( \frac{R_1}{a} \right)^2.$$ For the gyration radius of the primary $r_g$ we adopt $r_g\approx0.16$ for giants, and $r_g\approx0.25$ for main sequence stars (Claret & Gimenez, 1989).
Stars with convective envelopes
-------------------------------
Following Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) the synchronization timescale for stars with convective envelopes is: $$\tau_{\rm syn} \approx 800 \left( \frac{ M_{\rm 1} R_{\rm 1}}{ L_{\rm 1}}\right)^{1/3}
\frac{M_{\rm 1}^2 (\frac{M_{\rm 1}}{M_{\rm 2}} + 1)^2}{R_{\rm 1}^6} P_{\rm orb}^4\ \; {\rm yr},
\label{sync}$$ where $L_{\rm 1}$ is the luminosity of the giant.
The circularization time scale is: $$\frac{1}{{\tau}_{\rm circ}} = \frac{21}{2} \left(\frac{k}{T}\right) q{_2} (1+q{_2})
\left(\frac{R_{\rm 1}}{a}\right)^8 .
\label{circ}$$ In Eq. \[circ\], $(k/T)$ is: $$\left(\frac{k}{T}\right) = \frac{2}{21} \frac{f_{\rm conv}}{{\tau}_{\rm conv}} \frac{M_{\rm env}}{M_{\rm 1}}
\; {\rm yr}^{-1} ,
\label{KT}$$ where $R_{\rm env}$ is the depth of the convective envelope, $M_{\rm env}$ is the envelope’s mass, and $${\tau}_{\rm conv} = 0.4311 \left(\frac{M_{\rm env}R_{\rm env}(R_{\rm 1}-\frac{1}{2}R_{\rm env})}{3 L_{\rm 1}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{3}} {\rm yr}
\label{tau}$$ is the eddy turnover time scale (the time scale on which the largest convective cells turnover). The numerical factor $f_{\rm conv}$ is $${f}_{\rm conv} = {\rm min} \left[1, \left( \frac{P_{\rm tid}}{2{\tau}_{\rm conv}} \right) ^2 \right],
\label{fconv}$$ where $P_{\rm tid}$ is the tidal pumping time scale given by $$\frac{1}{P_{\rm tid}} = \left|\frac{1}{P_{\rm orb}} - \frac{1}{P_{\rm rot}}\right|.
\label{ptid}$$
The pseudosynchronization timescale is $\tau_{\rm ps}$ = (7/3($\alpha$ - 3)) $\tau_{\rm circ}$, where $\alpha$ is a dimensionless quantity, representing the ratio of the orbital and rotational angular momentum:
$$\alpha = \frac {q_2}{1+q_2} \frac {1}{r_{\rm g}^{2}} \left( \frac {a}{R_{\rm 1}} \right) ^2 .$$
For a red giant we adopt $r_{\rm g} \approx 0.3$ (Claret, 2007).
In all equations, the masses, the radii and the lumunosities are in solar units.
High-mass X-ray Binaries
========================
The orbital and stellar parameters of 13 High-mass X-ray binaries are given in Table 1 and Table 2 in Stoyanov & Zamanov (2009). We add 2 more objects - 4U 2206+54 and MWC 148. The orbital and stellar parameters are taken from Rib[ó]{} et. al. (2006) and Casares et al. (2012) respectively.
Using Eq.\[circ\_re\] and Eq.\[sync\_re\] we estimate the circularization and synchronization timescales. The results are given in Table \[t-times\]. The lifetime of a star on the main sequence can be estimated as $\tau_{MS} = 10^{10} ({M_\odot}/{M})^{2.5} \; \; {\rm years}$ (Hansen & Kawaler, 1994). Comparing these lifetimes with $\tau_{sync}$ from Table \[t-times\], we see that among the Be/X-ray binaries only for LSI+61$^0$303 is $\tau_{sync} \sim \tau_{MS}$. This is the only Be/X-ray binary for which we can expect considerable changes of the rotation of the primary during the lifetime of the Be star.
The lifetime of the giant is comparable or longer then $\tau_{circ}$ and $\tau_{sync}$ for the giant/supergiant systems with short orbital periods. The exceptions are V725 Tau and BP Cru, for which $\tau_{sync}$ and $\tau_{circ}$ are longer than the lifetime of the giant/supergiant stage.
On Fig.1 in Stoyanov & Zamanov (2009) is plotted P$_{rot}$ versus P$_{ps}$. The giant/supergiant systems are located close to the line P$_{ps} = P_{rot}$, while those with mass donors from spectral class V are far away from the equilibrium.
In the Be/X-ray systems BQ Cam, V635 Cas, V725 Tau and 4U 2206+54, the tidal force spinning down the donor star. For the system LSI+61$^0$303, the rotation of the mass donor is close to pseudosynchronization. This is the only Be/X-ray binary in which $\tau_{sync}$ is comparable with the life-time of the binary. In the binaries X Per and MWC 148, the neutron star is far away from the Be star and the tidal force is weak.
Giant and supergiant systems are close to (pseudo)synchronization. In these binaries the rotation of the mass donors is influenced by the presence of the compact object. In LMC X-4 and Cen X-3, the mass donors are synchronized and the orbits are circularized. With respect to the rotation of the mass donor, V725 Tau is similar to the Be/X-ray binaries. Cyg X-1 is synchronized and almost circularized. V830 Cen is pseudosynchronized but not circularized yet. The systems LSI$+65^0010$ and Vela X-1 are close to pseudosynchronization and the tidal force accelerates the rotation of the mass donors. In the case of SMC X-1, the tidal force acts as a decelerator of the rotation of the mass donor. In BP Cru, a gas stream from the mass donor exists, probably resulting from the strong tidal force and spin-up of the mass donor (Leahy & Kostka, 2008).
[lllc]{} object & $\tau_{sync}$ \[yr\] & $\tau_{circ}$ \[yr\] & lifetime \[yr\]\
\
LSI+61$^0$303\*& 2.810$^7$ & 2.410$^8$ &5.610$^7$\
X Per & 6.210$^{17}$ & 1.810$^{21}$ &1.110$^7$\
BQ Cam & 3.510$^{11}$ & 7.610$^{13}$ &3.910$^6$\
V635 Cas & 1.410$^{11}$ & 9.510$^{12}$ &7.310$^6$\
4U 2206+54 & 4.910$^9$ & 3.710$^{11}$ &7.310$^7$\
MWC 148 & 1.210$^{17}$ & 5.110$^{20}$ &9.810$^7$\
\
V725 Tau & 2.810$^{12}$ & 8.010$^{14}$ &4$10^5$\
LMC X-4 & 4.510$^2$ & 7.710$^2$ &1$10^6$\
Cen X-3 & 2.310$^3$ & 4.210$^3$ &5$10^5$\
\
V830 Cen & 7.510$^3$ & 1.410$^4$ & 110$^6$\
LSI+65$^0$010 & 1.310$^4$ & 3.910$^4$ & 110$^6$\
Vela X-1 & 1.010$^4$ & 2.810$^4$ & 3.910$^5$\
SMC X-1 & 3.310$^4$ & 8.210$^4$ & 8.810$^5$\
BP Cru & 1.810$^6$ & 8.810$^6$ & 810$^4$\
Cyg X-1 & $<1$ & $<1$ & 110$^5$\
\*assuming neutron star as a secondary component.
S-type symbiotic stars
======================
43 symbiotic stars have been observed with FEROS spectrograph at the 2.2m ESO telescope of the La Silla Observatory (Zamanov et al. 2007). The data for the rotation of 55 field red giants are taken from the literature. M giants in S-type symbiotics rotate faster than the field M giants. Histograms of the available data for the red giants are plotted in Fig.2 in Zamanov & Stoyanov (2012). For the field M0III-M6III giants we calculate a mean $=$5.0 , median $=$4.3 , and standard deviation of the mean $\sigma=4.0$ . For the M0III-M6III giants in symbiotics, we get a mean $=7.8$ , median $=$8.0 , and standard deviation of the mean $\sigma=$2.1 .
There are 5 objects in our sample that deviate from the synchronization. These objects are RS Oph, MWC 560, CH Cyg, CD-43$^\circ$14304 and Z And. In three of them collimated jets are detected: Z And (Skopal et al. 2009); CH Cyg (Crocker et al. 2002), MWC 560 (Tomov et al. 1990). Additionally to the jets, ejection of blobs are detected from RS Oph and CH Cyg (Iijima et al. 1994). This confirms the suggestions that in the jet-ejecting symbiotics the mass donors rotate faster than the orbital periods. Probably there is a link between the jets and the mass donor rotation.
On Fig.\[stoyanov-fig1\] are plotted together the High-mass X-ray binaries and the S-type symbiotic stars. It shows that none of the objects in our sample is above the line of synchronization.
Orbital eccentricity of MWC 560
===============================
MWC 560 is a symbiotic star, which consists of a red giant and a white dwarf (Tomov et al. 1990). The most spectacular features of this object are the collimated ejections of matter with velocities of up to $\sim 6000$ (Tomov et al. 1992) and the resemblance of its emission line spectrum to that of the low-redshift quasars (Zamanov & Marziani, 2002). The jet ejections are along the line of sight and the system is seen almost pole-on ($i < 16^\circ$). This makes it difficult to obtain the orbital eccentricity of the system in a conventional way.
For the system we adopt $R_{\rm g} = 140 \pm 7~R_\odot$, $L_{\rm g} \sim 2400~L_\odot$, $M_{\rm g} = 1.7~M_\odot$, $M_{\rm wd}=0.65~M_\odot$, $P_{\rm orb}=1931 \pm 162$ day (Gromadzki et al. 2007), $R_{\rm env}=0.9~R_{\rm g}$ and $M_{\rm env}= 1.0~M_\odot$ (Herwig 2005). With the above values of the parameters assumed, we derive the semi-major axis of the orbit to be $a \approx 860~R_\odot$. Using these parameters, we calculate from Eq. \[sync\] and Eq. \[circ\] the synchronization and circularization time scales: $\tau_{\rm sync} = 2.6 \times 10^4$ yr and $\tau_{\rm circ} = 3.1 \times 10^6$ yr. The typical lifetime of a symbiotic star is $\tau_{\rm ss} \sim 10^5$ yr (Yungelson et al., 1995). From the rate of accretion on the white dwarf, $\dot M_{\rm acc} \approx 5 \times 10^{-7}~M_\odot$ (Schmid et al. 2001), we can estimate, that it will take $10^6$ yr to accrete $\sim 0.5~M_\odot$ from the envelope of the red giant companion. Because the giant also losses mass via stellar wind, we find that the lifetime of the symbiotic phase of MWC 560 should be $\tau_{\rm ss} \leq 10^6$ yr. For MWC 560 we have therefore the situation in which $\tau_{\rm ps} < \tau_{\rm syn} < \tau_{\rm ss} < \tau_{\rm circ}$. This means that the symbiotic phase is long enough that the tidal forces can (pseudo)synchronize the rotation of the red giant. On the other hand, the value of $\tau_{\rm circ}$ demonstrates that the symbiotic lifetime of MWC 560 is shorter than the circularization time, and therefore the orbit can be eccentric. This is in agreement with the observational evidences found by Fekel et al. (2007) that the symbiotic stars with P$_{\rm orb} > 800$ days tend to have eccentric orbits. The above implies that in MWC 560, the red giant is probably synchronized, but the orbit is not circularized. To determine the orbital eccentricity of MWC 560, we need to calculate $P_{\rm rot}$ for the mass donor. We analyzed 21 high resolution spectra of MWC 560 and obtained value for $= 8.2 \pm 1.5$ . Using $R_{\rm g} = 140 \pm 7~R_\odot$ and $\; i=12^\circ-16^\circ$, we calculate $P_{\rm rot}=144 - 306$ days. This value is less than the orbital period. MWC 560 should be close to synchronization or pseudosynchronization, and $P_{\rm rot} =P_{\rm ps}$. Using Eq. \[Eq-ps\] we can estimate the orbital eccentricity to be $e=0.68-0.82$.
Conclusions
===========
Using rotational velocity measurements and the theory of synchronization/pseudosynchronization we:
\(1) find that the Be/X-ray binaries are far away from (pseudo)synchronization. The tidal force in the Be/X-ray binaries acts as a decelerator of the rotation of the mass donors. The only Be/X-ray binary which is close to pseudosynchronization is the LSI$+61^0303$. The objects containing mass donors of spectral class I and III typically have $P_{rot} \sim P_{ps}$ and are close to (pseudo)synchronization;
\(2) demonstrate that the M giants in symbiotic stars rotate faster than the field giants. Most symbiotics with orbital period less than 1000 d are synchronized;
\(3) show that the High-mass X-ray binaries and the S-type symbiotic stars are either on the line of synchronization or they are under the line. None of the objects in our sample is above the line of synchronization.
\(4) calculate that the orbit of the symbiotic star MWC 560 should be highly eccentric, with $e\sim$ 0.7.
We thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments. This work was supported by the OP “HRD“, ESF and Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science under the contract BG051PO001-3.3.06-0047.
[99]{}
Casares, J., Rib[ó]{}, M., Ribas, I., Paredes, J. M., Vilardell, F., & Negueruela, I.: 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1103 Claret, A.: 2007, A&A 467, 1389 Claret, A., & Gimenez, A.: 1989, A&AS, 81, 37 Crocker, M. M., Davis, R. J., Spencer, R. E., et al.: 2002, MNRAS, 335, 1100 Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., Wood, P. R., Lebzelter, T.: 2007, AJ 133, 17 Gromadzki, M., Miko[ł]{}ajewska, J., Whitelock, P. A., Marang, F.: 2007, A&A 463, 703 Hansen, C. J., & Kawaler, S. D.: 1994, [*Stellar Interiors. Physical Principles, Structure, and Evolution*]{}, Springer-Verlag Herwig, F.: 2005, ARA&A 43, 435 Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R.: 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897 Hut, P.: 1981, A&A, 99, 126 Iijima, T., Strafella, F., Sabbadin, F., & Bianchini, A.: 1994, A&A, 283, 919 Leahy, D. A., & Kostka, M.: 2008, MNRAS, 384, 747 Rib[ó]{}, M., Negueruela, I., Blay, P., Torrej[ó]{}n, J. M., & Reig, P.: 2006, A&A, 449, 687 Schmid, H. M., Kaufer, A., Camenzind, M., Rivinius, T., Stahl, O., Szeifert, T., Tubbesing, S., Wolf, B.: 2001, A&A 377, 206 Skopal, A., Pribulla, T., Budaj, J., et al.: 2009, ApJ, 690, 1222 Stoyanov, K. A., & Zamanov, R. K.: 2009, Astronomische Nachrichten, 330, 727 Tomov, T., Zamanov, R., Kolev, D., Georgiev, L., Antov, A., Mikolajewski, M., Esipov, V.: 1992, MNRAS 258, 23 Tomov, T., Kolev, D., Zamanov, R., Georgiev, L., Antov, A.: 1990, Nature 346, 637 Yungelson, L., Livio, M., Tutukov, A., & Kenyon, S. J.: 1995, ApJ 447, 656 Zamanov, R. K., Bode, M. F., Melo, C. H. F., et al.: 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1053 Zamanov, R., Marziani, P.: 2002, ApJL 571, L77 Zamanov, R. K., & Stoyanov, K. A.: 2012, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, 18, 41
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'X. Paredes-Fortuny'
- 'M. Ribó[^1]'
- 'V. Bosch-Ramon'
- 'J. Casares'
- 'O. Fors'
- 'J. Núñez'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: 'Received - / Accepted -'
title: 'Evidence of coupling between the thermal and nonthermal emission in the gamma-ray binary [LS I +61 303]{} [^2] '
---
Introduction
============
is one of the five gamma-ray binaries currently known (e.g., @Dubus2013 [@Paredes2013]). It is composed of an optical star ($V$$\sim$10.7) with spectral type B0 Ve, therefore presenting a circumstellar disk, and a compact companion that is probably a pulsar orbiting in an eccentric orbit with $e$ in the range 0.54–72 (see @Hutchings1981 [@Paredes1986; @Casares2005; @Dhawan2006; @Aragona2009]). The distance to the source is estimated to be $\sim$2 kpc based on measurements (@Frail1991). The binary system has an orbital period of $26.4960\pm0.0028$ d (@Gregory2002), and variable flux modulated with the orbital period has been detected from radio to very high-energy gamma rays (e.g., @Taylor1982 [@Mendelson1989; @Paredes1994; @Paredes1997; @Abdo2009; @Albert2009]). In addition to the orbital modulation, [LS I +61 303]{} also exhibits a superorbital modulation of radio outbursts in $\sim$4.6 yr (first detected by @Paredes1987 and @Gregory1989). [@Gregory2002] found a superorbital period of $1667\pm8$ d in the amplitude and in the orbital phase of the radio outbursts, leading to a drift of the outburst maxima from orbital phase $\sim$0.4 to $\sim$0.9. For reference, the periastron passage takes place at orbital phase 0.23–0.28 [@Casares2005; @Aragona2009]. The zero orbital and superorbital phases are set at JD 2,443,366.775 [@Gregory2002].
[@Zamanov2013] have recently detected the $\sim$4.6 yr superorbital period in the equivalent width of the ${\rm H{\alpha}}$ emission line, confirming the earlier evidences reported in [@Zamanov1999]. This suggests that the superorbital variability is related to periodic changes in the mass-loss rate of the Be star and/or variations in the circumstellar disk (see @Massi2014 and references therein for alternative interpretations). [@Li2012] discovered the superorbital modulation of [LS I +61 303]{} in X-rays (3–30 keV), with a period compatible with that found by [@Gregory2002] from radio measurements. [@Chernyakova2012] also reported the superorbital modulation of the X-ray emission, and using contemporaneous X-ray and radio observations showed that radio outbursts lag the X-ray outbursts by $\sim$0.2 in orbital phase along the entire superorbital cycle. [@Ackermann2013] found a sinusoidal variability in the $>$100 MeV $\gamma$-ray flux consistent with the radio superorbital period. Finally, [@Zaitseva2003] found long-term variability in the mean $V$-band magnitude of 0.07 mag, but no search for superorbital variability was conducted.
In this work, we present optical photometric observations of [LS I +61 303]{} spanning $\sim$1.5 yr, and contemporaneous H$\alpha$ equivalent width ($EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$) observations. We report the discovery of an orbital phase shift and a variation in the orbitally modulated flux, very similar to the well-known superorbital behavior of the orbital modulation in radio. In addition, we also detect a phase shift in the orbital modulation of the $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$, to our knowledge reported here for the first time. We discuss the obtained results in the context of the radio and X-ray superorbital variability, and conclude that there is a strong coupling between the thermal and nonthermal emission in [LS I +61 303]{}.
Observations and data reduction {#observations}
===============================
We performed optical photometric observations of [LS I +61 303]{} with the robotic Telescope Fabra-ROA Montsec (TFRM; see @Fors2013). The TFRM is installed at the Observatori Astronòmic del Montsec (Lleida, Spain). The main specifications are: corrector plate of 0.5 m aperture and 0.78 m primary mirror, refurbished Baker-Nunn Camera for routine CCD robotic observations, focal ratio f/0.96, $\rm{4.4^{\circ}\times 4.4^{\circ}}$ field of view with a pixel scale of $3.9{^\prime}{^\prime}$/pixel, passband filter SCHOTT GG475 (${\lambda}>$ 475 nm.), and custom CCD based on FLI ProLine 16803 with quantum efficiency of 60% at 550 nm (@Fors2013).
The observations span from 2012 July 31 to 2014 March 7 (2 seasons) with 71 nights of good data (preliminary results on season 1 data were presented in @Paredes-Fortuny2014). We observed the target around 20 times per night with exposures of 5–10 s, as a compromise between good signal to noise ratio and avoiding the nonlinear CCD regime.
We conducted the data reduction and analysis using a pipeline developed in Python following these steps: standard calibration of the images using IRAF[^3] (implemented through PyRAF[^4]), aperture photometry using the PHOT package from IRAF (PyRAF) with an aperture radius of 7.5 pixels, and correction of the lightcurves using a weighted average differential magnitude correction method based on [@Broeg2005]. The lightcurve of [LS I +61 303]{} has been corrected using 145 weighted reference stars up to 4 mag fainter than the target and as close as possible to it ($<0.25\degr$). Finally, we averaged the corrected magnitudes of the target on a nightly basis, and we used an artificial offset to a mean magnitude of 10.7 mag. The nightly photometric uncertainties are estimated as the standard deviation of the magnitudes of the target obtained from the individual images for each night. The obtained values are typically in the 5–10 mmag range.
We also considered contemporaneous $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ data of [LS I +61 303]{} obtained using FRODOspec on the robotic 2.0-m Liverpool telescope at the Observatorio del Roque de Los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain). The data span from 2012 July 2 to 2014 January 15 with 104 measurements, with one 600 s exposure per night. The data have been obtained with the same setup, and reduced in the same way, as in [@Casares2010]. We assumed that the uncertainties of the $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ are at the 10% level. The adopted convention is positive $EW$ for emission.
The data (Tables 1 and 2) are available online at the CDS.
Results
=======
The optical photometric lightcurve and $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ of [LS I +61 303]{} as a function of MJD and folded with the orbital phase are shown in Fig. \[total\]. As can be seen, the data cover two different seasons (centered in autumn) and show the already known orbital variability (see, e.g., @Zamanov2014). The folded lightcurves for the first and second season and their sinusoidal fits are shown in Fig. \[seasons\]. The fitted sinusoidal parameters (amplitude, zero phase, and mean value) for the different data sets, considering the data uncertainties, are quoted in Table \[tab\]. The 1-$\sigma$ uncertanties in the fitted parameters quoted in Table \[tab\] are estimated from the covariance matrix.
Data set MJD$^{\rm optical}$ $A^{\rm optical}$ (mmag) $\phi_0^{\rm optical}$ $C^{\rm optical}$ (mag) MJD$^{EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}}$ $A^{EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}}$ ($\AA$) $\phi_0^{EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}}$ $C^{EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}}$ ($\AA$)
---------- --------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Total 56139–56723 $28\pm3$ $0.73\pm0.02$ $10.701\pm0.002$ 56110–56672 $1.2\pm0.2$ $0.56\pm0.03$ $11.5\pm0.2$
Season 1 56139–56335 $29\pm3$ $0.68\pm0.02$ $10.704\pm0.003$ 56110–56298 $1.4\pm0.3$ $0.54\pm0.03$ $11.2\pm0.2$
Season 2 56594–56723 $24\pm4$ $0.85\pm0.02$ $10.689\pm0.003$ 56603–56672 $1.3\pm0.3$ $0.76\pm0.05$ $13.0\pm0.3$
The fits to the orbital variability of the optical photometry reveal, for the first time, a positive orbital phase shift of $0.16\pm0.03$ at 5.2 $\sigma$ confidence level (c.l.) and an increase in the average optical flux of $15\pm4$ mmag at 4.2 $\sigma$ c.l. between the two observational seasons 1-yr apart. These trends are reminiscent of the superorbital trends found at radio and X-ray wavelengths, and indicate that the optical flux follows the superorbital variability as well. We note that the folded lightcurves of the two individual seasons (see Fig. \[seasons\]-left) show less scatter than the folded lightcurve including all the data (see Fig. \[total\]), which span $\sim$0.35 superorbital phases.
Similarly, the fits to the orbital variability of $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ present for the first time a positive orbital phase shift of $0.22\pm0.05$ at 4.2 $\sigma$ c.l. Further, we confirm the previously claimed superorbital modulation of the mean $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$, with a variation of $1.8\pm0.3$ Å at 5.7 $\sigma$ c.l., between our two observational seasons[^5]. In addition, the orbital modulation of the optical photometry exhibits a lag of $\sim$0.1–0.2 in orbital phase with respect to the orbital modulation of $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ at similar superorbital phases (see Fig. \[seasons\] and Table \[tab\]).
To better display the superorbital variability, color maps of the optical photometry and $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ as a function of the orbital phase and superorbital cycle are shown in Fig. \[phases\]. The dotted red and blue lines represent the orbital phase drifts of the corresponding maxima along the superorbital cycle for the contemporaneous optical photometry and $EW_{\rm
H{\alpha}}$ presented here (superorbital cycle 7). The contemporaneous radio and X-ray fluxes of the previous superorbital cycle (6) from [@Chernyakova2012] are shown as black and green dotted lines. The optical photometric observations show a lag of $\sim$0.1 in orbital phase with respect to the radio outburst, and $\sim$0.3 with respect to the X-ray outbursts for equivalent superorbital phases one cycle apart. The $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ maxima occur at orbital phases similar to the radio outbursts for similar superorbital phases one cycle apart, while in the averaged data of [@Zamanov2013; @Zamanov2014] the maxima occur during the rising of the radio flux density. The different slopes in Fig. \[phases\] might suggest a change in the behavior of the superorbital modulation between different superorbital cycles, although we caution that the results are still compatible at 2$\sigma$ c.l.
Discussion
==========
The observations of [LS I +61 303]{} reported here show, for the first time, orbital phase shifts in the maxima of the orbitally modulated optical flux and $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ for different phases of the superorbital cycle (see Figs. \[seasons\] and \[phases\] and Table \[tab\]). These results extend previously reported links between the H$\alpha$ emission and multiwavelength properties but obtained from the *average* orbital modulation, i.e., without considering the superorbital variability (see, e.g., @Zamanov2014). The results reported here are now discussed in the context of the known multiwavelength behavior of the orbital and superorbital variability of the source.
The orbital variability of the gamma-ray binary [LS I +61 303]{} is wavelength dependent. After periastron at phase 0.23–0.28, there is first a maximum in X-rays (good tracer of the nonthermal emission), followed by a maximum in $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ (tracer of the outer disk conditions) and in radio emission (produced mainly outside the binary system). Finally, a maximum in optical flux is observed, with a 65% contribution from the Be star plus 35% from the inner circumstellar disk [@Casares2005]. The circumstellar disk is likely to be perturbed and/or partially disrupted by tidal forces and the putative pulsar wind ram pressure. These would trigger significant changes in the structure of the Be disk, especially around periastron passage, reducing its emitting area and total optical emission. This is approximately what is observed in the data from season 1, but the orbital phase shift in season 2 clearly shows that there is more than purely orbit-induced variability. In fact, the superorbital variability observed in $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ has been associated with periodic changes on the Be star envelope and its circumstellar disk (e.g., @Zamanov1999), which would trigger the superorbital variability observed at other wavelenghts. If this is the case, since the orbital modulation seen in X-rays or radio suffers a phase drift along the superorbital cycle, we should detect the same effect in optical flux and $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$, as reported here for the first time. Thus, it is clear that there is a strong empirical coupling between the thermal (optical) and the nonthermal (X-ray and radio) emission in the gamma-ray binary [LS I +61 303]{} at both orbital and superorbital scales.
The orbitally modulated optical flux and $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ present different behavior between them. The optical flux shows $\sim$0.06 mag modulation, representing $\sim$6% in total flux or $\sim$16% in disk flux (and probably projected area), while $EW_{\rm H{\alpha}}$ shows $\sim$30% variability. This implies that external parts of the disk are more perturbed or disrupted than the inner parts of the disk, as one would expect if these perturbations (or disruptions) are due to the influence of the compact object as it approaches periastron (where the perturbations are caused by tidal forces and/or ram pressure). In addition, the $\sim$0.1–0.2 phase lag implies that the external parts are perturbed or disrupted before the internal parts, but they recover earlier as well, probably building up from material shocked before periastron passage. The inner disk would only recover close to, or even after, apastron. The secular evolution of this behavior along the superorbital cycle could be due to the presence of a moving one-armed spiral density wave in the disk, as suggested by [@Negueruela1998] for traditional Be/X-ray binaries.
The authors acknowledge support of the TFRM team for preparing and carrying out the optical photometric observations. We thank useful discussions with Josep M. Paredes and Ignacio Negueruela. We acknowledge support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) under grants AYA2013-47447-C3-1-P, AYA2010-18080, and FPA2013-48381-C6-6-P. This research has been supported by the Marie Curie Career Integration Grant 321520. X.P.-F. acknowledges financial support from Universitat de Barcelona and Generalitat de Catalunya under grants APIF and FI (2014FI\_B 01017), respectively. V.B-R. acknowledges financial support from MINECO and European Social Funds through a Ramón y Cajal fellowship.
[^1]: Serra Húnter Fellow.
[^2]: Tables 1 and 2 are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to [cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr]{} ([130.79.128.5]{}) or via [http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/]{}
[^3]: IRAF is distributed by NOAO, which is operated by AURA, under cooperative agreement with NSF.
[^4]: PyRAF is a product of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for NASA.
[^5]: Despite the relatively poor sampling at equivalent superorbital phases, the [@Zamanov2013] data reveal a compatible behavior.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
[**Sorina Barza**]{}\
Department of Mathematics, Karlstad University\
S-65188 Karlstad, SWEDEN\
E-mail: [sorina.barza@kau.se]{}
- |
[**Lars-Erik Persson**]{}\
Department of Mathematics, Luleå University\
S-97187 Luleå, SWEDEN\
E-mail: [larserik@sm.luth.se]{}
- |
[**Javier Soria[^1]** ]{}\
Dept.Appl. Math. and Analysis, University of Barcelona\
E-08071 Barcelona, SPAIN\
E-mail: [soria@mat.ub.es]{}
title: |
Multidimensional rearrangement\
and Lorentz spaces
---
[**Abstract**]{}
We define a multidimensional rearrangement, which is related to classical inequalities for functions that are monotone in each variable. We prove the main measure theoretical results of the new theory and characterize the functional properties of the associated weighted Lorentz spaces.
[**Mathematics Subject Classification 2000:**]{} 46E30, 46B25.
[**Keywords:**]{} Function spaces, rearrangement, Lorentz spaces, monotone functions, weighted inequalities.
Introduction
============
Recently, some authors (see [@Ba], [@BPSo], and [@BPSt]) have considered multidimensional analogs of classical inequalities for monotone functions: Hardy’s inequality, Chebyshev’s inequality, embeddings for weighted Lorentz spaces, etc. (see, e.g., [@AM], [@Sa], [@St], [@CS]). We recall that the main interest in studying these results on monotone functions comes from the fact that the spaces, where the estimates hold, are rearrangement invariant function spaces (see [@BS]), and hence the functions that show up in the inequalities are the nonincreasing rearrangements of general measurable functions (which are essentially all monotone functions on $\RR_+$). This observation is fundamental to understand our main purpose: we want to find the natural definition for a multidimensional rearrangement in such a way that what we get is a general decreasing function on $\RR^n_+:=\RR_+\times\cdots\times\RR_+$. Our approach is very geometrical: we look for a measure preserving transformation taking (all) sets in $\RR^n$ to (all) decreasing sets in $\RR^n_+$, and such that it is monotone, and leaves fixed the sets that are already decreasing (see Definition \[set\]). Once we know how to rearrange sets, we can define the multidimensional rearrangement of a function by using the Layer-cake formula, which recovers a function by means of its level sets (see Definition \[rearange\]).
This new definition opens up the possibility of studying whether the properties of the classical rearrangement hold true in the multidimensional setting (see Corollary \[harlit\] for an example which shows that the resonant property fails). In Section \[twodimdr\] we develop the main ideas of the new rearrangement from a measure theoretical point of view (Propositions \[propset\], \[propre\], \[simpfun\], and Theorem \[betharli\]), establish the relationship with the classical rearrangement and show that it agrees with the so called multivariate rearrangement (Corollary \[equirear\] and Theorem \[iterrea\]). In Section \[lorspawd\] we introduce the weighted Lorentz spaces associated to the multidimensional rearrangement, we find their relationship with the Lebesgue and the rearrangement invariant spaces (Theorem \[lorleb\] and Propositions \[wconst\], \[exwlp\]), prove the different embeddings in the whole range of indices (Proposition \[embddg\]), and characterize functional properties like quasinormability (Theorem \[quasiw\]) and the weights which give rise to a norm (Theorems \[indexp\] and \[normeq\]).
Most of the notations we are going to use are standard as, for example, defined in [@BS]: $\lambda_f$ is the distribution function of $f$, the nonincreasing rearrangement of $f$ is denoted $f^*$, $h\downarrow$ means that $h$ is decreasing, etc. A weight $w$ is a locally integrable positive function (either on $\RR^n$ or $\RR^n_+$, depending on the context), and if $E$ is a set, $w(E)=\int_Ew$. As usual, $|E|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of $E$. Two positive quantities $A$ and $B$, are said to be equivalent ($A\approx B$) if there exists a constant $C>1$ (independent of the essential parameters defining $A$ and $B$, and not the same at different occasions) such that $C^{-1}A\le B\le CA$. Also, all sets that we are going to consider are always Lebesgue measurable sets.
Two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement {#twodimdr}
========================================
For simplicity, we are going to reduce our definitions to the two-dimensional case, although there are natural extensions to higher dimensions too. Our approach is to give a geometric definition of the rearrangement of a measurable set (so that we get a general decreasing set in ${\RR}^2_+$), and extend it to also rearrange functions, by looking at the level sets and the use of the Layer-cake formula ([@LL]). We will show in Theorem \[iterrea\] that this definition agrees with the so called multivariate rearrangement (see [@Bl]).
\[def1\] We say that a set $D\subset{\RR}^2_+$ is decreasing (and write $D\in\Delta_d$) if the function $\chi_D$ is decreasing in each variable.
\[set\] Let $E$ be a subset of ${{\RR}^2}$ and $\varphi_E(x)=|\{y\in {\RR}:(x,y)\in E\}|$, $x\in {\RR}$. Let the function $\varphi_E^{*}$, defined by $$\varphi_E^{*}(s)=\inf\{\lambda:|\{x\in {\RR}
: \varphi_E(x) >\lambda\}|\le s\},\,(s\ge 0)$$ be the usual decreasing rearrangement of $\varphi_E$ (see [@BS]). Then, the two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement of the set $E$ is the set $$E^{*}=\{(s,t)\in {{\RR}^2_+}:0<t<\varphi_E^{*}(s)\}.$$
\[rearange\] [**(Layer-cake formula [@LL]).**]{} The two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement $f^{*}_2$ of a function $f$ on ${{\RR}^2}$ is given by $$f^{*}_2(x)=\int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{| f|>t\}^{*}}(x) dt,\qquad x\in\RR^2_+.$$
We give now some elementary properties for this new rearrangement definition.
\[propset\] Let $E$ and $F$ be two subsets of ${{\RR}^2}$. Then,
a\) $| E| =| E^{*}|$, and $E^*\subset F^*$, if $E\subset F$.
b\) $E= E^{*}$, if and only if $E$ is a decreasing set of ${{\RR}_+^2}$.
c\) $\fst=\chi_{F^{*}}$, if and only if $f=\chi_E$, and $E^{*}=F^{*}$. In particular, $\left({\chi_E}\right)^{*}_2=\chi_{E^{*}}.$
d\) If $E\cap F=\emptyset$ then $|(E\cup F)^{*}\setminus E^{*}|=|F|$.
[**Proof.**]{} a) We have $$| E| = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\varphi_E(x)
dx=\int_{0}^{\infty}{\varphi}_E^{*}(x) dx=| E^{*}|.$$ The second part is trivial since $\varphi_E\le\varphi_F$.
b\) If $E$ is a decreasing set, then there exists $r>0$ such that $$E=\{(x,y)\in {{\RR}^2}:0<x<r,\,0<y<{\varphi_E}(x)\}.$$ Since $\varphi_E$ is decreasing, then $E= E^{*}$. The converse implication is trivial.
c\) It yields that $$\left({\chi_E}\right)^{*}_2 (x)= \int_0^{\infty}
\chi_{\{\chi_E>t\}^{*}}(x) dt
=\int_0^{1}\chi_{E^{*}}(x) dt=\chi_{E^{*}}(x).$$ Conversely, suppose $\fst=\chi_{F^*}$:
1. If $x\notin F^*$, then $x\notin\{f>t\}^*$ and hence $\{f>t\}^*\subset F^*$, for all $t>0$.
2. If $x\in F^*$, then $x\in\{f>t\}^*$, $0<t<1$, and $x\notin\{f>t\}^*$, $1<t$.
Therefore, $\{f>t\}^*= F^*$, if $0<t<1$, and $\{f>t\}^*=\emptyset$, if $1<t$. Thus, $t<f(x)\le 1$, if $f(x)\neq0$, for every $0<t<1$, and hence there exists a set $E$ such that $f=\chi_E$ and $E^*=F^*$.
Property d) follows easily from a). $\qquad\Box$
The following results gives more information on the level sets of $f$ and $\fst$.
\[incl\] If $f$ is a measurable function on ${{\RR}^2}$ and $t>0$, then
$$\{f^{*}_2>t\}\subseteq \{| f|>t\}^{*} \subseteq \{f^{*}_2\ge t\}.$$
[**Proof.**]{} By definition, $$f^{*}_2(x)>t\Longleftrightarrow \int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{| f|>s\}^{*}}(x)
ds>t,\,\,(x=(x_1,x_2)).$$ But, $$\chi_{\{| f|>s\}^{*}}(x)
=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if ${\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1)>x_2$}\\
& \mbox{}\\
0 & \mbox{if ${\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1)\le x_2,$}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where ${\varphi}_s(a)=|\{b:| f(a,b)| >s\}|$. Thus $f_2^{*}(x)>t \Longleftrightarrow
|\{s:{\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1)>x_2\}|>t$. Observe that if $
s<s^{\prime}$, then $ {\varphi}_{s^{\prime}}^{*}(x_1)\le
{\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1),$ and hence $\{s:{\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1)>x_2\}$ is an interval of the form $(0,s)$ or $(0,s]$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|(0,s)| >t & \Longrightarrow & s>t \Longrightarrow
{\varphi}_t^{*}(x_1)>x_2\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow & (x_1,x_2)=x\in \{ | f| >t\}^{*}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if $ x\in \{| f |>t\}^{*}$, then $\varphi_t^{*}(x_1)>x_2,\, x=(x_1,x_2),$ and hence $|\{s:{\varphi}_s^{*}(x_1)>x_2\}|\ge t$, which implies $f^{*}_2(x)\ge
t.\qquad\Box$
\[car\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two measurable functions on ${{\RR}^2}$ and $t>0$.Then $$\chi_{\{| f+g| > t\}^{*}} (x+y) \le \chi_ {\{| f| > t/2
\}^{*}}(x)
+\chi_ {\{| g| > t/2 \}^{*}}(y),$$ $x=(x_1,x_2),\,\,y=(y_1,y_2)\in {{\RR}^2}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{f,t}(a)&:=&|\{b\in {\RR}:| f(a,b)|>t\}|\\
\varphi_{g,t}(a)&:=&|\{b\in {\RR}:| g(a,b)|>t\}|\\
\varphi_{f+g,t}(a)&:=&|\{b\in {\RR}:| (f+g)(a,b)|>t\}|.\end{aligned}$$ We know that $$\varphi_{f+g,t}(a) \le \varphi_{f,t/2}(a)+\varphi_{g,t/2}(a).$$ Also, if $x\notin\{ | f |>t/2\}^{*}$, then $
\varphi_{f,t/2}^{*}(x_1)<x_2$ and similarly, if $y\notin\{ | g |>t/2\}^{*}$, then $
\varphi_{g,t/2}^{*}(y_1)<y_2$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}_{f+g,t}^{*}(x_1+y_1) & \le &
(\varphi_{f,t/2}+\varphi_{g,t/2})^{*}(x_1+y_1)\nonumber\\
& \le & \varphi_{f,t/2}^{*}(x_1)+\varphi_{g,t/2}^{*}(y_1)\nonumber\\
& < & x_2+y_2,\end{aligned}$$ which means exactly that $ x+y\notin\{ | f+g|> t\}^{*}$. This completes the proof of the lemma.$\qquad\Box$
\[propre\] Suppose $f$, $g$, and $f_n$, ($n=1,2,\ldots$) are measurable functions on ${{\RR}^2}$ and let $c\in \CC$. Then the two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement $f^{*}_2$ is a nonnegative function on ${{\RR}^2_+}$, decreasing in each variable. Furthermore,
a\) $ | g|\le | f| -\mbox{a.e.}\Longrightarrow g^{*}_2\le
f^{*}_2;$
b\) $ (cf)^{*}_2=| c| f^{*}_2; $
c\) if $f$ is decreasing in each variable, then $f^{*}_2=f;$
d\) $ (f+g)^{*}_2(x+y)\le 2\left(f^{*}_2(x)+g^{*}_2(y)\right);$
e\) $ | f| \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty} | f_n|
\Longrightarrow f^{*}_2\le
\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(f_n\right)_2^{*} $, and, in particular, if $| f_n| \uparrow | f| \Longrightarrow
\left(f_n\right)_2^{*}\uparrow f^{*}_2$;
f\) $ \left(f^{*}_2(x)\right)^p=
\left(f^p(x)\right)^{*}_2,\,\,(0<p<\infty) $;
g\) if $f$ is a symmetric function (i.e. $f(x_1,x_2)=f(x_2,x_1)$), then $f^{*}_2$ is symmetric.
[**Proof.**]{} That $f^{*}_2$ is nonnegative and decreasing follows from Definition \[rearange\] and the fact that the characteristic function of a decreasing set is a decreasing function.
a\) By Definition \[set\], it follows that $$\{| g| >t\}\subset \{| f| >t\} \Longrightarrow \{| g|
>t\}^{*}\subset \{| f| >t\}^{*}.$$ Thus $
\chi_{\{| g| >t\}^{*}} \le \chi_{\{| f| >t\}^{*}}
$ and $
g^{*}_2\le f^{*}_2.
$
b\) Trivial.
c\) If $f$ is a decreasing function in each variable, then the level set $ \{| f| >t\}$ is a decreasing set (see also [@BPSo]) and c.f. Proposition \[propset\] $$\{| f| >t\}^{*}= \{| f| >t\}.$$ We get the desired equality by using Definition \[rearange\].
d\) By Lemma \[car\] and b) of this proposition we have $$\begin{aligned}
(f+g)^{*}_2(x+y) & = &\int_0^\infty\chi_{\{| f+g |
>t\}^{*}}(x+y) dt\nonumber\\
& \le & \int_0^\infty\chi_{\{| f| >t/2\}^{*}}(x) dt+\int_0^\infty
\chi_{\{| g| >t/2\}^{*}}(y)dt\nonumber\\
& = & 2\left(f^{*}_2(x)+g^{*}_2(y)\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
e\) Let $$E^t:=\{(x,y):| f(x,y)|>t\}$$ and $$E^t_n:=\{(x,y):| f_n(x,y)|>t\}.$$ Set $f_x(y):=f(x,y)$ and $$\varphi_{f,t}(x)=|\{y:| f(x,y)| > t\}|= \lambda_{f_x}(t),$$ where $\lambda_{f_x}$ is the usual distribution function (see [@BS]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
| f| \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty} | f_n| & \Longrightarrow &
| f_x| \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty} | f_{x,n}|\,\,
\mbox{a.e.}\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow & \lambda_{f_x} \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}
\lambda_{f_{x,n}}\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow &\varphi_{f,t} \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}
\varphi_{f_n,t}, \mbox{a.e.},\,\forall t>0\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow & {\varphi}^{*}_{f,t} \le \liminf_{n\rightarrow
\infty} {\varphi}^{*}_{f_n,t}, \mbox{a.e.},
\,\forall t>0\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow & \chi_{\left(E^t\right)^{*}} \le
\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}
\chi_{\left(E_n^t\right)^{*}}\nonumber\\
& \Longrightarrow & f^{*}_2\le \liminf_{n\rightarrow
\infty}\left(f_n\right)_2^{*}.\end{aligned}$$ The second part is an immediate consequence of the first.
f\) We have $$\left(f^{*}_2(x)\right)^p=\left(\int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{|
f|>t\}^{*}}(x)dt\right)^p$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(f^p\right)^{*}_2(x) & = & \int_0^{\infty} \chi_{\{|
f^p|>t\}^{*}}(x)dt\nonumber\\
& = & p\int_0^{\infty} \chi_{\{| f|>t\}^{*}}(x)t^{p-1}dt.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \[incl\] we have $$\chi_{\{| f|>t\}^{*}}\ge \chi_{\{f^{*}_2\ge t\}}$$ and, hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(f^p\right)_2^{*} (x) & \ge &
p\int_0^{\infty}t^{p-1}\chi_{\{f^{*}_2\ge t\}}(x) dt \nonumber\\
& = &
p\int_0^{f^{*}_2(x)}t^{p-1}dt=\left(f^{*}_2(x)\right)^{p}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if we take $0<r<1$, then by Lemma \[incl\] we have $$\chi_{\{| f|>t\}^{*}_2} \le \chi_{\{f^{*}_2\ge r t\}},$$ and, hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(f^p\right)_2^{*} (x) & \le &
p\int_0^{\infty}t^{p-1}\chi_{\{f^{*}_2\ge r t\}}(x) dt \nonumber\\
& = &
p\int_0^{f^{*}_2(x)/r}t^{p-1}dt=\left(\frac{f^{*}_2(x)}{r}\right)^{p}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since this is true for all $0<r<1$, we get $$f^{*}_2(x)\ge \left(f^p\right)_2^{*} (x) \ge
f^{*}_2(x).$$
g\) This is just an observation which follows immediately by using the definition of $f^{*}_2$. $\qquad\Box$
The following proposition will be very useful for proving our main results, since it will allow us to consider the special and easier case of simple functions.
\[simpfun\] If $f$ is a measurable function on ${{\RR}^2}$, then there exists a sequence $(s_n)_n$ of simple measurable functions such that:
a\) $0\le (s_1)^{*}_2 \le \ldots \le (s_n)^{*}_2 \le f^{*}_2$,
b\) $(s_n)^{*}_2\longrightarrow f^{*}_2$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ a.e.
[**Proof.**]{} The existence of the sequence is standard, and the rest is just a consequence of Proposition \[propre\] a) and e), and the following remark: If $s(x)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{E_j}$, with $a_1>a_2>\cdots>a_n>0$ and $E_j\cap
E_i=\emptyset,\,i\ne j$, then $$s^*_2(x)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{F^*_j\setminus F^*_{j-1}}(x),$$ where $F_j=\cup_{k=1}^jE_k$, and $F_0=\emptyset$. Observe that from Proposition \[propset\] we have that $|F^*_j\setminus F^*_{j-1}|=|E_j|$. $\qquad\Box$
As a corollary, we can obtain several properties relating our two-dimensional rearrangement and the classical one. In particular, we see that the new rearrangement is finer and gives more information than the other.
\[equirear\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two measurable functions in $\RR^2$.
a\) If $f^*_2=g^*_2$, then $f^*=g^*$, and the converse is not true in general.
b\) $(f^*_2)^*=f^*.$
[**Proof.**]{} To prove a) we observe that if $f^*_2=g^*_2$, then $$\int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{f>t\}^*}(x)\,dt=\int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{g>t\}^*}(x)\,dt,$$ and hence $\{f>t\}^*=\{g>t\}^*$. Using now Proposition \[propset\] a), we get that $|\{f>t\}|=|\{g>t\}|$ which shows that $f^*=g^*$. To see that the converse does not hold, consider the decreasing sets $A=(0,1)\times(0,2)$, $B=(0,2)\times(0,1)$ and the functions $f=\chi_A$ and $g=\chi_B$. Then, $f^*=g^*=\chi_{(0,2)}$ but $f^*_2=f\neq g=g^*_2$.
The proof of b) follows immediately by checking what happens for simple functions and using Proposition \[simpfun\]. We observe that from b) we can also give an alternative proof of a) $\qquad\Box$
We consider next integral inequalities, for the two-dimensional rearrangement, related to the Hardy–Littlewood inequality (see [@BS]). Again we observe that what we obtain is a better estimate. We begin with an elementary but useful lemma.
\[haliprop\] Let $g$ be a nonnegative simple function on ${{\RR}^2}$ and let $E$ be an arbitrary set of ${{\RR}^2}$. Then $$\int_E g(x)\, dx\le \int_{E^{*}} g^{*}_2(x)\, dx.$$
[**Proof.**]{} Let $$g(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n a_j\chi_{E_j}(x),$$ where $a_1>a_2>\cdots>a_n>0$, $a_{n+1}=0$, and $E_j\subset {{\RR}^2}$ are of finite measure such that $E_j\cap E_i=\emptyset,\,i\ne j$. Another representation of $g$ is $$g(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n b_j\chi_{F_j}(x),$$ where $b_j>0$, $b_j=a_j-a_{j+1}$, and $F_j={\cup}_{i=1}^j E_i$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
g^{*}_2(x) & = & \int_0^{\infty} \chi_{\{g> t\}^{*}}(x) dt
\nonumber\\
& = & \int_{a_2}^{a_1}\chi_{{E_1}^{*}}(x)
dt+\int_{a_3}^{a_2}\chi_{{(E_1\cup E_2})^{*}}(x) dt
+\cdots \int_0^{a_n}\chi_{{(E_1\cup\ldots \cup E_n)}^{*}}(x) dt
\nonumber\\
& = & \chi_{{E_1}^{*}}(x) (a_1-a_2)+\chi_{{(E_1\cup E_2)}^{*}}(x)
(a_2-a_3)+\cdots+
\chi_{{(E_1\cup\ldots \cup E_n)}^{*}}(x)a_n\nonumber\\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^n b_j\chi_{{F_j}^{*}}(x).\label{reofsim}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, since $(F_j\cap E)^{*}\subset {F_j}^{*}\cap
E^{*}$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_E g(x) dx & = & \sum_{j=1}^n b_j\int_E\chi_{F_j}(x) dx=\sum_{j=1}^n
b_j| F_j\cap E|\nonumber\\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^n b_j| (F_j\cap E)^{*} | =\sum_{j=1}^n b_j
\int_{(F_j\cap E)^{*} }dx\nonumber\\
& \le & \sum_{j=1}^n b_j \int_{ F_j^{*}\cap E^{*}}dx =
\int_{E^{*}} g^{*}_2(x) dx. \qquad\Box\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[betharli\] If $f$ and $g$ are measurable functions on ${{\RR}^2}$, then $$\int_{{\RR}^2}| f(x) g(x)|\, dx\le \int_{{\RR}^2_+}
f^{*}_2(x) g^{*}_2(x)\, dx\le \int_0^{\infty}
f^{*}(t) g^{*}(t)\, dt.$$
[**Proof.**]{} It is enough to prove the statement for $f$ and $g$ nonnegative. By Proposition \[propre\] e) and in view of the monotone convergence theorem there is no loss of generality in assuming $f$ and $g$ to be simple functions. Let $$f(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n a_j\chi_{E_j}(x),$$ where $E_1\subset E_2\subset\ldots\subset\ldots E_n\subset{{\RR}^2}$, are of finite measure, and $a_j>0$. Then, by Lemma \[haliprop\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\RR}^2} f(x)g(x)dx & = & \sum_{j=1}^n a_j\int_{E_j} g(x) dx
\leq \sum_{j=1}^n a_j\int_{E_j^{*}}
g^{*}_2(x)dx \nonumber\\
& = &\int_{{\RR}^2_+} \sum_{j=1}^n a_j \chi_{E_j^{*}}(x)
g^{*}_2(x)dx = \int_{{\RR}_+^2} f^{*}_2(x)
g^{*}_2(x) dx . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The second inequality follows from Corollary \[equirear\] b). $\qquad\Box$
\[harlit\]
If $f$ is a nonnegative measurable function on ${{\RR}^2}$, and $D$ is a decreasing set, then
$$\sup_{E^*=D}\int_Ef(x)\,dx\le\int_Df^*_2(x)\,dx\le\int_0^{|D|}f^*(t)\,dt,$$ and both inequalities can hold strictly for some $f$ and $D$.
[**Proof.**]{} That the inequalities hold is a consequence of Theorem \[betharli\], applied with $g=\chi_E$. To show that the first inequality can be strict, consider the sets $A=(3,4)\times(0,1)$, $B=(4,6)\times (0,2)$, $D=(0,1)\times(0,2)$, and the function $f(x)=2\chi_A(x)+\chi_B(x)$. Then, it is easy to see that for every set $E$ such that $E^*_2=D$, we have $$\int_Ef(x)\,dx\le 2<3=\int_Df^*_2(x)\,dx.$$
For the second inequality, consider $D_{\varepsilon}=(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,1/\varepsilon)$ and $f$ as before. Then, $$\int_0^{|D_{\varepsilon}|}f^*(t)\,dt=2,\qquad\hbox{for every $\varepsilon>0$,}$$ but $$\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}{\int_{D_{\varepsilon}} f^*_2(x)\,dx=0. }\qquad\Box$$
As we have mentioned in the introduction, our definition of the two-dimensional rearrangement is based on a geometric approach: we first look at the rearrangement of the level sets of the function, and then we recover the rearrangement of the function by summing up all these level sets (Layer-cake formula). In the next theorem, we are going to prove a direct way of calculating the two-dimensional rearrangement as an iterative procedure with respect to the usual rearrangement in each variable (see [@Bl] for some related work).
In order to clarify the notation used in the proof, given a function $f(x,y)$ defined on $\RR^2$, we write $R_t(x)=(f_x)^{*y}(t)$, where $f_x(y)=f(x,y)$ and $t>0$ (i.e., $R_t$ is the usual rearrangement of the function $f_x$, with respect to the variable $y$). Similarly, we set $\tilde
f(s,t)=(R_t)^{*x}(s)$, $s,t>0$. It is very easy to show that, in general, we do not get the same function if we first rearrange with respect to $x$ and then with respect to $y$.
\[iterrea\] If $f$ is a measurable function on ${{\RR}^2}$, then $f^*_2(s,t)=\tilde f(s,t)$, $\forall\ s,t>0$.
[**Proof.**]{} Using Proposition \[simpfun\], it suffices to consider $f$ to be a simple function. Hence, let $f(x,y)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{E_j}(x,y)$, with $a_1>a_2>\cdots>a_n$, $E_j\cap
E_k=\emptyset$, $j\neq k$. Set $F_k=\cup_{j=1}^kE_j$, $F_0=\emptyset$, so that $$f^*_2(s,t)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{F^*_j\setminus F^*_{j-1}}(s,t).$$ Recall that $\varphi_E(x)=|\{y:(x,y)\in E\}|$ and $E^*=\{(s,t):0<t<\varphi^*_E(s)\}$. Hence, $$\chi_{E^*}(s,t)=\chi_{(0,\varphi^*_E(s))}(t)=\chi_{(0,\lambda_{\varphi_E}(t))}(s).$$ Thus, $$\chi_{F^*_j\setminus F^*_{j-1}}(s,t)=\chi_{F^*_j}(s,t)-\chi_{
F^*_{j-1}}(s,t)=\chi_{[\lambda_{\varphi_{F_{j-1}}}(t),\lambda_{\varphi_{F_j}}(t))}(s),$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqfst}
f^*_2(s,t)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{[\lambda_{\varphi_{F_{j-1}}}(t),\lambda_{\varphi_{F_j}}(t))}(s).\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, since $$f_x(y)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{E_j(x)}(y),$$ where $E(x)=\{y:(x,y)\in E\}$, we have that
$$\begin{aligned}
R_t(x)&=&(f_x)^{*y}(t)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{[|F_{j-1}(x)|,|F_j(x)|)}(t)\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{[\varphi_{F_{j-1}}(x),\varphi_{F_{j}}(x))}(t)
=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{H_j(t)}(x),\end{aligned}$$
where $H_j(t)=\{y:\varphi_{F_{j-1}}(y)\le t<\varphi_{F_{j}}(y)\}$. Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqfti}
\tilde f(s,t)=(R_t)^{*x}(s)=\sum_{j=1}^na_j\chi_{[|G_{j-1}(t),|G_j(t)|)}(s),\end{aligned}$$
where $G_j(t)=\cup_{k=1}^jH_k(t)$, $G_0(t)=\emptyset$. Thus looking at (\[eqfst\]) and (\[eqfti\]) it suffices to proving that $$|G_j(t)|=\lambda_{\varphi_{F_j}}(t).$$ But, in fact $$\begin{aligned}
|G_j(t)|&=&\sum_{k=1}^j|H_k(t)|=\sum_{k=1}^j|\{y:\varphi_{F_{k-1}}(y)\le
t<\varphi_{F_{k}}(y)\}|\\
&=&|\{y:t<\varphi_{F_j}(y)\}|=\lambda_{\varphi_{F_j}}(t),\end{aligned}$$ and the proof is complete. $\qquad\Box$
If $g$ and $h$ are two measurable functions on $\RR$, and $f(x,y)=g(x)h(y)$, then $f^*_2(s,t)=g^*(s)h^*(t).$
Another application of Theorem \[iterrea\] is that the inequality proved in Theorem \[propre\] d) can be improved to obtain the classical subadditivity condition: $ (f+g)^{*}_2(x+y)\le
f^{*}_2(x)+g^{*}_2(y)$ (we leave the details to the interested reader).
A new multidimensional Lorentz space {#lorspawd}
====================================
In this section we prove some properties of a new type of space, defined using the two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement. Recall the definition of the classical Lorentz space: If $v$ is a weight in $\RR_+$ and $0<p<\infty$, $$\Lambda^p(v)=\bigg\{f:\RR^n\to\CC:\Vert
f\Vert_{\Lambda^p(v)}:=\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}(f^*(t))^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)^{1/p}<\infty\bigg\}.$$ We now say that a measurable function $f$ on ${{\RR}^2}$ belongs to the (multidimensional) Lorentz space ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)$, provided $\|f\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$, defined by $$\| f\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}:=\left(\int_{{\RR}_+^2}
\left(f^{*}_2(x)\right)^p w(x) dx\right)^{1/p},$$ is finite. Here $w$ is a nonnegative, locally integrable function on ${{\RR}_+^2}$, not identically $0$.
The next result gives an alternative description of the $L^p_{{\RR}^2}$ norm in terms of the two-dimensional decreasing rearrangement, i.e., the spaces defined above generalize naturally the Lebesgue spaces.
\[lorleb\] If $0<p<\infty$, then $
{\Lambda}^p_2(1)=L^p_{{\RR}^2}.
$
[**Proof.**]{} By Fubini’s theorem and Proposition \[propre\] f) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\RR}^2}|f(x)|^p dx & = &
\int_0^{\infty}\int_{\{|f|^p>t\}}dx dt=\int_0^{\infty}\int_{\{|f|^p>t\}
^{*}}dx dt\nonumber\\
& = & \int_{{\RR}_+^2}\int_0^{\infty}\chi_{\{|f|^p>t\}^{*}}(x) dt dx
= \int_{{\RR}_+^2} \left(f^p\right)^{*}_2 (x) dx \nonumber\\
& = & \int_{{\RR}_+^2} \left(f^{*}_2(x)\right)^p dx . \qquad\Box\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We are interested in studying functional properties of the spaces ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)$ and their relationship with the classical rearrangement invariant spaces (see [@BS]). The following results show that these two kinds of spaces only agree in very particular cases:
\[wconst\] If $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is a rearrangement invariant norm, then $w$ is constant, and hence ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)=L^p_{{\RR}^2}.$
[**Proof.**]{} Fix $(x,y)\in\RR^2_+$, $0<\varepsilon<\min(x,y)$, and define $R=(0,x)\times(0,y)$, $P_{\varepsilon}=(x-\varepsilon,x)\times (y-\varepsilon,y)$, $Q_{\varepsilon}=(x,x+\varepsilon)\times(0,\varepsilon)$, and $A_{\varepsilon}=(R\setminus P_{\varepsilon})\cup Q_{\varepsilon}$. Then $|R|=|A_{\varepsilon}|$, and hence $\Vert\chi_R\Vert_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}=\Vert\chi_{A_{\varepsilon}}\Vert_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$, which gives $$\int_{P_{\varepsilon}}w(x)\,dx=\int_{Q_{\varepsilon}}w(x)\,dx.$$ Now, letting $\varepsilon\to0$, using the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, and a symmetric argument changing $x$ and $y$, we obtain that $w$ is constant. $\qquad\Box$
In a similar way, one can prove the following:
\[exwlp\] There exists a weight $v$ in $\RR^2$ such that $\Lambda^p_2(w)=L^p_{\RR^2}(v)$ if and only if $\Lambda^p_2(w)=L^p_{\RR^2}$.
It is very easy to see that embedding results for the spaces $\Lambda^p_2(w)$ are equivalent to embeddings for the cone of decreasing functions on $L^p_{\RR^2_+}$, which have been completely characterized in all cases (see [@BPSo] and [@BPSt]). The result reads as follows:
\[embddg\] Let $0<p_1,p_2<\infty$ and $w_1,w_2$ be two weights in $\RR^2_+$.
a\) If $p_1\le p_2$, then $\Lambda^{p_1}_2(w_1)\subset\Lambda^{p_2}_2(w_2)$, if and only if, $$\sup_{D\in\Delta_d}{w_2(D)^{1/p_2}\over w_1(D)^{1/p_1}}<\infty.$$
b\) If $p_1>p_2$, then $\Lambda^{p_1}_2(w_1)\subset\Lambda^{p_2}_2(w_2)$, if and only if, $$\sup_{0\le
h\downarrow}\int_0^{\infty}w_1(D_{h,t})^{-r/p_1}d(-w_2(D_{h,t})^{r/p_2})<\infty,$$ where $D_{h,t}=\{x\in\RR^2_+:h(x)>t\}$, and $1/r=1/p_2-1/p_1$.
The characterization of the quasinormability, in the case of the classical Lorentz spaces, was proved in [@CS] to be equivalent to a doubling condition on the weight (the $\Delta_2$-condition). We show that a similar result holds for the two-dimensional rearrangement.
First we note that the spaces $\Lambda_2^p(w)$, $0<p<\infty$, have the following (quasi)norm properties: $$\label{hom}
\Vert cf\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}=|c|\Vert f\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)},$$ (see Proposition \[propre\] b)), and if $w$ is strictly positive (which we assume in the sequel) $$\label{can}
\Vert f\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}=0\Longleftrightarrow f=0 \hbox{ a.e.}$$ Thus, in order to investigate if $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}$ is a norm (quasi-norm) we only have to check that the triangle (quasi-triangle) inequality holds.
\[quasiw\] Let $0<p<\infty$. Then, $\| \cdot\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is a quasinorm if and only if there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{quasi}
\int_D w(2x) dx \le C \int_D w(x) dx,$$ for all decreasing sets $D\subset {\RR}_+^2$. Moreover, with this quasinorm, ${{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ becomes a complete quasinormed space.
[**Proof.**]{} For sufficiency we use Proposition \[propre\] d), Theorem 2.2 d) in [@BPSo], with $p=q$, and we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
\| f+g\|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)} & = & \int_{{\RR}_+^2}\left(\left(f+g\right)_2^{*}(x)\right)^p w(x)
dx\nonumber\\
& \le & C\int_{{\RR}_+^2}
\left(f_2^{*}(x/2)+g_2^{*}(x/2)\right)^p w(x) dx \nonumber\\
& \le & C\left(\int_{{\RR}_+^2} \left(f_2^{*}(x/2)\right)^p w(x)
dx+\int_{{\RR}_+^2}
\left(g_2^{*}(x/2)\right)^p w(x) dx\right) \nonumber\\
& \le & C\left(\int_{{\RR}_+^2} \left(f_2^{*}(x)\right)^p w(2x)
dx+\int_{{\RR}_+^2}
\left(g_2^{*}(x)\right)^p w(2x) dx\right) \nonumber\\
& \le & C\left(\int_{{\RR}_+^2} \left(f_2^{*}(x)\right)^p w(x)
dx+\int_{{\RR}_+^2}
\left(g_2^{*}(x)\right)^p w(x) dx\right)\nonumber\\
& = & C(\| f \|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}+\|g\|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and it follows that $\| f+g\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\le C(\| f\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}+\|
g\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}).$
Conversely, let $D$ and $D_1$ be two sets of ${{\RR}^2}$ with $D\cap
D_1=\emptyset$ and $D^{*}=D_1^{*}$, and such that if $D^{*}$ has the representation $$D^{*}=\{(x_1,x_2): 0<x_1<r, 0<x_2<\phi(x_1);r>0\},$$ (with $\phi\downarrow$), then $$(D\cup D_1)^{*}=\{(x_1,x_2): 0<x_1<2r, 0<x_2<\phi(x_1/2);r>0\},$$ (this is easily done by taking $D_1$ to be a translation of the form $D_1=D+(N,0)$, where $N>0$ is big enough). If $\|\cdot \|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is a quasinorm, then $$\| f+g \|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\le C( \| f \|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}+\| g
\|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}),$$ and if we take $f=\chi_D$ and $g=\chi_{D_1}$, then we get
$$\label{eqde}
\int_{(D\cup {D_1})^{*}} w(x)\, dx\leq C \int_{D^{*}}w(x)\, dx.$$
We denote by $E:=(D\cup D_1)^{*}$, and by $$E_1:= \{(x_1,x_2): 0<x_1<2r, \phi(2 x_1)< x_2<2 \phi(x_1/2);\, r>0\}.$$ Obviously, $ E_1\cup E= 2D^{*}$. Since $E_1^{*}=E= E^{*}$ we can apply (\[eqde\]) with $D=E$, $D_1=E_1$ and get
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{2 D^{*}}w(x)\, dx & = & \int_{(E\cup E_1)^{*}}w(x)\, dx \le
C\int_{E^{*}}w(x)\, dx \nonumber\\
& = & C\int_{(D\cup D_1)^{*}}w(x)\, dx \le C \int_{D^{*}}w(x)\, dx\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$
which is obviously equivalent to condition (\[quasi\]). Thus, in view of (\[hom\]) and (\[can\]), the first statement is proved.
To prove that ${{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is complete we have to show that if $\left(f_k\right)_k\subset{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is a Cauchy sequence, then there exists a function $f\in
{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ such that $\|f_j- f \|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\longrightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow\infty$. Since $\|\cdot \|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is quasinorm and $\left(f_k\right)_k$ is Cauchy, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $\|f_j \|^p_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\le
C<\infty,\,\,\forall j\in \NN$.
Also since $\left(f_j- f_k\right)_2^{*}$ is decreasing in each variable, for a fixed $x\in\RR^2_+$, if we set $Q_x=\{y\in\RR^2_+:0<y_k\le x_k, \ k=1,2\}$, then $${\left(f_j- f_k\right)_2^{*}}^p (x)\int_{Q_x}w(y) dy\le
\int_{{\RR}^2_+}
{\left(f_j- f_k\right)_2^{*}}^p (y)w(y) dy.$$ Therefore $${\left(f_j- f_k\right)_2^{*}} \longrightarrow 0, \,\,\mbox{a.e.}$$ This implies $${\lambda}_{\left(f_j- f_k\right)_2^{*}}\longrightarrow 0,
\,\,\mbox{a.e.}$$ and hence $${\lambda}_{\left(f_j- f_k\right)}\longrightarrow 0, \,\,\mbox{a.e.},$$ i.e., $\left(f_k\right)_k$ is Cauchy in measure. Hence there is a subsequence $\left(f_{k_j}\right)$ which converges pointwise, say to a function $f$ which is measurable. By Proposition \[propre\] e) and by Fatou’s lemma we have that $f\in
{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$. Moreover, $$\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty} |f_{k_j}(x)-f_i(x)|=|f
(x)-f_i(x)|,\,\,x\in {{\RR}^2}.$$ Using Fatou’s lemma again and the fact that $\left(f_k\right)_k$ is a Cauchy sequence, we finally get $$\|f- f_i \|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\leq C \left(\|f- f_{k_j} \|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}+
\|f_i- f_{k_j} \|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\right)\longrightarrow 0,\mbox{ as }
i,j\rightarrow\infty.\quad\Box$$
Finally, we are now going to prove the main result of this section, namely, the characterization of the weights $w$ for which $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}$ is a norm. We begin by showing the following necessary condition on the index $p$:
\[indexp\] Let $0<p<\infty$. If ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)$ is a Banach space, then $p\geq 1$.
[**Proof.**]{} Since ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)$ is a Banach space, there exists $\|\cdot\|$, a norm on ${\Lambda}^p_2(w)$, such that $$\|f\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\approx \|f\|.$$ Hence $$\bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}f_k\bigg\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\leq C \sum_{k=1}^{N}\|f_k\| \leq
{ C} \sum_{k=1}^{N}\|f_k\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)},$$ for all $N\in {\NN}$. Suppose $0<p<1$ and take a decreasing sequence of domains $$A_{k+1}\subset A_k\subset\ldots\subset {{\RR}^2},$$ such that $\int_{A_k^{*}} w(x)\,dx=2^{-kp}$. If $ f_k=2^k\chi_{A_k}$, then $ \|f_k\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}=1$.
But for a fixed $N$, we have that $$\frac{1}{N}\bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}f_k\bigg\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}\leq {\tilde C}<\infty.$$ On the other hand, since $\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}2^k\chi_{A_k}\right)^{*}_2=\sum_{k=1}^{N}2^k\chi_{A_k^{*}}$ (by (\[reofsim\])), and $A_{k+1}^{*}\subset A_k^{*}\subset\ldots\subset {{\RR}^2_+}$ we have (taking $A_{N+1}=\emptyset$) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}f_k\bigg\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)} & = &
\frac{1}{N}\bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}2^k\chi_{A_k}\bigg\|_{{\Lambda}^p_2(w)}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{N}\left(\int_{{\RR}^2_+}
\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}2^k\chi_{A_k^{*}}\right)^p(x)w(x)dx\right)^{1/p}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{N}\left(\int_{{\RR}^2_+}
\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}2^j\right)
\chi_{A_k^{*}\setminus A_{k+1}^{*}}\right)^p(x)w(x)dx\right)^{1/p}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{N}\left(\int_{{\RR}^2_+}
\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}2^j\right)^p
\chi_{A_k^{*}\setminus A_{k+1}^{*}}(x)w(x)dx\right)^{1/p} \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}2^j\right)^p
\left(\int_{A_k^{*}}
w(x)dx-\int_{A_{k+1}^{*}}(x)w(x)dx\right)\right)^{1/p} \nonumber\\
& \ge & \frac{C}{N}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N} \left(1-
2^{-k}\right)^p\right)^{1/p}\nonumber\\
& \ge &
\frac{C}{N}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}2^{-p}\right)^{1/p}=C\frac{N^{1/p}}{N}\rightarrow
\infty,\,\mbox{as }N\rightarrow\infty,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction. Hence $p\ge 1$. $\qquad\Box$
\[normeq\] Let $1\le p<\infty$ and $w$ be a weight in $\RR^2_+$. Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
a\) $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\Lambda^p_2(w)}$ is a norm.
b\) For every $A,B\subset\RR^2$, $w((A\cap B)^*)+w((A\cup B)^*)\le
w(A^*)+w(B^*).$
c\) There exists a decreasing weight $v$ on $\RR^+$ such that $w(s,t)=v(t)$, $s,t>0$.
[**Proof.**]{} If $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\Lambda^p_2(w)}$ is a norm, take $A,B\subset\RR^2$, $\delta>0$ and define the functions $$f(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1+\delta, & \mbox{if $x\in A$}\\
1, & \mbox{if $x\in (A\cup B)\setminus A$}\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$g(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1+\delta, & \mbox{if $x\in B$}\\
1, & \mbox{if $x\in (A\cup B)\setminus B$}\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
f^*_2(x)&=&(1+\delta)\chi_{A^*}(x)+\chi_{(A\cup B)^*\setminus A^*}(x),\\
g^*_2(x)&=&(1+\delta)\chi_{B^*}(x)+\chi_{(A\cup B)^*\setminus B^*}(x),\\
(f+g)^*_2(x)&=&(2+2\delta)\chi_{(A\cap B)^*}(x)+(2+\delta)\chi_{(A\cup B)^*\setminus
(A\cap B)^*}(x),\end{aligned}$$ and, hence, the triangle inequality and the fact that $1/p\le 1$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f+g\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}&=&\Big((2+2\delta)^pw((A\cap B)^*)\\
&&\qquad+(2+\delta)^pw((A\cup
B)^*\setminus(A\cap B)^*)\Big)^{1/p}\\
&\le&\Vert f\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}+\Vert g\Vert_{\Lambda_2^p(w)}\\
&=&\Big((1+\delta)^pw(A^*)+w((A\cup
B)^*\setminus A^*)\Big)^{1/p}\\
&&\qquad+
\Big((1+\delta)^pw(B^*)+w((A\cup
B)^*\setminus B^*)\Big)^{1/p}\\
&\le&2^{1-1/p}\Big((1+\delta)^pw(A^*)+w((A\cup
B)^*\setminus A^*)\\
&&\qquad+(1+\delta)^pw(B^*)+w((A\cup
B)^*\setminus B^*)\Big)^{1/p}.\end{aligned}$$ Collecting terms, dividing both sides by $2^{p-1}((1+\delta)^p-1)$ and letting $\delta\to0$, we finally obtain $$w((A\cap B)^*)+w((A\cup B)^*)\le w(A^*)+w(B^*),$$ which is b). Thus a) implies b).
Assume now that b) holds. Fix $s,t>0$, and consider, for $\varepsilon>0$ small, the sets $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,t)\cup (\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon),\\
B&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,t-\varepsilon)\cup (\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t). \end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
A^*&=&A,\\
B^*&=&(0,s-\varepsilon)\times(0,t)\cup (s-\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cap
B)^*&=&(0,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cup B)^*&=&(0,s)\times(0,t). \end{aligned}$$ Hence using b) we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
w((s-\varepsilon,s)\times(t-\varepsilon,t))&=&w((A\cup B)^*)-w(B^*)\le w(A^*)-w((A\cap
B)^*)\\
&=&w((0,\varepsilon)\times(t-\varepsilon,t)).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, dividing both sides by $\varepsilon^2$ and letting $\varepsilon\to0$ we obtain that $w(s,t)\le w(0,t)$.
Similarly, taking now $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&(0,s)\times(0,t),\\
B&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(\varepsilon,t+\varepsilon)\cup
(\varepsilon,s-\varepsilon)\times(0,t)\cup(s-\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon), \end{aligned}$$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
A^*&=&A,\\
B^*&=&(0,s-\varepsilon)\times(0,t)\cup (s-\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cap
B)^*&=&(0,s-2\varepsilon)\times(0,t)\cup (s-2\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cup B)^*&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,t+\varepsilon)\cup (\varepsilon,s)\times(0,t). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore by using b) we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
w((0,\varepsilon)\times(t,t+\varepsilon))&=&w((A\cup B)^*)-w(A^*)\le w(B^*)-w((A\cap
B)^*)\\
&=&w((s-2\varepsilon,s-\varepsilon)\times(t-\varepsilon,t)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, dividing both sides by $\varepsilon^2$ and letting $\varepsilon\to0$, we obtain that $w(0,t)\le w(s,t)$ and, thus, $$w(s,t)=w(0,t)=v(t).$$
To finish we will prove that $v(b)=w(0,b)\le w(0,a)=v(a)$ if $0<a\le b$: for $\varepsilon>0$ small, take now $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,a),\\
B&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(\varepsilon,b).\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
A^*&=&A,\\
B^*&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,b-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cap
B)^*&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,a-\varepsilon),\\
(A\cup B)^*&=&(0,\varepsilon)\times(0,b).\end{aligned}$$ Hence using b) we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
w((0,\varepsilon)\times(b-\varepsilon,b))&=&w((A\cup B)^*)-w(B^*)\le w(A^*)-w((A\cap
B)^*)\\
&=&w((0,\varepsilon)\times(a-\varepsilon,a)).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, dividing both sides by $\varepsilon^2$ and letting $\varepsilon\to0$ we obtain that $w(0,b)\le w(0,a)$.
Finally, we are now going to prove that c) implies a). By Theorem \[iterrea\] we know that $f^*_2(s,t)=(f_x^{*y}(t))^{*x}(s)$. Thus, using the fact that $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\Lambda^p(v)}$ is a norm, if $v$ is decreasing (see [@L]), and Minkowski’s inequality, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f+g\Vert_{\luw}&=&\bigg(\int_{\Rdm}[(f+g)^*_2(s,t)]^pw(s,t)\,dsdt\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&=&\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[\Big((f_x+g_x)^{*y}(t)\Big)^{*x}(s)
\Big]^p\,ds\bigg)v(t)\,dt\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&=&\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\bigg(\int_{\RR}\Big[(f_x+g_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^p\,dx\bigg)v(t)\,dt
\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&=&\bigg(\int_{\RR}
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[(f_x+g_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)\,dx\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&\le&\bigg(\int_{\RR}\bigg[
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[(f_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&&\qquad+
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[(g_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)^{1/p}\bigg]^p\,dx\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&\le&\bigg(\int_{\RR}
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[(f_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)\,dx\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&&\qquad+
\bigg(\int_{\RR}
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\Big[(g_x)^{*y}(t)\Big]^pv(t)\,dt\bigg)\,dx\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&=&\bigg(\int_{\Rdm}(f^*_2(s,t))^pw(s,t)\,dsdt\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&&\qquad+
\bigg(\int_{\Rdm}(g^*_2(s,t))^pw(s,t)\,dsdt\bigg)^{1/p}\\
&=&\Vert
f\Vert_{\luw}+\Vert g\Vert_{\luw}. \end{aligned}$$
Thus, in view of (\[hom\]) and (\[can\]), the proof is complete. $\qquad\Box$
Observe that the equivalences proved in Theorem \[normeq\] in particular say that $\luw=L^p(\Lambda^p(v,dy),dx)$, which is a mixed norm space.
[BPSo]{}
M.A. Ariño and B. Muckenhoupt, [*Maximal functions on classical Lorentz spaces and Hardy’s inequality with weights for nonincreasing functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**320**]{} (1990), 727–735.
S. Barza, [*Weighted multidimensional integral inequalities and applications*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University, 1999.
S. Barza, L.E. Persson, and J. Soria, [*Sharp weighted multidimensional integral inequalities for monotone functions*]{}, Math. Nachr. [**210**]{} (2000), 43–58.
S. Barza, L.E. Persson, and V. Stepanov, [*On weighted multidimensional embeddings for monotone functions*]{}, Math. Scand. [**88**]{} (2001), 303–319.
C. Bennet and R. Sharpley, [*Interpolation of Operators*]{}, Academic Press, 1988.
A. P. Blozinski, [*Multivariate rearrangements and Banach function spaces with mixed norms*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**263**]{} (1981), 149–167.
M.J. Carro and J. Soria, [*Weighted Lorentz spaces and the Hardy operator*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**112**]{} (1993), 480–494.
E.H. Lieb and M. Loss, [*Analysis*]{}, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 14. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
G.G. Lorentz, [*On the theory of spaces $\Lambda$*]{}, Pacific J. Math. [**1**]{} (1951), 411–429.
E. Sawyer, [*Boundedness of classical operators on classical Lorentz spaces*]{}, Studia Math. [**96**]{} (1990), 145–158.
V. Stepanov, [*The weighted Hardy’s inequality for nonincreasing functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**338**]{} (1993), 173–186.
[^1]: Partially supported by DGICYT PB97-0986 and CIRIT 1999SGR00061
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Keval Doshi, Yasin Yilmaz, and Suleyman Uludag[^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: Timely Detection and Mitigation of Stealthy DDoS Attacks via IoT Networks
---
= 1
\[[{width="1in" height="1.4in"}]{}\][Keval Doshi]{} received the B.Sc. degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from Gujarat Technological University, India, in 2017. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of South Florida, Tampa. His research interests include machine learning, computer vision, and cybersecurity.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.4in"}]{}\][Yasin Yilmaz]{} (S’11-M’14) received the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University, New York, NY, in 2014. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He received the Collaborative Research Award from Columbia University in 2015. His research interests include statistical signal processing, machine learning, and their applications to computer vision, cybersecurity, IoT networks, energy systems, transportation systems, and communication systems.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.4in"}]{}\][Suleyman Uludag]{} received the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from DePaul University, Chicago, IL, in 2007. He is currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Michigan - Flint. He received the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program Core Award in 2012 and 2018. His research interests include security, privacy, and optimization of data collection particularly as applied to the Smart Grid and Intelligent Transportation Systems.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under the Grant CNS-1737598 and in part by the SCEEE-17-03 Grant.
[^2]: K. Doshi and Y.Yilmaz are with the Electrical Engineering Department, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL USA (e-mail: kevaldoshi@mail.usf.edu, yasiny@usf.edu).
[^3]: S. Uludag, is with the Department of Computer Science, University of Michigan - Flint, MI USA (e-mail: uludag@umich.edu).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
The gravitational field produced by a domain wall acts as a medium with spacetime-dependent permittivity $\varepsilon$. Therefore, the fine structure constant $\alpha = e^2/4 \pi \varepsilon$ will be a time-dependent function at fixed position. The most stringent constraint on the time-variation of $\alpha$ comes from the natural reactor Oklo and gives $|\dot{\alpha}/\alpha| < few \times
10^{-17} \, \mbox{yr}^{-1}$. This limit constrains the tension of a cosmic domain wall to be less than $\sigma \lesssim 10^{-2} \,
\mbox{MeV}^{3}$, and then represents the most severe limit on the energy density of a cosmic wall stretching our Universe.
---
[**Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant\
in the Spacetime of a Cosmic Domain Wall**]{}
L. Campanelli$^{a,b,}$[^1], P. Cea$^{c,d,}$[^2], and L. Tedesco$^{c,d,}$[^3]
$^{a}$[*INFN - Sezione di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy*]{},\
$^{b}$[*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy*]{}, $^{c}$[*INFN - Sezione di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy*]{},\
$^{d}$[*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy*]{}
[ ]{}
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
The physics of topological defects produced during cosmological phase transitions has received a large amount of interest in recent years. Topologically stable kinks are ensured when the vacuum manifold of a spontaneously broken gauge theory is disconnected [@Kibble76]. Let us consider, for simplicity, a model in which kinks are infinitely static domain walls in the $zy$-plane. That is we assume that the vacuum manifold consists of just two disconnected components.
The dynamics and gravitational properties of such defects are determined by their tension or surface energy density $\sigma$ . Unless the symmetry breaking scale is very small, the surface density energy of the kink is extremely large and implies that cosmic domain walls would have an enormous impact on the homogeneity of the Universe. (Here and in the following for cosmic domain walls we shall mean walls of linear dimension $H_0^{-1}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant). A stringent constraint on the wall tension $\sigma$ for a cosmic ${\mathbb Z}_2\,$-wall can be derived from the isotropy of the microwave background. If the interaction of walls with matter is negligible, then there will be a few walls stretching across the present horizon. They introduce a fluctuation in the temperature of the microwave background of order $\delta T / T \simeq 2 \pi G
\sigma H_0^{-1}$ [@Zeld74], where $G$ is the Newton’s constant. Observations constrain $\delta T / T \lesssim 3 \times 10^{-5}$, and thus models predicting topologically stable cosmic walls with $\sigma \gtrsim 1 \mbox{MeV}^3$ are ruled out.
In the following, we will see that the presence of a cosmic wall stretching our Universe modifies the electromagnetic properties of the free space. (This effect has been recently investigated in Ref. in the case of cosmic strings.) In particular, the gravitational field produced by a wall acts as a medium with time- and position-dependent permittivity. This means that the fine structure constant $\alpha$, at fixed position, will be a time-dependent function. Because terrestrial experiments and observations constrain the time variation of $\alpha$, we will be able to put a stringent limit on the energy density of a cosmic wall.
2. The Fine Structure Constant in the Spacetime of a Domain Wall {#the-fine-structure-constant-in-the-spacetime-of-a-domain-wall .unnumbered}
================================================================
In this Section, we will see that the electric field generated by a charge particle in the spacetime of a domain wall is the same as in a flat spacetime but with a spacetime-dependent fine structure constant.
We start by writing the line element associated to the spacetime of a thin ${\mathbb Z}_2 \,$-wall [@Vil83] $$\label{metric} ds^2 = e^{-4 \pi G \sigma |x|} (dt^2 - dx^2) - e^{4
\pi G \sigma (t - |x|)}(dy^2 + dz^2).$$ Given a general diagonal metric $$\label{eq1}
%
ds^2 = g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu} = g_{00} dt^2 - \gamma_{ij}
dx^i dx^j$$ and the electromagnetic field strength tensor $F_{\mu \nu}$, the electric and magnetic fields in a curved spacetime are defined as [@Landau] $$E_i = F_{0i}, \;\;\; B^i = -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma}} \,
\epsilon^{ijk} F_{jk},$$ where $\gamma = \mbox{det} ||\gamma_{ij}||$ is the determinant of the spatial metric and $\epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. (Here and in the following, Greek indices run from $0$ to $3$, while Latin indices run from $1$ to $3$.) The charge density of a particle of charge $q$ at rest in the position ${\textbf x} = {\textbf x}_0$ is given by $$\label{rho}
%
\rho = (q/\sqrt{\gamma}) \, \delta({\textbf x} - {\textbf x}_0).$$ Introducing the fields $${\textbf D} = {\textbf E}/\sqrt{g_{00}}, \;\;\; {\textbf H} =
\sqrt{g_{00}}\, {\textbf B},$$ the Maxwell’s equations in three-dimensional notation read [@Landau] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{maxwell1}
&& \mbox{div} {\textbf B} = 0, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\mbox{curl} \, {\textbf E} = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\frac{\partial (\sqrt{\gamma} \,
{\textbf B})}{\partial t}, \\
\label{maxwell2}
&& \mbox{div} {\textbf D} = 4 \pi \rho, \;\;\;
\mbox{curl} \, {\textbf H} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\frac{\partial (\sqrt{\gamma} \, {\textbf D})}{\partial t},\end{aligned}$$ where the divergence and curl differential operators are defined in curved spacetime by $$\label{xxx}
%
\mbox{div} \, {\textbf v} =
\partial_i (\sqrt{\gamma} v^i) / \sqrt{\gamma} \;$$ and $$\label{ccc}
%
\: (\mbox{curl} \, {\textbf v})^i = \epsilon^{ijk} (\partial_j v_k -
\partial_k v_j) / (2 \sqrt{\gamma}),$$ respectively.\
It is convenient to re-write the first equation of (\[maxwell2\]) as $$\label{Poisson} \nabla \cdot (\varepsilon {\textbf E}) = 4 \pi q
\, \delta({\textbf x} - {\textbf x}_0),$$ where $\nabla$ is the usual three-dimensional nabla operator in Euclidean space, and we have introduced the parameter $\varepsilon = \sqrt{\gamma}/\sqrt{g_{00}}$. The solution of Poisson equation (\[Poisson\]) is the standard one: $$\label{ttt}
%
\varepsilon {\textbf E} = (q/4 \pi r^3) \, {\textbf r},$$ where ${\textbf r} = {\textbf x} - {\textbf x}_0$ and $r =
|{\textbf r}|$. Re-writing the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution1} {\textbf E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon r^3}
\, {\textbf r},\end{aligned}$$ and taking into account the metric (\[metric\]), we see that the gravitational field produced by a domain wall acts as a medium with permittivity $\varepsilon$ given by [^4] $$\label{epsilon1} \varepsilon = e^{4 \pi G \sigma (t-|x|)}.$$ In other words, the fine structure constant, defined in the free space as $\alpha_0 = e^2/4 \pi$, becomes in the spacetime of a domain wall $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha} \alpha = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \varepsilon} \, .\end{aligned}$$
3. Discussion and Conclusions {#discussion-and-conclusions .unnumbered}
=============================
From the above analysis it results that, if a cosmic wall were present within our Hubble horizon, then the fine structure constant would be time- and position-dependent. In particular, at fixed position, the time variation of $\alpha$ would be $$\label{variation} \frac{\dot{\alpha}}{\alpha} = -4 \pi G \sigma.$$ It is worthwhile noting that the “effective” variation of the fine structure constant, Eq. (\[variation\]), is not in contradiction with the Einstein Equivalence Principle which implies that, locally in the spacetime, no variations of $\alpha$ can occur. [^5] Indeed, what is measurable in our case are only differences of values of $\alpha$ calculated at different spacetime points. Say in other words, only non-local variations of the fine structure constant are physical. Concerning this, it should be noted that all terrestrial experiments devoted to the detection of possible time variations of $\alpha$ measure, indirectly, values of $\alpha$ at different times. These terrestrial experiments set limits on the time variation of $\alpha$ [@Uzan02]. Different experiments give different constraints which, however, are in the narrow range $|\dot{\alpha}/\alpha| < few \times 10^{-15} \, \mbox{yr}^{-1}$ . This, in turns, gives a limit on the tension of a wall present in our Hubble volume, $\sigma
\lesssim 1 \mbox{MeV}^{3}$, which is of the same order of magnitude of that resulting from the isotropy of the microwave background.\
The most stringent constraint on $\dot{\alpha}/\alpha$ comes from the natural reactor Oklo [@Oklo] and is $|\dot{\alpha}/\alpha|
< few \times 10^{-17} \, \mbox{yr}^{-1}$ [@Petrov05]. This limit constrains the tension of a cosmic wall to be less than $\sigma \lesssim 10^{-2} \, \mbox{MeV}^{3}$, and then represents the most severe limit on $\sigma$.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the gravitational field produced by a domain wall acts as a medium with spacetime-dependent permittivity and, consequently, the fine structure constant $\alpha$ is a time-dependent function at fixed position. Taking into account the most stringent constraint on the time-variation of $\alpha$ coming from the natural reactor Oklo, we derived an upper limit for the tension of a cosmic domain wall. This represents the strongest upper limit on the energy density of a cosmic wall stretching our Universe to date.
L. C. thanks M. Giannotti for useful discussions.
[99]{}
T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A [**9**]{}, 1387 (1976). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. [**121**]{}, 263 (1985). A. Vilenkin, E. P. S. Shellard, [*Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994). Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**67**]{}, 3 (1974) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**40**]{}, 1 (1974)\]. F. Nasseri, Phys. Lett. [**B 614**]{}, 140 (2005). E. R. B. de Mello, Phys. Lett. B [**621**]{}, 318 (2005). F. Nasseri, Phys. Lett. [B629]{}, 111 (2005). F. Nasseri, Phys. Lett. [B632]{}, 151 (2006). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B [**133**]{}, 177 (1983). L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*The Classical Theory of Fields*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1971). A. H. Taub, Ann. Math. [**53**]{}, 472 (1951). For a review on the fundamental constants and their variation see: J. P. Uzan, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 403 (2003). H. Marion [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 150801 (2003). S. Bize [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 150802. M. Fischer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 230802 (2004). E. Peik, B. Lipphardt, H. Schnatz, T. Schneider, C. Tamm, and S. G. Karshenboim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 170801 (2004). A. I. Shlyakhter, Nature [**264**]{}, 340 (1976). Y. V. Petrov, A. I. Nazarov, M. S. Onegin, V. Y. Petrov, and E. G. Sakhnovsky, Phys. Rev [**C74**]{}, 064610 (2006).
[^1]: E-mail: campanelli@fe.infn.it
[^2]: E-mail: paolo.cea@ba.infn.it
[^3]: E-mail: luigi.tedesco@ba.infn.it
[^4]: In the case of Taub metric [@Taub56] (i.e. the most generic plane-symmetric metric) $ds^2 = e^{2u} (dt^2 - dx^2) -
e^{2v}(dy^2 + dz^2)$, where $u$ end $v$ are functions of $t$ and $x$, the permittivity induced by the gravitational field is $\varepsilon = e^{2v}$.
[^5]: It is well known [@Vilenkin] that the spacetime of a domain wall is locally flat everywhere except at $x=0$. Therefore, one can perform a coordinate transformation such that the line element in Eq. (\[metric\]) becomes that of a flat spacetime and, consequently, the Maxwell equations assume the “classical” form with $\varepsilon =1$. Then, in agreement with the Einstein Equivalence Principle, no variation of the fine structure constant occurs locally in any point of the spacetime of a domain wall (excepting the points on the domain wall surface).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We consider a dynamics generated by families of maps whose invariant density depends on a parameter $a$ and where $a$ itself obeys a stochastic or periodic dynamics. For slowly varying $a$ the long-term behavior of iterates is described by a suitable superposition of local invariant densities. We provide rigorous error estimates how good this approximation is. Our method generalizes the concept of superstatistics, a useful technique in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, to maps. Our main example are Blaschke products, for which we provide rigorous bounds on the difference between Birkhoff density and the superstatistical composition.'
author:
- Chris Penrose and Christian Beck
date: May 2011
title: Superstatistics of Blaschke products
---
Introduction
============
Dynamics often takes place in a changing environment. This means, given some control parameter $a$ and a local dynamics $x_{n+1}= f_a(x_n)$ generated by some mapping $f_a$, the control parameter $a$ itself will also slowly change in time. In nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, these environmental fluctuations, if taking place on a large time scale, are modeled by a very useful concept, so-called superstatistics. The superstatistics concept was introduced in [@beck-cohen] and has since then provided a powerful tool to describe a large variety of complex systems for which there is change of environmental conditions [@swinney; @touchette; @souza; @chavanis; @jizba; @frank; @celia; @straeten]. The basic idea is to characterize the complex system under consideration by a superposition of several statistics, one corresponding to local equilibrium statistical mechanics (on a mesoscopic level modeled by a linear Langevin equation leading to locally Gaussian behavior) and the other one corresponding to a slowly varying parameter $a$ of the system. Essential for this approach is the fact that there is sufficient time scale separation, i.e. the local relaxation time of the system must be much shorter than the typical time scale on which the parameter $a$ changes.
In most applications in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics the varying control parameter $a$ is the local inverse temperature $\beta$ of the system, i.e. $a=\beta$. However, in some applications beyond the immediate scope of statistical mechanics the control parameter $a$ can also have a different meaning. There are many interesting applications of the superstatistics concept to real-world problems, for example to train delay statistics[@briggs], hydrodynamic turbulence [@prl] and cancer survival statistics [@chen]. Further applications are described in [@daniels; @maya; @reynolds; @abul-magd; @rapisarda; @cosmic].
In this paper we want to extend the superstatistics concept to maps, which usually have invariant densities different from Gaussian distributions, and thus analyze this problem in a more general context. Our generalization assumes that the local dynamics is not anymore restricted to a linear Langevin dynamics (as in the nonequilibrium statistical mechanics applications), but given by an [*a priori*]{} arbitrary map with strong mixing properties. We will make the superstatistics concept mathematically rigorous by considering simple model examples of local maps where everything can be proved explicitly and by estimating the error terms. In our new approach described here, we allow for [*a priori*]{} arbitrary local invariant densities $\rho_a(x)$ and consider a dynamics given by long term iteration of a map $f_a$ with slowly varying $a$. This leads to a mixing of various invariant densities $\rho_a(x)$ with different parameter $a$, in a way that we will analyze in detail in this paper.
If $a$ changes on a long time scale, long as compared to the relaxation time of the local map $f_a$, the resulting long-term probability distribution of iterates is closely approximated by a superposition of local invariant densities $\rho_a(x)$. For particular examples, Blaschke products, we will indeed provide estimates of the error terms involved and prove how fast the Birkhoff density approaches the superstatistical composition. On the other hand, if $a$ changes rapidly, then a different dynamics arises which is not properly described by a mixing of the various local invariant densities. Rather, in this case one has to look at fixed points of the Perron-Frobenius operator of higher iterates of composed maps $f_a$ with varying $a$. Depending on the time scale of the changes of $a$, there are transition scenarios between both cases.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we will introduce the superstatistics concept for maps. We will study several examples in this section to illustrate the concept and to motivate our rigorous treatment in the later sections. In section 3 we present a rigorous theory for Blaschke products. We will prove the existence of invariant measures, determine the invariant measure explicitly as a function of the parameters involved and prove our main result, an upper bound on the difference between Birkhoff density and the superstatistical composition.
Superstatistical dynamics of maps
=================================
Let us consider families of maps $f_a$ depending on a control parameter $a$. These can be [*a priori*]{} arbitrary maps in arbitrary dimensions. Later we will restrict ourselves to mixing maps and assume that an absolutely continuous invariant density $\rho_a(x)$ exists for each value of the control parameter $a$. The local dynamics is $$x_{n+1}=f_a(x_n).$$ We now allow for a time dependence of $a$ and study the long-term behavior of iterates given by $$x_n=f_{a_n}\circ f_{a_{n-1}} \circ \ldots f_{a_1} (x_0). \label{it}$$ Clearly, the problem now requires the specification of the sequence of control parameters $a_1, \ldots , a_n$ as well, at least in a statistical sense. One possibility is a periodic orbit of control parameters of length $L$. Another possibility is to regard the $a_j$ as random variables and to specify the properties of the corresponding stochastic process in parameter space.
In general, rapidly fluctuating parameters $a_j$ will lead to a very complicated dynamics. However, there is a significant simplification if the parameters $a_j$ change slowly. This is the analogue of the slowly varying temperature parameters in the superstatistical treatment of nonequilibrium statistical mechanics [@beck-cohen; @abc]. The basic assumption of superstatistics is that an environmental control parameter $a$ changes only very slowly, much slower than the local relaxation time of the dynamics. For maps this means that significant changes of $a$ occur only over a large number $T$ of iterations. In practice, one can model this superstatistical case as follows: One keeps $a_1$ constant for $T$ iterations ($T>>1$), then switches after $T$ iterations to a new value $a_2$, after $T$ iterations one switches to the next values $a_3$, and so on.
One of the simplest examples is a period-2 orbit in the parameter space. That is, we have an alternating sequence $a_1,a_2$ that repeats itself, with switching between the two possible values taking place after $T$ iterations. We are interested in the long-term behavior of iterates obtained for $n\to \infty$. Possible sequences of parameters $a_1,a_2, \ldots , a_L$ of period length $L$ could be studied equally well, with a switching to the new parameter value always taking place after $T>>1$ iterations. Another possibility are stochastic parameter changes on the long time scale $T$.
To illustrate and motivate the superstatistics concept for maps, we will now deal with three important examples of families of maps $f_a$.
[**Example 1**]{} We take for $f_a$ the asymmetric tent map on $[0,1]$ given by $$f_a(x)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{a} x & x \leq a \\
1-\frac{x-a}{1-a} & x >a
\end{array}
\right. \label{atent}$$ with $a\in (0,1)$. This example is somewhat trivial, because the invariant density $\rho_a(x)$ is independent of $a$ and given by the uniform distribution for any value of $a$. Hence, whatever the statistics of the varying parameter sequence $a_1,a_2, \ldots$ is, we get for the long-term distribution of iterates given by (\[it\]), (\[atent\]) the uniform distribution $$p(x)=1$$
[**Example 2**]{} We take for $f_a$ a map of linear Langevin type [@physica-a; @dynala]. This means $f_a$ is a 2-dimensional map given by a skew product of the form $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1}&=&g(x_n) \label{ggg} \\
y_{n+1}&=&e^{-a\tau}y_{n}+\tau^{1/2}(x_n-\bar{g})\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bar{g}$ denote the average of iterates of $g$. It has been shown in [@physica-a] that for $\tau \to 0$, $t=n\tau$ finite this deterministic chaotic map generates a dynamics equivalent to a linear Langevin equation [@vKa], provided the map $g$ has the so-called $\varphi$-mixing property [@Bi], and regarding the initial values $x_0\in[0,1]$ as a smoothly distributed random variable. Consequently, in this limit the variable $y_n$ converges to the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@vKa] and its stationary density is given by $$\rho_\beta(y) =\sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta y^2}$$ The variance parameter $\beta$ of this Gaussian depends on the map $g$ and the damping constant $a$. If the parameter $a$ changes on a very large time scale, much larger than the local relaxation time to equilibrium, one expects for the long-term distribution of iterates a mixture of Gaussian distributions with different variances $\beta^{-1}$. For example, a period 2 orbit of parameter changes yields a mixture of two Gaussians $$p(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left( \sqrt{\frac{\beta_1}{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta_1 y^2}+\sqrt{\frac{\beta_2}{2\pi}}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta_2y^2} \right) .$$ Generally, for more complicated parameter changes on the long time scale $T$, the long-term distribution of iterates $y_n$ will be mixture of Gaussians with a suitable weight function $h (\beta)$ for $\tau \to 0$: $$p(y)\sim \int d\beta \; h(\beta)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta y^2}$$ This is just the usual form of superstatistics used in statistical mechanics, based on a mixture of Gaussians with fluctuating variance with a given weight function [@beck-cohen]. Thus for this example of skew products the superstatistics of the map $f_a$ reproduces the concept of superstatistics in nonequilibrium statitistical mechanics, based on the Langevin equation. In fact, the map $f_a$ can be regarded as a possible microscopic dynamics underlying the Langevin equation. The random forces pushing the particle left and right are in this case generated by deterministic chaotic map $g$ governing the dynamics of the variable $x_n$. Generally it is possible to consider any $\varphi$-mixing map here [@physica-a]. Based on functional limit theorems, one can prove equivalence with the Langevin equation in the limit $\tau \to 0$.
[**Example 3: Blaschke products**]{} We now want to consider further examples beyond the immediate scope of statistical mechanics where the invariant density of the local map is non-Gaussian but still a full analytic treatment is possible. Consider mappings of a complex variable $z$ given by $$f(z)=b_0 \prod_{j=1}^d \frac{z-b_j}{1-\bar{b_j}z},$$ where $|b_0| = 1$ and $|b_j| < 1$ for $j = 1, 2, \ldots, d$ and $d\geq 2$. We are interested in a dynamics restricted to the unit circle $S^1$ and write $u\in S^1$ as $$u=e^{i2\pi\varphi},$$ so that $\varphi \in [0,1)$. According to Martin [@M], and as established in the following sections in much more detail, the invariant density of $f$ with respect to the variable $u$ is given by $$\rho^u(u)= \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1-|z_0|^2}{|u-z_0|^2}.$$ Here $z_0=f(z_0)$ is a fixed point of $f$. Blaschke products usually exhibit very strong chaotic behaviour and can be used as the map $g$ in equation (\[ggg\]) if an extension to a Langevin dynamics is wished for for physical reasons. The remarkable property of Blaschke products is that the knowledge of a fixed point $z_0$ of the map uniquely fixes the shape of the invariant density $\rho^u$, making an analytic treatment very convenient.
Transformation of variables $u\to \varphi$ yields the invariant density $\rho^\varphi$ with respect to the variable $\varphi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^\varphi (\varphi)&=& \rho^u (u) \left| \frac{du}{d\varphi} \right| \\
&=& \frac{1- |z_0|^2}{|e^{i2\pi\varphi}-z_0|^2} \\
&=&\frac{1-a^2-b^2}{1+a^2+b^2-2a\cos 2\pi \varphi -2b \sin 2\pi \varphi}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ denotes the real part and $b$ the imaginary part of the fixed point $z_0$, i.e. $z_0=a+ib$.
For $z_0=0$ we get $a=b=0$ and hence $\rho^\varphi (\varphi)=1$. This is just the invariant density of a $d$-ary shift map on \[0,1\], noting that for $b_j=0$ the Blaschke product becomes $$z \to z^d \Longleftrightarrow \varphi \to d\cdot \varphi \; mod \; 1$$
Another example would be a Blaschke product with a real fixed point $z_0=a$. In this case the invariant density is $$\rho^\varphi (\varphi)= \frac{1-a^2}{1+a^2-2a\cos 2\pi \varphi}.$$ A particular example, taken from [@M], is $b_1=b_2=\frac{1}{2}$, i.e. $$f(z)= \frac{(z-\frac{1}{2})^2}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z)^2}$$ The fixed point condition $z_0=f(z_0)$ is solved by $$z_0=\frac{1}{2}(7-\sqrt{45}) \approx 0.145898...=a$$ This is a unique fixed point in the unit disk $D=\{z| \; |z| < 1\}$.
We are now in a position to explicitly do superstatistics for Blaschke products, since the invariant densities are known explicitly as a function of the parameters of the map. While a rigorous treatment will be worked out in detail in the following sections, we here just consider a simple example to illustrate the general idea. Let us consider two different Blaschke products, and a periodic orbit of length 2 of the parameters. For example, we may consider an alternating dynamics of the two maps $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(z) &=&z^2 \\
f_2(z) &=&\frac{(z-\frac{1}{2})^2}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ If we iterate $f_2$ for a long time $T$, then iterate $f_1$ for the same long time $T$, then switch back to $f_2$, then to $f_1$, and so on, the Birkhoff density will be a mixture of both invariant densities. In the $\varphi$ variable we expect to get for $T\to \infty$ the superstatistical result $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\infty (\varphi)&=& \frac{1}{2}\rho_1(\varphi)+\frac{1}{2} \rho_2(\varphi)\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\frac{1-a^2}{1+a^2-2a\cos 2\pi \varphi} \right)\end{aligned}$$ with $a\approx 0.145898...$. This will be confirmed by our rigorous treatment in the following section. If, on the other hand, we switch maps after each iteration step, the result will be different. In this case we need to determine the invariant density of the composed map $f_1\circ f_2(z)$ (or $f_2\circ f_1(z)$, depending on which map is iterated first). The composed map is again a Blaschke product, now with $d=4$: $$f_{12}(z):= f_1\circ f_2(z)=\frac{(z-\frac{1}{2})^4}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z)^4}$$ The fixed point condition $$z_0=f_{12}(z_0)=\frac{(z_0-\frac{1}{2})^4}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z_0)^4}$$ yields $z_0\approx 0.0464774...=:c$ and hence the invariant density of $f_{12}=f_1 \circ f_2$ is given by $$\rho_{12}(\varphi)=\frac{1-c^2}{1+c^2-2c\cos 2\pi \varphi}.$$ Similarly the other composed map is also a Blaschke product with $d=4$: $$f_{21}(z):= f_2\circ f_1(z)=\frac{(z^2-\frac{1}{2})^2}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z^2)^2}$$ The fixed point condition $$z_0=f_{21}(z_0)=\frac{(z_0^2-\frac{1}{2})^2}{(1-\frac{1}{2}z_0^2)^2}$$ yields $z_0 = c^{\frac{1}{2}}\approx 0.0464774...^{\frac{1}{2}}\approx 0.215586...$ and hence the invariant density of $f_{21}=f_2 \circ f_1$ is given by $$\rho_{21}(\varphi)=\frac{1-c}{1+c-2\sqrt{c} \cos 2\pi \varphi}.$$ The Birkhoff density, which describes the long-term distribution of iterates independent of the phase of the periodic orbit, is then given by $\frac{1}{2}\rho_{12}(\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\rho_{21}(\varphi)$.
Fig. 1 shows the densities $\rho_{12}$ and $\rho_{21}$ (dashed lines), the Birkhoff density $\frac{1}{2}(\rho_{12}+\rho_{21})$ (dotted line) and the superstatistical composition $\rho_\infty$ (solid line) as a function of $\varphi$.
Apparently, all curves are different. But the difference between Birkhoff density $\frac{1}{2} \rho_{12}+
\frac{1}{2}\rho_{21}$ and the superstatistical composition $\rho_{\infty} $ will decrease if the time scale $T$ of switching between parameters is increased. There is a transition scenario from the Birkhoff density to the superstatistical result $\rho_\infty$ for $T\to \infty$.
In the following sections we will make our results rigorous, by proving statements for the existence and uniqueness of invariant measures of Blaschke products and estimating the relevant error terms of the superstatistical composition.
Rigorous results for Blaschke products
======================================
[**Degree $d$ maps of the circle**]{}
Let $\lambda_0$ be normalized Lebesgue measure on the unit circle ${\bf S}^1$. Suppose $\tau: {\bf S}^1\rightarrow {\bf S}^1$ is $C^1$ and has degree $d > 1$. Then its pushforward action $\tau^{\ast}: \mu\mapsto \mu\circ\tau^{-1}$ on probability measures $\mu$ which are absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure is given by the transfer operator ${\cal L}_{\tau}$ on densities. Thus $\tau^{\ast}: \rho \lambda_0\mapsto {\cal L}_{\tau}(\rho) \lambda_0$ where $$({\cal L}_{\tau}(\rho))(e^{i\theta}) = \sum_{e^{i\zeta}\in\tau^{-1}
(e^{i\theta})} \frac{\rho(e^{i\zeta})}{|\tau'(e^{i\zeta})|}\ .$$
The main example which we are concerned with is when $\tau$ is the restriction to ${\bf S}^1$ of a Blaschke product $$B(z) = b_0 \prod_{j=1}^d\frac{z - b_j}{1 - \bar{b}_j z}$$ (where $|b_0| = 1$ and $|b_j| < 1$ for $j = 1, 2, \ldots, d$).
[**Action of Blaschke products on Poisson measures**]{}
For any $z$ in the unit disk, let $\lambda_z$ denote the harmonic measure on the unit circle whose density $\rho_z$ with respect to the normalized Lebesgue measure $\lambda_0$ on ${\bf S}^1$ is given by the Poisson kernel $\frac{1 - |z|^2}{|u - z|^2}$, $u\in {\bf S}^1$.
As observed in [@M], a Blaschke product pushes forward Poisson measures to Poisson measures.
PROPOSITION: If $f: {\bf D}\rightarrow {\bf D}$ is an analytic function on the unit disk ${\bf D}$ whose extension to $\bar{\bf D}$ is continuous and where the restriction $\tau$ to ${\bf S}^1$ takes values in ${\bf S}^1$. Then, for all $z\in {\bf D}$, we have $$\tau^{\ast} \lambda_z = \lambda_{f(z)}\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} Given a continuous function $\psi: {\bf S}^1\rightarrow {\bf R}$ the unique extension $\bar{\psi}$ of $\psi$ which is continuous on $\bar{\bf D}$ and harmonic in ${\bf D}$ is given by $$\bar{\psi}(z) = \int_{{\bf S}^1} \psi d\lambda_z$$ where $\lambda_z$ is the harmonic measure on ${\bf S}^1$ determined by $z\in {\bf D}$. (See [@Co] Chapter 10.)
Given $f: {\bf D}\rightarrow {\bf D}$ an analytic function on the unit disk ${\bf D}$ whose boundary value $\tau$ to ${\bf S}^1$ is continuous, mapping ${\bf S}^1$ to ${\bf S}^1$, then for any continuous $\psi: {\bf S}^1\rightarrow {\bf R}$ we have that $\bar{\psi}\circ f$ is a harmonic function with boundary value $\psi\circ\tau$ whence equals $\overline{\psi\circ\tau}$ (by the uniqueness theorem for harmonic extensions).
Write $\tau^{\ast}$ for the action on probability measures on ${\bf S}^1$ induced by $\tau$. Then for all $\psi: {\bf S}^1\rightarrow {\bf R}$ continuous we have $$\int_{{\bf S}^1} \psi d(\tau^{\ast}\lambda_z) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi}
\psi(e^{i\theta}) ({\cal L}_{\tau}(\rho_z))(e^{i\theta}) d\theta$$ $$= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \psi(e^{i\theta}) \sum_{e^{i\zeta}\in
\tau^{-1}(e^{i\theta})} \frac{\rho_z(e^{i\zeta})}{|\tau'(e^{i\zeta})|}
d\theta$$ $$= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \psi(\tau(e^{i\zeta})) \rho_z(e^{i\zeta})
d\zeta$$ $$= \int_0^{2\pi} (\psi\circ \tau)(e^{i\zeta}) d\lambda_z(\zeta)$$ $$= \int_{{\bf S}^1} (\psi\circ\tau) d\lambda_z =
\overline{\psi\circ\tau}(z)$$ $$= (\bar{\psi}\circ f)(z) = \bar{\psi}(f(z)) = \int_{{\bf S}^1} \psi
d \lambda_{f(z)} \ .$$ It follows that $\tau^{\ast} \lambda_z = \lambda_{f(z)}$ by uniqueness of the probability measure. $\Box$
Consequently, if $B$ is a Blaschke product with a fixed point $z$ in the unit disk then $\lambda_z$ is an invariant measure for the action ($\tau$) on ${\bf S}^1$. Clearly $\tau$ expands this measure. By Walters [@W] (Theorem 18) there is only one invariant probability measure absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue and so this must be $\lambda_z$. The measure is mixing whence ergodic.
[**Blaschke products which expand Lebesgue measure**]{}
Martin [@M] gives a sufficient condition for a Blaschke product $$B(z) = b_0 \prod_{j=1}^d\frac{z - b_j}{1 - \bar{b}_j z}$$ (where $|b_0| = 1$ and $|b_j| < 1$ for $j = 1, 2, \ldots, d$ and $d \ge 2$) to expand Lebesgue measure on the unit circle. The sufficient condition is $$\sum_{j=1}^d\frac{1 - |b_j|}{1 + |b_j|} > 1\ .$$ (In the special case $d = 2$ and $b_1 + b_2 = 0$ this can be improved to $$\sum_{j=1}^2\frac{1 - |b_j|^2}{1 + |b_j|^2} > 1\ ,$$ which reduces to $|b_j| < 1/\sqrt{3}$.)
If a Blaschke product of degree $d$ expands some measure on the unit circle then there must be exactly $d - 1$ fixed points on ${\bf S}^1$, but since there are $d + 1$ fixed points on the Riemann sphere, there must be two further fixed points, one in each component of the complement of ${\bf S}^1$, and both attracting (by the Schwarz lemma).
[**Dynamics on the unit disk**]{}
Any holomorphic self map of unit disk does not increase the [*pseudo hyperbolic distance*]{} $$d(z,w) = \frac{|z - w|}{|1 - \bar{w}z|}$$ (a metric which is invariant under Möbius transformations preserving the disk). In the case the self map is a Blaschke product of degree at least two we get contraction uniform on compact subsets of the disk.
LEMMA: For $z$ and $w$ in the unit disk we have $$\frac{|z - w|}{|1 - \bar{w}z|} \le \frac{|z| + |w|}{1 + |z||w|}\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} We consider $w$ fixed and $z$ varying around a circle centre the origin and radius $r < 1$. Then the pseudo hyperbolic distance between $z$ and $w$ is the absolute value of $$v = \frac{z - w}{1 - \bar{w}z}\ .$$ Inverting this yields $$z = \frac{v + w}{1 + \bar{w}v}$$ and the absolute value of this equals $r$. Hence $$|v + w|^2 = r^2 |1 + \bar{w}v|^2$$ which is $$v\bar{v} + v\bar{w} + w\bar{v} + w\bar{w} = r^2\left(1 + \bar{w}v
+ w\bar{v} + v\bar{v} w\bar{w}\right)$$ giving $$(1-r^2 w\bar{w})v\bar{v}+(1-r^2)(\bar{w}v+w\bar{v})+w\bar{w}-r^2 = 0\ .$$ Then $$\left|(1 - r^2 w\bar{w})v + (1 - r^2)w\right|^2$$ $$= (1 - r^2 w\bar{w}) \left[(1 - r^2 w\bar{w})v\bar{v}
+ (1 - r^2)(v\bar{w} + w\bar{v})\right] + (1 - r^2)^2 w\bar{w}$$ $$= (1 - r^2)^2 w\bar{w} - (1 - r^2 w\bar{w})(w\bar{w} - r^2)$$ $$= w\bar{w} - 2 r^2 w\bar{w} + r^4 w\bar{w} - w\bar{w} + r^2
+ r^2 w^2 \bar{w}^2 - r^4 w\bar{w}$$ $$= r^2 (1 - w\bar{w})^2\ .$$ Hence $$\left|(1 - r^2 w\bar{w})v + (1 - r^2)w\right| = r (1 - w\bar{w})$$ which the equation of a circle in $v$. The centre is $$-\frac{(1 - r^2)w}{1 - r^2 w\bar{w}}$$ and the radius is $$\frac{r(1 - w\bar{w})}{1 - r^2 w\bar{w}}$$ whence the maximum of $|v|$ on the circle is $$\frac{(1 - r^2)|w| + r(1 - |w|^2)}{1 - r^2 |w|^2}$$ $$= \frac{|w| - r^2 |w| + r - r |w|^2}{(1 - r |w|)(1 + r |w|)}$$ $$= \frac{(1 - r |w|)(r + |w|)}{(1 - r |w|)(1 + r |w|)}
= \frac{r + |w|}{1 + r |w|}\ . \ \Box$$
PROPOSITION: In the case $B$ is a Blaschke product of degree two with opposite zeros we have $$\frac{d(B(z),B(w))}{d(z,w)} = \left|\frac{z + w}{1 + \bar{w}z}\right|\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} Introduce $[z,w] = \frac{z - w}{1 - \bar{w} z}$. Then a degree two Blaschke product can be written $B(z) = b_0 [z,b_1] [z,b_2]$. When $B$ is a Blaschke product of degree $d$ in $z$ then the derived map $$B^{\triangle}(z,w) = \frac{[B(z),B(w)]}{[z,w]}$$ turns out to be a Blaschke product of degree $d-1$ in $z$ [@BM]. We prove this in the case $B$ has degree two with opposite zeros $b_1$ and $b_2$ (written $\pm b$) obtaining the precise formula.
$$[B(z),B(w)] = \frac{B(z) - B(w)}{1 - \overline{B(w)} B(z)}$$ $$= \frac{b_0 [z,b_1] [z,b_2] - b_0 [w,b_1] [w,b_2]}
{1 - \bar{b}_0 [\bar{w},\bar{b}_1] [\bar{w},\bar{b}_2]
b_0 [z,b_1] [z,b_2]}$$ $$= \frac{b_0\left[\frac{z^2 - b^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 z^z}
- \frac{w^2 - b^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right]}
{1 - b_0\bar{b}_0\left(\frac{\bar{w}^2 - \bar{b}^2}{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}
\right) \left(\frac{z^2 - b^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 z^2}\right)}$$ $$= \frac{b_0\left[(z^2 - b^2)(1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2)
- (w^2 - b^2)(1 - \bar{b}^2 z^2)\right]}
{(1 - b^2\bar{w}^2)(1 - \bar{b}^2 z^2)
- (\bar{w}^2 - \bar{b}^2)(z^2 - b^2)}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right)$$ $$= \frac{b_0\left[z^2 - b^2 - z^2\bar{b}^2 w^2 + b^2\bar{b}^2 w^2
- w^2 + b^2 + w^2\bar{b}^2 z^2 - b^2\bar{b}^2 z^2\right]}
{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2 - \bar{b}^2 z^2 + b^2\bar{b}^2\bar{w}^2 z^2
- \bar{w}^2 z^2 + \bar{b}^2 z^2 + \bar{w}^2 b^2 - \bar{b}^2 b^2}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right)$$ $$= \frac{b_0\left[z^2 + b^2\bar{b}^2 w^2 - w^2 - b^2\bar{b}^2 z^2\right]}
{1 + b^2\bar{b}^2\bar{w}^2 z^2 - \bar{w}^2 z^2 - \bar{b}^2 b^2}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right)$$ $$= \frac{b_0(z^2 - w^2)(1 - b^2\bar{b}^2)}
{(1 - \bar{w}^2 z^2)(1 - \bar{b}^2 b^2)}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right)$$ $$= \frac{b_0(z - w)(z + w)}{(1 - \bar{w} z)(1 + \bar{w} z)}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right) \ .$$ Hence $$B^{\triangle}(z,w) = \frac{[B(z),B(w)]}{[z,w]}$$ $$= \frac{b_0(z + w)}{(1 + \bar{w} z)}
\left(\frac{1 - b^2\bar{w}^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 w^2}\right)$$ is a degree one Blaschke product in $z$ whose absolute value is $$\left|\frac{z + w}{1 + \bar{w}z}\right|\ .\ \Box$$
COROLLARY: We have a bound on the uniform contraction on compact subsets of the disk, which is given by $$\frac{d(B(z),B(w))}{d(z,w)} \le \frac{|z| + |w|}{1 + |z||w|}\ . \Box$$
Write $|b|$ for the common absolute value of $b_1$ and $b_2$. When $|b| < 1/\sqrt{3}$ put $$r_{|b|} = \frac{1 - |b|^2 - \sqrt{(1 + |b|^2)(1 - 3 |b|^2)}}{2 |b|^2}\ .$$
PROPOSITION: Given a Blaschke product $B$ with zeros $\pm b$ satisfying $|b| < 1/\sqrt{3}$ and an $r$ satisfying $r_{|b|} \le r < 1$ then the closed disk $D_r$ centre $0$ radius $r$ is mapped inside itself by $B$.
[*Proof.*]{} We first show that, for $|b| < 1$ and $r < 1$, a Blaschke product $B$ with zeros $\pm b$ maps the disk $D_r$ inside the disk $D_s$ centre $0$ radius $s$ where $$s = \frac{r^2 + |b|^2}{1 + |b|^2 r^2}\ .$$ Treating $$B(z) = b_0 \frac{z^2 - b^2}{1 - \bar{b}^2 z^2}$$ as a function of $z^2$ (and $b^2$) we can apply the lemma and obtain $$\frac{|z^2 - b^2|}{|1 - \bar{b}^2 z^2|}
\le \frac{|z^2| + |b^2|}{1 + |z^2||b^2|}$$ whence the inclusion follows since $s$ is monotone increasing in $r$.
Finally the hypothesis $r\ge r_{|b|}$ then guarantees that $s\le r$. $\Box$
If $r$ satisfies the hypotheses for two Blaschke products $A$ and $B$, each with opposite zeros, then an iterated function system on $D_r$ with uniform contraction $K = \frac{2r}{1 + r^2}$ (with respect to the pseudo-hyperbolic distance on ${\bf D}$) is created. This is the situation considered by Hutchinson [@H].
When iterated cyclically the two maps $A$ and $B$ induce a Birkhoff measure $$\frac{1}{m+n}\{\sum_{i=1}^m\lambda_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} +
\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_{B^j\circ A^m\circ B^{n-j}}\}\ .$$
[**Superstatistics for Blaschke products**]{}
The map $z\mapsto\lambda_z$ (from the unit disk) is continuous relative to the supremum norm on densities, as is seen in the following
PROPOSITION: For $z$ and $w$ in the unit disk and $u$ in the unit circle $$\left|\frac{1 - |w|^2}{|u - w|^2} - \frac{1 - |z|^2}{|u - z|^2}\right|
\ \le\ 2\left(\frac{1 + |z|}{(1 - |z|)^2}\right)
\left(\frac{1 + |w|}{(1 - |w|)^2}\right) |z - w|\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} $$\frac{1 - |w|^2}{|u - w|^2} - \frac{1 - |z|^2}{|u - z|^2} =
\frac{(1 - w\bar{w})(u - z)(\bar{u}-\bar{z}) - (1 - z\bar{z})(u-w)
(\bar{u}-\bar{w})}{|u - w|^2 |u - z|^2}$$ $$= \frac{(1 - w\bar{w})(u\bar{u} - z\bar{u} - \bar{z}u + z\bar{z}) -
(1 - z\bar{z})(u\bar{u} - w\bar{u} - \bar{w}u + w\bar{w})}
{|u - w|^2 |u - z|^2}$$ $$= \frac{(z\bar{z} - w\bar{w})(1 + u\bar{u}) + [(w - z)\bar{w}\bar{z}
+ (\bar{w} - \bar{z})]u + [(\bar{w} - \bar{z})wz + (w - z)]\bar{u}}
{|u - w|^2 |u - z|^2}$$ $$= \frac{2(|z|^2 - |w|^2) + 2{\rm {\cal R}e}\{[(w - z)\bar{w}\bar{z}
+ (\bar{w} - \bar{z})]u\}}{|u - w|^2 |u - z|^2}\ .$$ So $$\left|\frac{1 - |w|^2}{|u - w|^2} - \frac{1 - |z|^2}{|u - z|^2}\right|
\le 2\cdot\frac{(|z| - |w|)(|z| + |w|) + |w - z|(|wz| + 1)}
{|u - w|^2 |u - z|^2}$$ $$\le 2 |z-w| \frac{|z| + |w| + |w||z| + 1}{(1 - |w|^2)(1 - |z|^2)}$$ $$= 2\left(\frac{1 + |z|}{(1 - |z|)^2}\right)
\left(\frac{1 + |w|}{(1 - |w|)^2}\right) |z - w|\ .$$
DEFINITION: Given a Blaschke product $B$ and a point $\alpha$ in the unit disk, define the error $\varepsilon_B(\alpha)$ by $$\varepsilon_B(\alpha) = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \varepsilon_{B^j,\alpha}\ .$$ Similarly, given a Blaschke product $A$ and a point $\beta$ in the unit disk, define the error $\varepsilon_A(\beta)$ by $$\varepsilon_A(\beta) = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \varepsilon_{A^i,\beta}\ .$$
We are interested in the case $\alpha$ is the attracting fixed point of $A$ and $\beta$ is the attracting fixed point of $B$.
The individual terms $\varepsilon_{B^j,\alpha}$ are given by the difference in Poisson densities $\rho_{B^j(\alpha)} - \rho_\beta$ and the individual terms $\varepsilon_{A^i,\beta}$ are given by the difference in Poisson densities $\rho_{A^i(\beta)} - \rho_\alpha$. These Poisson differences converge to zero, in the supremum norm on densities, exponentially fast as $i$ and $j$ tend to infinity, by the Proposition. Hence the above errors are well-defined.
Given an arbitrary composition $C = C_i\circ\ldots\circ C_l$ (or word) with $C_i\in\{A,B\}$ define $\varepsilon_C := \rho_C - \rho_{C_1}$ where $\rho_C = \rho_{\gamma}$ where $\gamma$ is the attracting fixed point of the composition $C$. (Thus $\rho_{C_1} = \rho_{\alpha}$ if $C_1 = A$ and $\rho_{C_1} = \rho_{\beta}$ if $C_1 = B$.)
PROPOSITION: $$\left| \sum_{i=1}^m \varepsilon_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} -
\varepsilon_A(\beta) \right| < 4\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4}
\left( \frac{K^{n+1} + K^{m+1}}{1 - K}\right)\ ,$$ $$\left| \sum_{j=1}^n \varepsilon_{B^j\circ A^m\circ B^{n-j}} -
\varepsilon_B(\alpha) \right| < 4\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4}
\left( \frac{K^{m+1} + K^{n+1}}{1 - K}\right)\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} For all $i$ with $1\le i\le m$ we have $$\varepsilon_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}}=\rho_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}}
- \rho_{\alpha}$$ and $\varepsilon_{A^i,\beta} = \rho_{A^i(\beta)} - \rho_{\alpha}$. Hence $$\varepsilon_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} - \varepsilon_{A^i,\beta} =
\rho_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} - \rho_{A^i(\beta)}$$ Furthermore $$\left| \rho_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} - \rho_{A^i(\beta)} \right|
\le 2\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4} |A^i(B^n(\gamma)) - A^i(\beta)| \le
2\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4} \cdot 2 K^{i+n}$$ (since $d(\gamma,\beta)\le 1$) where $\gamma$ is the fixed point of $A^m B^n$. Then, for $i > m$, we have $$\left| \varepsilon_{A^i,\beta} \right| \le
2\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4} |A^i(\beta) - \alpha| \le
2\frac{(1+r)^2}{(1-r)^4} \cdot 2 K^i$$ (since $d(\beta,\alpha)\le 1$). Summing over all $i\ge 1$ gives the first conclusion. A similar argument gives the second conclusion. $\Box$
COROLLARY: $$\left| \sum_{i=1}^m \rho_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} +
\sum_{j=1}^n \rho_{B^j\circ A^m\circ B^{n-j}}
- (m\rho_{\alpha} + n\rho_{\beta}) \right|\ \rightarrow\
\varepsilon_A(\beta) + \varepsilon_B(\alpha)$$ exponentially fast as $m$ and $n$ tend to infinity.
The quantity $$\frac{1}{m+n}\{\sum_{i=1}^m\rho_{A^i\circ B^n\circ A^{m-i}} +
\sum_{j=1}^n\rho_{B^j\circ A^m\circ B^{n-j}}\}$$ is the Birkhoff density for the cycle of maps $A$ and $B$.
[99]{}
C. Beck and E.G.D. Cohen, Physica A [**322**]{}, 267 (2003) C. Beck, E.G.D. Cohen, and H.L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 056133 (2005) H. Touchette and C. Beck, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 016131 (2005) C. Tsallis and A.M.C. Souza, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 026106 (2003) P. Jizba, H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 031122 (2008) P.-H. Chavanis, Physica A [**359**]{}, 177 (2006) S.A. Frank and D.E. Smith, Entropy [**12**]{}, 289 (2010) C. Anteneodo and S.M. Duarte Queiros, J. Stat. Mech. P10023 (2009) E. Van der Straeten and C. Beck, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 036108 (2009)
K. Briggs, C. Beck, Physica A [**378**]{}, 498 (2007) C. Beck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 064502 (2007) L. Leon Chen, C. Beck, Physica A [**387**]{}, 3162 (2008) A.Y. Abul-Magd, G. Akemann, P. Vivo, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. [**42**]{}, 175207 (2009) K.E. Daniels, C. Beck, and E. Bodenschatz, Physica D [**193**]{}, 208 (2004) C. Beck, Physica A [**331**]{}, 173 (2004) M. Baiesi, M. Paczuski and A.L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 051103 (2006) S. Rizzo and A. Rapisarda, AIP Conf. Proc. [**742**]{}, 176 (2004) A. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 084503 (2003) S. Abe, C. Beck, E.G.D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 031102 (2007) C. Beck, G. Roepstorff, Physica A [**145**]{}, 1 (1987) C. Beck, Physica A [**233**]{}, 419 (1996) N.G. van Kampen, [*Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry*]{}, North-Holland, London (1982) A. Beardon & D. Minda “Schwarz, Pick in the hyperbolic plane”, Lecture Notes (2007) H. Cohn “Conformal mapping on Riemann surfaces”, Dover publications, Inc. New York (1967) M. Craizer “Entropy of inner functions”, Israel Journal of Mathematics vol. 74, nos 2-3 (1991), 129-168 J. Hutchinson “Fractals and self-similarity”, Indiana Univ. J. Math. 30, 713-747 (1981) N.F.G. Martin “On finite Blaschke products whose restrictions to the unit circle are exact endomorphisms”, Bull. London Math. Soc. 15 (1983), 343-348 M. Shub & D. Sullivan “Expanding endomorphisms of the circle revisited”, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 5 (1985), 285-289 P. Walters “Invariant measures and equilibrium states for some mappings which expand distances”, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 236 (1978), 121-153 P. Billingsley “Convergence of probability measures”, Wiley, New York (1968)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a new method for obtaining sharp asymptotics of solutions of the defocussing nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation, based on ${{\overline{\partial}}}$ methods and under essentially minimal regularity assumptions on initial data.'
address:
- 'Dept. of Math, Univ. of Arizona, 520-621-2713, FAX: 520-626-5186'
- 'Dept. of Math., Univ. of Arizona'
author:
- Momar Dieng
- 'K. D. T-R McLaughlin'
title: 'Long–time Asymptotics for the NLS equation via $\bar{\partial}$ methods'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The long time behavior of solutions $q(x,t)$ of the defocusing Nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NLSEQ}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
i q_{t} + q_{xx} - 2 \left| q \right|^{2} q = 0, \\
q(x,t=0) = q_{0}(x) \rightarrow 0 \mbox{ as } |x| \to \infty \\
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ has been studied extensively, under varying degree of smoothness assumptions on the initial data $q_{0}$ [@Zakh1; @Deif3; @Deif4; @Deif7; @Deif5]. The asymptotic behavior takes the following form: as $t \to \infty$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AsForm}
q(x,t) = t^{-1/2}\alpha(z_0)e^{ix^2/(4t) - i\nu(z_0)\log(8t)} + \mathcal{E}\left(x,t\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\nu(z) = -\frac1{2\pi}\log(1-|r(z)|^2),\quad |\alpha(z)|^2=\nu(z)/2,$$ and $$\hspace{-0.3in}\arg\alpha(z)=\frac1\pi\int_{-\infty}^{z}\log(z-s)d(\log(1-|r(s)|^2))+\frac\pi4 + \arg\Gamma(i\nu(z))-\arg r(z).$$ Here $z_{0} = - x / (4t)$, $\Gamma$ is the gamma function and the function $r$ is the so-called reflection coefficient associated to the initial data $q_{0}$, as described later in this section.
Estimates on the size of the error term $\mathcal{E}\left(x, t \right)$ depend on the smoothness assumptions on $q_{0}$. The above asymptotic form was first obtained in [@Zakh1]. The nonlinear steepest descent method [@Deif6] was brought to bear on this problem in [@Deif3] (see [@Deif4] for a pedagogic description), where the authors assumed the initial data possessed high orders of smoothness and decay, and proved that $\mathcal{E}\left(x,t\right)$ satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}\left(x,t\right) = \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{\log{t}}{t} \right)\end{aligned}$$ uniformly for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$.
Early in this millennium, Deift and Zhou developed some new tools for the analysis of Riemann–Hilbert problems, originally aimed at studying the long time behavior of perturbations of the NLS equation [@Deif8]. Their methods allowed them to establish long time asymptotics for the NLS equation with essentially minimal assumptions on the initial data [@Deif5]. Indeed, they showed that if the initial data is in the Sobolev space $$H^{1,1}=\{f\in L^2(\mathbb R):\ xf,f'\in L^2(\mathbb R)\},$$ then the (unique, weak) solution satisfies (\[eq:AsForm\]) with an error term $\mathcal{E}\left(x,t \right)$ that satisfies, for any fixed $0 < \kappa < 1 / 4$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}\left(x,t \right) = \mathcal{O}\left( t^{- \left( \frac{1}{2} + \kappa \right) } \right) \ .\end{aligned}$$
Recently, McLaughlin and Miller [@McLa1; @Mcla2] have developed a method for the asymptotic analysis of Riemann–Hilbert problems based on the analysis of ${{\overline{\partial}}}$ problems, rather than the asymptotic analysis of singular integrals on contours. In this paper we adapt and extend this method to the Riemann–Hilbert problem associated to the NLS equation. The main point of our work is this: by using the ${{\overline{\partial}}}$ approach, we avoid all delicate estimates involving Cauchy projection operators in $L^{p}$ spaces (which are central to the work in [@Deif5]). In place of such estimates, we carry out basic estimates of double integrals which involve nothing more than calculus. Our result is as follows.
For initial data $q_0(x)=q(x,t=0)$ in the Sobolev space $$H^{1,1}=\{f\in L^2(\mathbb R):\ xf,f'\in L^2(\mathbb R)\},$$ we have as $t\to\infty$: $$q(x,t) = t^{-1/2}\alpha(z_0)e^{ix^2/(4t) - i\nu(z_0)\log(8t)} + \mathcal{O}\left({t^{-3/4}}\right)\ .$$ where $$\nu(z) = -\frac1{2\pi}\log(1-|r(z)|^2),\quad |\alpha(z)|^2=\nu(z)/2,$$ and $$\hspace{-0.3in}\arg\alpha(z)=\frac1\pi\int_{-\infty}^{z}\log(z-s)d(\log(1-|r(s)|^2))+\frac\pi4 + \arg\Gamma(i\nu(z))-\arg r(z).$$ \[mainresult\]
The main features of this result are threefold:
1. the error term is an improvement (see [@Deif5]; in fact our estimate on the error is sharp)
2. the new ${{\overline{\partial}}}$ method which is used to derive it affords a considerably less technical proof than previous results.
3. the method used to establish this result is readily extended to derive a more detailed asymptotic expansion, beyond the leading term (see the remark at the end of the paper).
0.2in The solution procedure for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation may be described as follows: for a given function $r(z)$ in the Sobolev space $H^{1,1}_{1} = \{ f \in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}): z f, f' \in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}), \sup_{z \in \mathbb{R}} |f(z)| < 1 \}$, consider the following Riemann–Hilbert problem:
\[rhp:01\] Find $M = M(z) = M(z;x,t)$ a $2 \times 2$ matrix, satisfying the following conditions: $$\begin{cases}
M \quad\textrm{analytic on $\mathbb C\setminus\Sigma$}\\
M_{+}(z)=M_{-}(z)V_{M}(z)\quad\textrm{for $z\in\Sigma=\mathbb R$ with $V_{M}$ specified below}\\
M= I+O\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) \quad\textrm{as $z\to\infty$}.
\end{cases}$$ The jump matrix $V_{M}$ is defined on $\Sigma$ as follows: $$V_{M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-|r|^{2} & -\bar{r}\,e^{-2it\theta} \\
r\,e^{2it\theta} & 1
\end{array}
\right), \qquad \theta=2z^{2}-4z_{0}z = 2 z^{2} + x z / t.$$
Next, define $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1}(x,t) = \lim_{z \to \infty} z \left( M(z) - I \right),\end{aligned}$$ and then set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qMrelation}
q(x,t) = 2 i \left( M_{1}(x,t) \right)_{12}.\end{aligned}$$ The fact of the matter is that $q(x,t)$ solves the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (\[eq:NLSEQ\]). The connection between the initial data $q_{0}(x)$ and the reflection coefficient $r(z)$ is achieved through the spectral and inverse-spectral theory of the associated Zakharov-Shabat differential operator $$\mathcal{L}=
\nonumber
i \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array} \right) \frac{d}{dx} + \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & - i q \\
i \overline{q} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right),$$ as described, for example, in [@Deif4]. It is well known that if $q_{0} \in H^{1,1}$, then $r \in H^{1,1}_{1}$, and more generally this spectral transform, $\mathcal{R}: H^{1,1} \to H^{1,1}_{1}$, $q_{0} \mapsto r$, is a bijection between these two spaces (it turns out that $\mathcal{R}$ is bi-Lipschitz) [@Zhou1]. For initial data in $H^{1,1}$, $q(x,t)$ obtained from the Riemann–Hilbert problem described above is the unique weak solution to the NLS equation (see [@Deif5]).
0.2in Recent analyses of the long-time behavior of the solution of the NLS initial value problem (\[eq:NLSEQ\]) have involved the detailed analysis of the behavior of the solution $M$ to the Riemann–Hilbert problem \[rhp:01\]. As regularity assumptions on the initial data $q_{0}$ are relaxed, the detailed analysis becomes more involved, technically. The purpose of this manuscript is to carry out a complete analysis of the long-time asymptotic behavior of $M$ under the assumption that $r \in H^{1,1}_{1}$, as in [@Deif4], but via a $\overline{\partial}$ approach which replaces very technical harmonic analysis involving Cauchy projection operators with very straightforward estimates involving some explicit two-dimensional integrals.
Proof of the result
===================
We outline the proof of the results. We begin by outlining the solutions to two model RHPs which we shall need in our derivation.
A model scalar RHP
------------------
Let $z_{0}\in\mathbb R$, and $\sigma_{3}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&-1\end{array} \right)}$. We seek a function $\delta(z)$ satisfying: $$\begin{cases}
\textrm{ $\delta$ is analytic and invertible for $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus {\mathbb{R}},$}\\
\textrm{$\delta(z) \to 1$ as $z\to\infty$,}\\
\delta_{+}(z) = \begin{cases} \delta_{-}(z) \left( 1 - \left| r(z) \right|^{2}\right), & z < z_{0} \\ \delta_{-}(z) & z> z_{0}\end{cases} .
\end{cases}
\label{modrhp1}$$
The unique solution to this RHP is easily checked to be the function $$\delta(z) = \exp[\gamma(z)]=\exp\left[\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{z_{0}}\frac{\ln\left(1-|r(s)|^{2}\right)}{s-z}\,ds\right], \qquad z\notin\mathbb R
\label{modrhp1sol}.$$ We will need estimates on $\delta(z)$ which we take from [@Deif5] (see Proposition (2.12) and formula (2.41) of that paper). Suppose $r\in L^\infty({\mathbb R}) \cap L^2({\mathbb R})$ and $\|r\|_{L^\infty} \le \rho <1$. Then $$\delta(z) \overline{\delta(\bar z)} = 1,$$ $$(1-\rho)^{\frac12} \le (1-\rho^2)^{\frac12} \le |\delta(z)|, |\delta^{-1}(z)| \le (1-\rho^2)^{-\frac12} \le (1-\rho)^{-\frac12},\label{deltabound}$$ and $$|\delta^{\pm 1}(z)|\le 1 \quad \text{for}\quad
\pm \text{Im } z>0.$$ For real $z$, $$|\delta_+(z) \delta_-(z)| = 1 \quad \text{and, in
particular,}\quad |\delta(z)| = 1\quad \text{for} \quad
z>z_0,$$ $$|\delta_+(z)| = |\delta^{-1}_-(z)| = (1 - |r(z)|^2
)^{\frac12},\qquad z<z_0,$$ and $$\Delta\equiv \delta_+\delta_- = e^{\frac1{i\pi}
\text{ P.V. } \int^{z_0}_{-\infty}
\frac{\log(1-|r(s)|^2)}{s-z}ds}, \quad \text{where P.V.\ denotes
the principal value.}$$ Also $|\Delta| = |\delta_+\delta_-| = 1$, and $$\|\delta_\pm - 1\|_{L^2(dz)} \le \frac{c\|r\|_{L^2}}{1-\rho}.$$ Let $\chi^0(s)$ denote the characteristic function of the interval $(z_0-1,z_0)$. Then for $z\in\mathbb C\setminus~(-\infty,z_0)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(z) &= \int^{z_0}_{-\infty} \{\log(1-|r(s)|^2) - \log(1-|r(z_0)|^2) \chi^0(s)(s-z_0+1)\} \frac{ds}{2\pi i(s-z)}\label{gammaexpansion}\\
&\quad + \log(1-|r(z_0)|^2) \int^{z_0}_{z_0-1} \frac{s-z_0+1}{s-z} \frac{ds}{2\pi i}\nonumber\\
&= \beta(z,z_0) + i\nu(z_0)(1-(z-z_0 + 1) \log(z-z_0+1)\nonumber\\
&\quad + (z-z_0) \log(z-z_0) + \log(z-z_0)),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\nu(z_0) = -\frac1{2\pi} \log(1-|r(z_0)|^2)$, and $$\beta(z,z_0) = \int^{z_0}_{-\infty} \{\log(1-|r(s)|^2) -
\log(1-|r(z_0)|^2) \chi^0(s) (s-z_0+1)\} \frac{ds}{2\pi i(s-z)}.
\label{beta}$$ On any ray $L_{\phi} = z_0 + e^{-i\phi} \mathbb R_{+} =\{z =
z_0 + ue^{-i\phi}, u\ge 0\}$ with $0<\phi<\pi$ or $-\pi<\phi<0$ we find $$\|\beta\|_{H^1(L_{\phi})} \le \frac{\hat{c}\|r\|_{H^{1,0}}}{1-\rho},
\label{betaestimate1}$$ where the constant $\hat{c}$ is independent of $\phi$ and $z_{0}$ (see Lemma 23.3 in [@Beal1]). Then, by standard Sobolev estimates, it follows that there is a constant $c$ independent of $\phi$ and $z_{0}$ such that on $L_{\phi}$ $$\begin{cases}\beta(z,z_0)\textrm{ is continuous up to $z=z_0$}\\
\|\beta(.,z_0)\|_{L^\infty(L_{\phi})} \le c\|r\|_{H^{1,0}}/(1-\rho) \\
|\beta(z,z_0) - \beta(z_0,z_0)| \le \frac{c\|r\|_{H^{1,0}}}{1-\rho} |z-z_0|^{1/2}.
\end{cases}
\label{betaestimate2}$$ Notice that (\[betaestimate2\]) also provides us with estimates that are uniformly valid in $\mathbb C^{+}$ and $\mathbb C^{-}$ separately.
A model matrix RHP
------------------
We will refer to the RHP described in this section as the Parabolic Cylinder RHP for reason that will soon be obvious. Given $r_{0}$, a complex number satisfying $|r_{0}|<1$, set $\nu = \frac{-1}{2 \pi } \log{\left( 1 - \left| r_{0} \right|^{2}\right)}$, and then seek $P(\xi)$, a $2 \times 2$ matrix valued function of $\xi$, satisfying: $$\begin{cases}
\textrm{$P$ is analytic for $\xi \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R}$},\\
P(\xi) = \mathbb{I} + \frac{P_{1}^{\infty}}{\xi} +\mathcal{O} \left( \frac{1}{\xi^{2}}\right),\qquad \xi\to\infty\\
\textrm{$P_{+}(\xi) = P_{-}(\xi) V_{P}(\xi)$, for $\xi \in \Sigma_{P}$}.
\end{cases}
\label{modrhp2}$$ The contour $\Sigma_{P}$ consists of four rays emanating from the origin, one in each of the four quadrants and described parametrically as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma_{P}^{I}= \{ \xi: \ \xi = r e^{i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \} , \\
&& \Sigma_{P}^{II}= \{ \xi: \ \xi = r e^{3 i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}, \\
&& \Sigma_{P}^{III}= \{ \xi: \ \xi = r e^{5 i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}, \\
&& \Sigma_{P}^{IV}= \{ \xi: \ \xi = r e^{7 i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ The jump matrix $V_{P}$ is defined separately on each of the four rays, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{P}(\xi) := \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}& \ \mbox{ for } \xi \in \Sigma_{P}^{I}\\
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&\frac{-\overline{r_{0}}}{1 - \left |r_{0} \right|^{2}}\xi^{2 i \nu}e^{-i \xi^{2}/2}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}& \ \mbox{ for } \xi \in \Sigma_{P}^{II}\\
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}& \ \mbox{ for } \xi \in \Sigma_{P}^{III}\\
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&-\overline{r_{0}}\xi^{2 i \nu}e^{-i \xi^{2}/2}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}& \ \mbox{ for } \xi \in \Sigma_{P}^{IV}
\end{array}
\right\}\end{aligned}$$
(-3,-3)(3,3) (0,0) (3,3) (-3,3) (-3,-3) (3,-3) (0,0)[(-4,0)(4,0)]{} (1.2,0.5)[$\Omega_{1}$]{} (0,0.8)[$\Omega_{2}$]{} (-1.2,0.5)[$\Omega_{3}$]{} (-1.2,-0.5)[$\Omega_{4}$]{} (0,-0.8)[$\Omega_{5}$]{} (1.2,-0.5)[$\Omega_{6}$]{} (4.2,1.7)[ $V_{P}^{I}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}$ ]{} (4.2,-1.7)[ $V_{P}^{IV}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&-\overline{r_{0}}\xi^{2 i \nu}e^{-i \xi^{2}/2}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}$ ]{} (-4.5,-1.7)[ $V_{P}^{III}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}$ ]{} (-4.5,1.7)[ $V_{P}^{II}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&\frac{-\overline{r_{0}}}{1 - \left |r_{0} \right|^{2}}\xi^{2 i \nu}e^{-i \xi^{2}/2}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}$ ]{}
The solution to this Riemann-Hilbert problem is the explicit piecewise analytic matrix valued function $P(\xi)$, defined below [@Deif3; @Deif4]. We first define two auxiliary matrix valued functions $\Psi^{+}(\xi)$ and $\psi^{-}(\xi)$, defined in $\mathbb{C}_{+}$ and $\mathbb{C}_{-}$ respectively, as follows. For $\xi \in \mathbb{C}_{+}$ [$$\Psi^{+}(\xi) = {\left( \begin{array}{cc}e^{- 3 \pi \nu / 4} D_{i \nu}(e^{-3 i \pi /4} \xi)&e^{\pi \nu / 4}\left( \beta_{21}\right)^{-1} \left[ \partial_{\xi} \left( D_{-i \nu}(e^{- i \pi / 4}\xi)\right) - \frac{i \xi}{2} D_{-i \nu}(e^{- i \pi / 4}\xi) \right]\\#3&e^{\pi \nu / 4} D_{-i \nu}(e^{- i \pi / 4}\xi)\end{array} \right)}.$$]{} For $\xi \in \mathbb{C}_{-}$ [$$\Psi^{-}(\xi) =
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}e^{ \pi \nu / 4} D_{i \nu}(e^{ i \pi /4} \xi)&e^{-3 \pi \nu / 4}\left( \beta_{21}\right)^{-1} \left[ \partial_{\xi} \left( D_{-i \nu}(e^{3i \pi / 4}\xi)\right) - \frac{i \xi}{2} D_{-i \nu}(e^{3 i \pi / 4}\xi) \right]\\#3&e^{-3 \pi \nu / 4} D_{-i \nu}(e^{3 i \pi / 4}\xi)\end{array} \right)}.$$ ]{}
For a fixed complex number $a$, the function $D_{a}(\zeta)$ is a special function, defined to be the unique function satisfying the parabolic cylinder equation $$\frac{d^{2}}{d\zeta^{2}} D_{a}(\zeta) + \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\zeta^{2}}{4} + a \right) D_{a}(\zeta)= 0,$$ with boundary condition $$D_{a}(\zeta)
=\begin{cases}
\zeta^{a} e^{- \zeta^{2}/4} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \zeta^{-2}\right) \right), \\
\qquad\qquad\textrm{for $\zeta \rightarrow \infty, \ \left| \mbox{arg} \zeta \right| < \frac{3 \pi }{4}$},\\
\zeta^{a} e^{- \zeta^{2}/4} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \zeta^{-2}\right) \right)-(2\pi)^{1/2}\left(\Gamma(-a)\right)^{-1}e^{a\pi\,i}\zeta^{-a-1} e^{\zeta^{2}/4} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \zeta^{-2}\right) \right), \\
\qquad\qquad\textrm{for $\zeta \rightarrow \infty, \frac{\pi}{4}< \arg \zeta < \frac{5 \pi }{4}$},\\
\zeta^{a} e^{- \zeta^{2}/4} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \zeta^{-2}\right) \right)-(2\pi)^{1/2}\left(\Gamma(-a)\right)^{-1}e^{-a\pi\,i}\zeta^{-a-1} e^{\zeta^{2}/4} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O} \left( \zeta^{-2}\right) \right), \\
\qquad\qquad\textrm{for $\zeta \rightarrow \infty, -\frac{5\pi}{4}< \arg \zeta < -\frac{\pi }{4}$}.
\end{cases}$$ The parameters $\beta_{21}$ and $\beta_{12}$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\beta_{12} = \frac{(2 \pi)^{1/2} e^{i \pi / 4 }e^{- \pi \nu /2 }}
{r_{0} \Gamma(-i\nu)}, \\
&&
\beta_{21}=\frac{(2 \pi)^{1/2} e^{i \pi / 4 }e^{- \pi \nu /2 }}
{r_{0}\nu \Gamma(-i\nu)}.\end{aligned}$$
The matrix $P$ is defined in six non-overlapping regions: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{1} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(0, \frac{\pi}{4}\right) \right\},
\ \ \ \ &&
\Omega_{2} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(\frac{\pi}{4}, \frac{3\pi}{4}\right) \right\},\\
\Omega_{3} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(\frac{3\pi}{4}, \pi \right) \right\},
\ \ \ \ &&
\Omega_{4} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(\pi, \frac{5\pi}{4}\right) \right\}, \\
\Omega_{5} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(\frac{5\pi}{4}, \frac{7\pi}{4}\right) \right\},
\ \ \ \ &&
\Omega_{6} = \left\{ \xi: \mbox{arg}(\xi) \in \left(\frac{7\pi}{4}, 2\pi \right) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Now $P(\xi)$ is defined in each of these regions as follows (see Fig \[sigmaPC\].):
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{For }\xi \in \Omega_{1}: &&P(\xi) =\
\Psi^{+} (\xi)\ \ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}} \
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}
\\
\mbox{For }
\xi \in \Omega_{2}: &&P(\xi) = \ \Psi^{+}(\xi)\ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}}
\\
\mbox{For } \xi \in \Omega_{3}: && P(\xi) = \ \Psi^{+}(\xi)\ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}} \
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&\frac{\overline{r_{0}}}{1 - \left| r_{0}\right|^{2}}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}
\\
\mbox{For } \xi \in \Omega_{4}: && P(\xi) = \ \Psi^{-}(\xi)\ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}} \
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&\frac{r_{0}}{1 - \left| r_{0}\right|^{2}}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}
\\
\mbox{For } \xi \in \Omega_{5}: && P(\xi) = \ \Psi^{-}(\xi) \ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}}
\\
\mbox{For } \xi \in \Omega_{6}: && P(\xi) = \ \Psi^{-}(\xi) \ e^{ i \xi^{2} \sigma_{3}/4} \ \xi^{- i \nu \sigma_{3}} \
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&-\overline{r_{0}}\\#3&1\end{array} \right)}
\label{PCsol}.\end{aligned}$$
The fact is that $P$ defined above solves RHP (\[modrhp2\]). Moreover in the notation of RHP (\[modrhp2\]), we have (see [@Deif4]) $$P_{1}^{\infty}={\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&\frac{-i(2\pi)^{1/2}e^{i\pi/4}e^{-\pi\nu/2}}{r_{0}\Gamma(-i\nu)}\\#3&0\end{array} \right)}.\label{p1infinty}$$ Note also that in the setup of RHP (\[modrhp2\]), the origin is the reference point from which the rays emanate. However in the following sections we will need to use the rescaling $\xi\to\sqrt{8t}(z-z_{0}) $ for $z_{0}\in \mathbb R$.
The RHP for NLS
---------------
Let $\Sigma=\mathbb R$. We seek a matrix $M$ satisfying the following conditions: $$\begin{cases}
M \quad\textrm{analytic on $\mathbb C\setminus\Sigma$}\\
M_{+}(z)=M_{-}(z)V_{M}(z)\quad\textrm{for $z\in\Sigma=\mathbb R$ with $V_{M}$ specified below}\\
M= I+O\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) \quad\textrm{as $z\to\infty$}.
\end{cases}\label{nlsrhp}$$ The jump matrix $V_{M}$ defined on $\Sigma$ as follows: $$V_{M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-|r|^{2} & -\bar{r}\,e^{-2it\theta} \\
r\,e^{2it\theta} & 1
\end{array}
\right), \qquad \theta=2z^{2}-4z_{0}z.$$
### Step 1: jump matrix factorization
To the left of $z_{0}$ we use the factorization $$V_{M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\frac{r}{1-|r|^{2}}\,e^{2it\theta} & 1
\end{array}
\right)
\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-|r|^{2} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{1-|r|^{2}}
\end{array}
\right)
\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{-\bar{r}}{1-|r|^{2}}\,e^{-2it\theta} \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right) = U_{L}U_{0}U_{R}$$ To the right of $z_{0}$ we use the factorization $$V_{M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\bar{r}\,e^{-2it\theta} \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)
\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
r\,e^{2it\theta} & 1
\end{array}
\right) = W_{L}W_{R}$$
(-1,-1)(1,1) (0,0)[(0,0)(-4,0)]{} (0,0)[(0,0)(4,0)]{} (0,0.3)[$z_{0}$]{} (-2,-0.3)[$V_{M}=U_{L}U_{0}U_{R}$]{} (2,-0.3)[$V_{M}=W_{L}W_{R}$]{} (4.5,0)[$\mathbb R$]{}
### Step 2: Extension of $r$ and contour deformation
We would like to deform the contour by opening sectors, so we need extensions off $\mathbb R$ of the off-diagonal functions $r$, $\bar{r}$,$\frac{r}{1-|r|^{2}}$ and $\frac{-\bar{r}}{1-|r|^{2}}$. We choose these extension in a way that that will make precise later. Let
1. $R_{1}$ be the extension of $r$ in the sector $\Omega_{1}:\{z:0<\arg{z}\leq\pi/4\}$,
2. $R_{3}$ be the extension of $\frac{-\bar{r}}{1-|r|^{2}}$ in the sector $\Omega_{3}:\{z:3\pi/4<\arg{z}\leq\pi\}$,
3. $R_{4}$ be the extension of $\frac{r}{1-|r|^{2}}$ in the sector $\Omega_{4}:\{z:\pi<\arg{z}\leq 5\pi/4\}$,
4. $R_{6}$ be the extension of $\bar{r}$ in the sector $\Omega_{6}:\{z:7\pi/4\leq\arg{z}< 2\pi\}$.
Next we open sectors and define $A$ in the regions as follows
(-2,-2)(2,2) (0,0)[(-2,-2)(2,2)]{} (0,0)[(-2,2)(2,-2)]{} (0,0)[(0,0)(-3.5,0)]{} (0,0)[(0,0)(3.5,0)]{} (0,0.3)[$z_{0}$]{} (4,0)[$\mathbb R$]{} (0,1.3)[$A=M$]{} (2.2,0.8)[$A=MW_{R}^{-1}$]{} (2.2,-0.8)[$A=MW_{L}$]{} (0,-1.3)[$A=M$]{} (-2.2,-0.8)[$A=MU_{L}$]{} (-2.2,0.8)[$A=MU_{R}^{-1}$]{}
where we use the extensions $R_{i}$ defined above for $U_{R}$, $U_{L}$, $W_{R}$ and $W_{L}$ in the sectors. The matrix $A$ now has the diagonal jump $U_{0}=(1-|r|^{2})^{\sigma_{3}}$ on $(-\infty,z_{0}]$ where $$\sigma_{3}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right).$$ We can remove the jump across $(-\infty,z_{0}]$ by defining $$B=A\delta^{-\sigma_{3}}.$$ It is easily checked algebraically that $B$ so-defined only has jumps across the four diagonal rays pictured below.
(-2,-2)(2,2) (0,0)[(-2,-2)(2,2)]{} (0,0)[(-2,2)(2,-2)]{} (0,0.3)[$z_{0}$]{} (3,1)[ $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
R_{1}e^{2it\theta}\delta^{-2} & 1
\end{array}
\right)$ ]{} (3,-1)[ $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -R_{6}e^{-2it\theta}\delta^{2} \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)$ ]{} (-3,-1)[ $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
R_{4}e^{2it\theta}\delta^{-2} & 1
\end{array}
\right)$ ]{} (-3,1)[ $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -R_{3}e^{-2it\theta}\delta^{2} \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)$ ]{}
### Specify extensions to arrive at a pure ${{\overline{\partial}}}$–problem
It is now time to return to the extensions $R_{i}$ and specify them explicitly. We seek $R_{1}$ satisfying $$\begin{cases}
R_{1}=r \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r ,\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
R_{1}=f_{1}:=\hat{r}_{0}(z-z_{0})^{-2i\nu}\delta^{2} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r e^{i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}|\leq c_{1}|z-z_{0}|^{-1/2}+c_{2}|r'| \quad \textrm{in $\{ z: \ z = r e^{i \theta},\ r \geq 0,\ 0\leq\theta\leq\pi/4 \}$}
\label{r1cond},
\end{cases}$$
$R_{3}$ satisfying $$\begin{cases}
R_{3}=\frac{-\bar{r}}{1-|r|^{2}} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = -r ,\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
R_{3}=f_{3}:=\frac{-\bar{\hat{r}}_{0}}{1-|\hat{r}_{0}|^{2}}(z-z_{0})^{2i\nu}\delta^{-2} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r e^{3i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{3}|\leq c_{1}|z-z_{0}|^{-1/2}+c_{2}|r'| \quad \textrm{in $\{ z: \ z = r e^{i \theta},\ r \geq 0,\ 3\pi/4\leq\theta\leq\pi \}$}
\label{r3cond},
\end{cases}$$
$R_{4}$ satisfying $$\begin{cases}
R_{4}=\frac{r}{1-|r|^{2}} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r e^{5i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
R_{4}=f_{4}:=\frac{\hat{r}_{0}}{1-|\hat{r}_{0}|^{2}}(z-z_{0})^{-2i\nu}\delta^{2} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = -r,\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{4}|\leq c_{1}|z-z_{0}|^{-1/2}+c_{2}|r'| \quad \textrm{in $\{ z: \ z = r e^{i \theta},\ r \geq 0,\ \pi\leq\theta\leq 5\pi/4 \}$}
\label{r4cond},
\end{cases}$$
and $R_{6}$ satisfying $$\begin{cases}
R_{6}=\bar{r} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r ,\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
R_{6}=f_{6}:=\bar{\hat{r}}_{0}(z-z_{0})^{2i\nu}\delta^{-2} \quad \textrm{on the ray $\{ z: \ z = r e^{7i \pi / 4},\ r \ge 0 \}$}\\
|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{6}|\leq c_{1}|z-z_{0}|^{-1/2}+c_{2}|r'| \quad \textrm{in $\{ z: \ z = r e^{i \theta},\ r \geq 0,\ 7\pi/4\leq\theta\leq 2\pi \}$}
\label{r6cond},
\end{cases}$$ The reason for requiring the above conditions will be apparent soon.
There exist $R_{i}, i=1, 3, 4, 6$ satisfying conditions (\[r1cond\])-(\[r6cond\]).
For conciseness we give the proof for $R_{1}$ only; the corresponding arguments for the other $R_{i}$ follow immediately. Define $$R_{1}(u,v)=b(\arg(u+iv))r(u)+(1-b(\arg(u+iv)))f_{1}(u+iv)$$ where $$b(\theta)=\cos(2\theta).$$ It follows that $R_{1}$ satisfies the first two conditions in (\[r1cond\]) immediately. Note that $${{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}=(r-f_{1}){{\overline{\partial}}}b+\frac{b}{2}r',$$ so $$|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}|\leq \frac{c_{1}}{|z-z_{0}|}\left[|r-r(z_{0})|+|r(z_{0})-f_{1}|\right]+c_{2}|r'|.$$ Note also that $$|r-r(z_{0})|=\left\vert\int_{z_{0}}^{z} r'd\,s\right\vert \leq \int_{z_{0}}^{z}|r'|\,|d\,s| \leq ||r||_{L^{2}((z,z_{0}))}\cdot||1||_{L^{2}((z,z_{0}))}\leq c|z-z_{0}|^{1/2}.$$ Using the expansion in (\[gammaexpansion\]), we also obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1}&=&\hat{r}_{0}(z-z_{0})^{-2i\nu}\delta^{2}\\
&=& \hat{r}_{0}\exp[2i\nu+2\beta(z_{0},z_{0})]\exp[2(\beta(z,z_{0})-\beta(z_{0},z_{0}))]\times\\
&\qquad&\exp[2i\nu((z-z_{0})\ln(z-z_{0})-(z-z_{0}+1)\ln(z-z_{0}+1))].\end{aligned}$$ We choose the free parameter $\hat{r}_{0}$ in such a way that $$\hat{r}_{0}\exp[2i\nu+2\beta(z_{0},z_{0})]=r(z_{0}).\label{rhat0}$$ Thus $$r(z_{0})-f_{1}= r(z_{0})-r(z_{0})(\exp[2i\nu((z-z_{0})\ln(z-z_{0})-(z-z_{0}+1)\ln(z-z_{0}+1))+2(\beta(z,z_{0})-\beta(z_{0},z_{0}))].$$ From (\[betaestimate1\]) and (\[betaestimate2\]) we obtain, uniformly in $\left\{z:z=re^{i\theta}, r>0, 0<\theta<\pi/4\right\}$, that $$|\beta(z,z_{0})-\beta(z_{0},z_{0})|=\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{|z-z_{0}|}),$$ and $$|(z-z_{0})\ln(z-z_{0})|\leq\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{|z-z_{0}|}).$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|r(z_{0})-f_{1}|&=& r(z_{0})\left\{1-\exp[\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{|z-z_{0}|})]\right\}\\
&=& r(z_{0})\left\{\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{|z-z_{0}|})\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates yields $$|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}| \leq c_{1}|z-z_{0}|^{-1/2} + c_{2}|r'|.
\label{dbarR1estimate}$$
Recall that in the definition of the parabolic cylinder RHP (\[modrhp2\]) there is a free parameter $r_{0}$. We set $$r_{0}=\hat{r}_{0}e^{i\nu\ln(8t)-4itz_{0}^{2}}\label{r0}.$$ Then by construction (conditions (\[r1cond\])-(\[r6cond\])), the jumps for $B$ exactly match the the jumps for the parabolic cylinder RHP (\[modrhp2\]). Thus we can define $E=BP^{-1}(\sqrt{8t}(z-z_{0}))$ which will have no jumps in the plane, but is a solution of the following problem.
Find a 2$\times 2$ matrix–valued function $E$ satifying:
- $E$ is continuous in $\mathbb C$,
- $E\to I$ as $z\to\infty$,
- ${{\overline{\partial}}}E=E W$,
with $$W=
\begin{cases}
P{\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&0\\#3&0\end{array} \right)}P^{-1}&\qquad\textrm{in sector $\Omega_{1}$},\\
P{\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&-\bar{\partial}R_{3}e^{-2it\theta}\delta^{2}\\#3&0\end{array} \right)}P^{-1}&\qquad\textrm{in sector $\Omega_{3}$},\\
P{\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&0\\#3&0\end{array} \right)}P^{-1}&\qquad\textrm{in sector $\Omega_{4}$},\\
P{\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&-\bar{\partial}R_{6}e^{-2it\theta}\delta^{2}\\#3&0\end{array} \right)}P^{-1}&\qquad\textrm{in sector $\Omega_{6}$}\\
{\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&0\\#3&0\end{array} \right)} &\qquad\textrm{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ \[dbarprob\]
The above problem is equivalent to the following integral equation. $$E=I-\frac{1}{\pi}\int\int\frac{EW}{s-z}\,d\,A(s)\label{integraleq}$$
Analysis of the integral equation {#sect:estimates}
---------------------------------
The integral equation (\[integraleq\]) can be written in operator notation as follows. $$\left[ \large{\textbf{1}} -J\right](E)=I,\label{eneumann}$$ where $$J(E)=\frac{1}{\pi}\iint\frac{EW}{s-z}\,d\,A(s).$$ In order to invert the integral equation, we need to show that $J$ is small in norm. The following proposition gives the needed estimate.
There is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $t>0$, the following estimate holds. $$||J||_{L^{\infty}\to L^{\infty}}\leq c\,t^{-1/4}\label{jestimate}$$
We give the details for sector $\Omega_{1}$ only as the corresponding arguments for the other sectors are identical with appropriate modifications. Let $H\in L^{\infty}(\Omega_{1})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
|J(H)| &\leq & \iint_{\Omega_{1}}\frac{|H{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}\delta^{-2}e^{2it\theta}|}{|s-z|}\,d\,A(s) \\
&\leq & ||H||_{L^{\infty}(\omega_{1})}||\delta^{-2}||_{L^{\infty}(\omega_{1})} \iint_{\Omega_{1}}\frac{|{{\overline{\partial}}}R_{1}e^{2it\theta}|}{|s-z|}\,d\,A(s).\end{aligned}$$ Thus (\[dbarR1estimate\]) yields $$|J(H)| \leq C(I_{1}+I_{2}),$$ where $$I_{1} = \iint_{\Omega_{1}}\frac{|r'|e^{-tuv}}{|s-z|}\,d\,A(s),$$ and $$I_{2} = \iint_{\Omega_{1}}\frac{|s-z_{0}|^{-1/2}e^{-tuv}}{|s-z|}\,d\,A(s).$$ Since $r\in H^{1,1}(\mathbb R)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|I_{1}| &\leq& \int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{v}^{\infty}\frac{|r'|e^{-tuv}}{|s-z|}\,d\,u\,d\,v \\ &\leq& \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-tv^{2}}\int_{v}^{\infty}\frac{|r'|}{|s-z|}\,d\,u\,d\,v
\leq C\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-tv^{2}}\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}\frac{1}{s-z}\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}_{L^{2}((v,\infty))}d\,v .\\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}\frac{1}{s-z}\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}_{L^{2}((v,\infty))} &\leq & \left(\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{1}{|s-z|^{2}}\,du\right)^{1/2} \leq \left(\frac{\pi}{|v-\beta|}\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$|I_{1}| \leq C\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-tv^{2}}}{\sqrt{\beta-v}}d\,v \leq C\left[\int_{0}^{\beta} \frac{e^{-tv^{2}}}{\sqrt{\beta-v}}d\,v+\int_{\beta}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-tv^{2}}}{\sqrt{v-\beta}}d\,v. \right]$$ Using the fact $\sqrt{\beta}e^{-t\beta^{2}w^{2}}\leq ct^{-1/4}w^{-1/2}$, we obtain $$\int_{0}^{\beta} \frac{e^{-tv^{2}}}{\sqrt{\beta-v}}d\,v\leq \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt{\beta}\frac{e^{-t\beta^{2}w^{2}}}{\sqrt{1-w}}d\,w \leq \frac{c}{t^{1/4}}\int_{0}^{1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{w(1-w)}}d\,w \leq\frac{c}{t^{1/4}},$$ whereas $$\int_{\beta}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-tv^{2}}}{\sqrt{v-\beta}}d\,v\leq \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-tw^{2}}}{\sqrt{w}}d\,w\leq \frac{1}{t^{1/4}}\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda^{2}}}{\sqrt{\lambda}}d\,v\leq \frac{c}{t^{1/4}}.$$ Hence $$|I_{1}|\leq \frac{c}{t^{1/4}}.$$ To arrive at a similar estimate for $I_{2}$, we start with the following $L^{p}$–estimate for $p>2$. $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|s-z_{0}|}}\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}_{L^{p}((d\,u))} &=& \left(\int_{z_{0}+v}^{\infty}\frac{1}{|u+iv-z_{0}|^{p/2}}\,d\,u\right)^{1/p} \\
&=& \left(\int_{v}^{\infty}\frac{1}{|u+iv|^{p/2}}\,d\,u\right)^{1/p} \\
&=& \left(\int_{v}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(u^{2}+v^{2})^{p/4}}\,d\,u\right)^{1/p} \\
&=& v^{(1/p-1/2)}\left(\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(1+x^{2})^{p/4}}\,d\,x\right)^{1/p} \\
& \leq & c\,v^{1/p-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the $L^{2}$–estimate above, we obtain for $L^{q}$ where $1/q+1/p=1$. $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}\frac{1}{s-z}\bigg{\vert}\bigg{\vert}_{L^{2}((v,\infty))} &\leq & C\,|v-\beta|^{1/q-1}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$|I_{2}| \leq C \left[\int_{0}^{\beta} e^{-tv^{2}}v^{1/p-1/2}|v-\beta|^{1/q-1}d\,v + \int_{\beta}^{\infty} e^{-tv^{2}}v^{1/p-1/2}|v-\beta|^{1/q-1}d\,v \right].$$ The first integral is handled similarly as above to yield the estimate $$\int_{\beta}^{0} e^{-tv^{2}}v^{1/p-1/2}|v-\beta|^{1/q-1}d\,v\leq c\,t^{-1/4}.$$ To handle the second integral, we let $v=\beta+w$ so that the integral becomes $$\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-t(\beta+w)^{2}}(\beta+w)^{1/p-1/2}w^{1/q-1}d\,w\leq \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-tw^{2}}(w)^{1/p-1/2}w^{1/q-1}d\,w.$$ Using the substitution $y=\sqrt{t}w$ then yields $$\int_{\beta}^{\infty} e^{-tv^{2}}v^{1/p-1/2}|v-\beta|^{1/q-1}d\,v\leq c\,t^{-1/4}.$$ Combining the previous estimates we obtain $$|I_{2}| \leq c\,t^{-1/4},$$ and the result follows.
For $t$ sufficiently large the integral equation (\[eneumann\]) may be inverted by Neumann series. It follows that $$E=I+\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1/4}\right).\label{E}$$
Asymptotics for NLS
-------------------
Recall that $$M=EP(\sqrt{8t}(z-z_{0}))\delta^{\sigma_{3}}=\left(I+\frac{E_{1}}{z}+\mathcal{O}\left({z^{-2}}\right)\right)\left(I+\frac{P_{1}^{\infty}}{\sqrt{8t}(z-z_{0})}+\mathcal{O}\left({(\sqrt{8t}(z-z_{0}))^{-2}}\right)\right)\left(I+\ldots\right)$$ for $z$ in the sectors $\Omega_{2}$ and $\Omega_{5}$. Denote by $M_{1}$ the coefficient of $z^{-1}$ in the Laurent expansion of $M$ $$M=I+\frac{M_{1}}{z}+\ldots,$$ so that $$M_{1}=E_{1}+\frac{P_{1}^{\infty}}{\sqrt{8t}}+{\left( \begin{array}{cc}\delta_{1}&0\\#3&-\delta_{1}\end{array} \right)}.$$ Hence the contribution to the off-diagonal entries of $M_{1}$ which are relevant for the asymptotics (recall \[qMrelation\]) come from $P_{1}^{\infty}$ and $E_{1}$. From the integral equation (\[integraleq\]) satisfied by $E$, we have $$E_{1}=\frac{1}{\pi}\iint EW\,d\,A,\label{E1}$$ and one may verify, using estimates of the type employed in section \[sect:estimates\], that $$|E_{1}|\leq c\,t^{-3/4}.$$ Specifically $$|E_{1}|\leq\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{v}^{\infty}e^{-tuv}\,|r'|\,d\,u\,d\,v+\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{z_{0}+v}^{\infty}e^{-tuv}\,|z-z_{0}|^{1/2}\,d\,u\,d\,v=I_{3}+I_{4},$$ and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $$I_{3}\leq C \int_{0}^{\infty}\left(\int_{v}^{\infty}e^{-tuv}\,d\,u\right)^{1/2}\,d\,v\leq C\,t^{-3/4}.$$ Similarly, the Hölder inequality for $1/p+1/q=1$, $2<p<4$ yields $$I_{4}\leq \int_{0}^{\infty}v^{1/p-1/2}\left(\int_{v}^{\infty}e^{-qtuv}\,d\,u\right)^{1/q}\,d\,v\leq\frac{c}{t^{1/q}}\int_{0}^{\infty}v^{2/p-3/2}e^{-tv^{2}}\,d\,v\leq C\,t^{-3/4}.$$ The main result Theorem (\[mainresult\]) then follows from $$q(x,t) =2i\frac{\left(P_{1}^{\infty}\right)_{12}}{\sqrt{8t}}+\mathcal{O}\left(t^{-3/4}\right),$$ where $\left(P_{1}^{\infty}\right)_{12}$ is given in (\[p1infinty\]) and written explicitly in terms of $r(z_{0})$ using (\[r0\]), (\[rhat0\]) and (\[beta\]). The identity $$\mid\Gamma(i\nu)\mid^{2}=\mid\Gamma(-i\nu)\mid^{2}=\pi\left(\sinh(\pi\nu)\right)^{-1}$$ is useful in carrying out the algebraic manipulations needed.
It is interesting to observe that the calculations we have presented actually yield an asymptotic expansion (of sorts) for $q(x,t)$. For example, instead of the integral estimates that follow (\[E1\]), one could use (\[E\]) in (\[E1\]), yielding $$E_{1}=\frac{1}{\pi}\iint W\,d\,A + \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1}\right),$$ which in turn implies $$q(x,t) =2i\frac{\left(P_{1}^{\infty}\right)_{12}}{\sqrt{8t}} +\frac{2i}{\pi}\left(\iint W\,d\,A\right)_{12}+ \mathcal{O}\left(t^{-1}\right).$$ More generally, one may use the Neumann expansion for $E$ arising from (\[eneumann\]) to obtain an asymptotic expansion to arbitrary order. Extraction of more detail from the subsequent terms in the asymptotic expansion involves an analysis of explicit double integrals built out of the reflection coefficient and the parabolic cylinder functions.
[10]{}
R. Beals, P. Deift, and C. Tomei. . Number 28 in Mathematical surveys and monographs. AMS, Providence, R.I., 1988.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. Long-time asymptotic for integrable nonlinear wave equations. In A. S. Fokas and V. E. Zakharov, editors, [*Important Developments in Soliton Theory 1980-1990*]{}, pages 181–204. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. A steepest descent method for oscillatory [R]{}iemann–[H]{}ilbert problems. [A]{}symptotics for the [MK]{}d[V]{} equation. , 137:295–368, 1993.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. Long-time asymptotics for integrable systems. [H]{}igher order theory. , 165:175–191, 1994.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. Long-time behavior of the non-focusing nonlinear [S]{}chrödinger equation – [A]{} case study. volume 5 of [*New Series: Lectures in Math. Sciences*]{}. University of Tokyo, 1994.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. Perturbation theory for infinite-dimensional integrable systems on the line. [A]{} case study. , 188(2):163–262, 2002.
P. Deift and X. Zhou. Long-time asymptotics for solutions of the [NLS]{} equation with initial data in a weighted [S]{}obolev space. , LVI:1029–1077, 2003.
K. D. T-R McLaughlin and P. D. Miller. The dbar steepest descent method for orthogonal polynomials on the real line with varying weights. arXiv:0805.1980.
K. D. T-R McLaughlin and P. D. Miller. The $\overline{\partial}$ steepest descent method and the asymptotic behavior of polynomials orthogonal on the unit circle with fixed and exponentially varying nonanalytic weights. , pages 1–77, 2006. Art. ID 48673.
V. E. Zakharov and S. V. Manakov. Asymptotic behavior of nonlinear wave systems integrated by the inverse method. , 44:106–112, 1976.
X. Zhou. The ${L}^{2}$-[S]{}obolev space bijectivity of the scattering and inverse-scattering transforms. , 51:697–731, 1989.
[^1]: The authors were supported in part by NSF grants DMS-0451495 and DMS-0800979.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
The enhancement and detection of elongated structures in noisy image data is relevant for many biomedical applications. To handle complex crossing structures in 2D images, 2D orientation scores $U: \mathbb{R} ^ 2\times S ^ 1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ were introduced, which already showed their use in a variety of applications. Here we extend this work to 3D orientation scores $U: \mathbb{R} ^ 3 \times S ^ 2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. First, we construct the orientation score from a given dataset, which is achieved by an invertible coherent state type of transform. For this transformation we introduce 3D versions of the 2D cake-wavelets, which are complex wavelets that can simultaneously detect oriented structures and oriented edges. For efficient implementation of the different steps in the wavelet creation we use a spherical harmonic transform. Finally, we show some first results of practical applications of 3D orientation scores.
Scores, Reproducing Kernel Spaces, 3D Wavelet Design, Scale Spaces on SE(3), Coherence Enhancing Diffusion on SE(3)
author:
- 'Michiel Janssen$^{1}$'
- 'Remco Duits$^{1,2}$'
- 'Marcel Breeuwer$^{2}$'
title: Invertible Orientation Scores of 3D Images
---
Introduction
============
The enhancement and detection of elongated structures is important in many biomedical image analysis applications. These tasks become problematic when multiple elongated structures cross or touch each other in the data. In these cases it is useful to decompose an image in local orientations by constructing an orientation score. In the orientation score, we extend the domain of the data to include orientation in order to separate the crossing or touching structures (Fig. \[fig:2DOS\]). From 3D data $f:{\mathbb{R}}^ 3\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ we construct a 3D orientation score $U:{\mathbb{R}}^ 3\times S ^ 2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, in a similar way as is done for the more common case of 2D data $f:{\mathbb{R}}^ 2\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ and 2D orientation score $U:{\mathbb{R}}^ 2\times S^1 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. Next, we consider operations on orientation scores, and process our data via orientation scores (Fig. \[fig:OverviewOperations\]). For such operations it is important that the orientation score transform is invertible, in a well-posed manner. In comparison to continuous wavelet transforms on the group of 3D rotations, translations and scalings, we use all scales simultaneously and exclude the scaling group from the wavelet transform and its adjoint, yielding a coherent state type of transform [@Ali1998], see App.A. This makes it harder to design appropriate wavelets, but has the computational advantage of only needing a single scale transformation.
The 2D orientation scores have already showed their use in a variety of applications. In [@Franken2009; @Sharma2014] the orientation scores were used to perform crossing-preserving coherence-enhancing diffusions. These diffusions greatly reduce the noise in the data, while preserving the elongated crossing structures. Next to these generic enhancement techniques, the orientation scores also showed their use in retinal vessel segmentation [@Bekkers2013], where they were used to better handle crossing vessels in the segmentation procedure.
To perform detection and enhancement operations on the orientation score, we first need to transform a given greyscale image or 3D dataset to an orientation score in an invertible way. In previous works various wavelets were introduced to perform a 2D orientation score transform. Some of these wavelets did not allow for an invertible transformation (e.g. Gabor wavelets [@Lee1996]). A wavelet that allows an invertible transformation was proposed by Kalitzin [@Kalitzin1999]. A generalization of these wavelets was found by Duits [@ThesisDuits] who derived a unitarity result and expressed the wavelets in a basis of eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator. This type of wavelet was also extended to 3D. This wavelet however has some unwanted properties such as poor spatial localization (oscillations) and the fact that the maximum of the wavelet did not lie at its center [@ThesisDuits Fig. 4.11]. In [@ThesisDuits] a class of cake-wavelets were introduced, that have a cake-piece shaped form in the Fourier domain (Fig. \[fig:CakeWavelets\]). The cake-wavelets simultaneously detect oriented structures and oriented edges by constructing a complex orientation score $U:{\mathbb{R}}^ 2 \times S^1 \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$. Because the different cake-wavelets cover the full Fourier spectrum, invertibility is guaranteed.
In this paper we propose an extension of the 2D cake-wavelets to 3D. First, we discuss the theory of invertible orientation score transforms. Then we construct 3D cake-wavelets and give an efficient implementation using a spherical harmonic transform. Finally we mention two application areas for 3D orientation scores and show some preliminary results for both of them. In the first application, we present a practical proof of concept of a natural extension of the crossing preserving coherence enhancing diffusion on invertible orientation scores (CEDOS) [@Franken2009] to the 3D setting. Compared to the original idea of coherence enhancing diffusion acting directly on image-data [@Weickert1999; @BurgethBook2009; @Burgeth2012] we have the advantage of preserving crossings. Diffusions on SE(3) have been studied in previous SSVM-articles, see e.g. [@Creusen2012], but the full generalization of CEDOS to 3D was never established.
![Creating a 3D orientation score. Top: The data $f$ is correlated with an oriented filter $\psi_{{\mathbf{e}}_x}$ to detect structures aligned with the filter orientation ${\mathbf{e}}_x$. Bottom left: This is repeated for a discrete set of filters with different orientations. Bottom right: The collection of 3D datasets constructed by correlation with the different filters is an orientation score and is visualized by placing a 3D dataset on a number of orientations.[]{data-label="fig:3DOSIntro"}](OS3Da.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
![Creating a 3D orientation score. Top: The data $f$ is correlated with an oriented filter $\psi_{{\mathbf{e}}_x}$ to detect structures aligned with the filter orientation ${\mathbf{e}}_x$. Bottom left: This is repeated for a discrete set of filters with different orientations. Bottom right: The collection of 3D datasets constructed by correlation with the different filters is an orientation score and is visualized by placing a 3D dataset on a number of orientations.[]{data-label="fig:3DOSIntro"}](OS3Db.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}
Invertible Orientation Scores
=============================
An invertible orientation score ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f]:{\mathbb{R}}^3 \times S^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is constructed from a given ball-limited 3D dataset $f \in {\mathbb{L}}_2^{\varrho} ({\mathbb{R}}^3)=\{f \in {\mathbb{L}}_2 ({\mathbb{R}}^3)| \textrm{supp}(\mathcal{F}f) \subset B_{0,\varrho}\}$, with $\varrho>0$ by correlation $\star$ with an anisotropic kernel $$({\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f])({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{n}})=(\overline{\psi_{\mathbf{n}}} \star f)({\mathbf{x}})=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^ 3} \overline {\psi_{\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}}'-{\mathbf{x}})}f({\mathbf{x}}')\, \d {\mathbf{x}}',
\label{eq:Construction1}$$ where $\psi \in {\mathbb{L}}_2({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cap {\mathbb{L}}_1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is a wavelet aligned with and rotationally symmetric around the $z$-axis, and $\psi_{{\mathbf{n}}} ({\mathbf{x}})=\psi ({\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathbf{n}}}^T {\mathbf{x}}) \in {\mathbb{L}}_2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ the rotated wavelet aligned with ${\mathbf{n}}$. Here ${\mathbf{R}}_{{\mathbf{n}}}$ is any rotation which rotates the $z$-axis onto ${\mathbf{n}}$ where the specific choice of rotation does not matter because of the rotational symmetry of $\psi$. The overline denotes a complex conjugate. The exact reconstruction formula for this transformation is $$\begin{split}
f({\mathbf{x}}) &= ({\mathcal{W}}_\psi^{-1}[{\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f]])({\mathbf{x}}) \\
&= \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}^{-1} \left[ M_\psi^{-1} \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left[ \tilde{{\mathbf{x}}} \mapsto \int_{S^2} (\check {\psi}_{\mathbf{n}}\star {\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f](\cdot,{\mathbf{n}}))(\tilde{{\mathbf{x}}})\, \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}) \right] \right] ({\mathbf{x}}),
\end{split}
\label{eq:Reconstruction1}$$ with $\mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}$ the Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ given by $(\mathcal{F} f)({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = (2\pi) ^ {-\frac{3}{2}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 } e ^ {-i {\boldsymbol{\omega}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}} f({\mathbf{x}}) \d {\mathbf{x}}$ and $\check {\psi}_{\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}}) =\psi _{\mathbf{n}}(-{\mathbf{x}})$. In fact ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi$ is a unitary mapping on to a reproducing kernel space, see App. A. The function $M_\psi: {\mathbb{R}}^3 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+ $ is given by $$M_\psi({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = (2\pi) ^ {\frac{3}{2}} \int_{S^2} \left| \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} [\psi_{\mathbf{n}}]({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \right|^2 \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}).$$ The function $M_\psi$ quantifies the stability of the inverse transformation [@ThesisDuits], since $M_\psi({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$ specifies how well frequency component ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ is preserved by the cascade of construction and reconstruction when $M_\psi^{-1}$ would not be included in Eq. (\[eq:Reconstruction1\]). An exact reconstruction is possible as long as $$\exists_{M> 0,\delta> 0} \quad 0<\delta \leq M_\psi ({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \leq M<\infty, \quad \textrm {for all } {\boldsymbol{\omega}}=B_{0,\varrho}.
\label{eq:AdmissibilityRequirement}$$ In practice it is best to aim for $M_\psi ({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \approx 1,$ in view of the condition number of $W_\psi:{\mathbb{L}}_2^\varrho ({\mathbb{R}}^3)\rightarrow {\mathbb{L}}_2^\varrho ({\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^2)$ with $W_\psi f={\mathcal{W}}_\psi f$. Also, when $M_\psi ({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = 1$ we have ${\mathbb{L}}_2$-norm preservation $$\|f\|_{{\mathbb{L}}_2({\mathbb{R}}^3)}^2 = \|{\mathcal{W}}_\psi f\|_{{\mathbb{L}}_2 ({\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^2)}^2,\quad \textrm{for all } f \in {\mathbb{L}}_2^\varrho ({\mathbb{R}}^3),$$ and Eq. (\[eq:Reconstruction1\]) simplifies to $f({\mathbf{x}}) = \int_{S^2} (\check{\psi}_{\mathbf{n}}\star {\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f](\cdot,{\mathbf{n}}))({\mathbf{x}}) \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}})$. We can further simplify the reconstruction for wavelets for which $(2\pi) ^ {\frac{3}{2}} \int_{S^2} \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} [\psi_{\mathbf{n}}]({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}) \approx 1$, where the reconstruction formula simplifies to an integration over orientations
$$f({\mathbf{x}}) \approx \int_{S^2} \mathcal{W}_{\psi}f({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{n}})\, \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}).
\label{eq:Reconstruction2Approximation}$$
Discrete Invertible Orientation Score Transformation
----------------------------------------------------
In the previous section, we considered a continuous orientation score transformation. In practice, we have only a finite number of orientations. To determine this discrete set of orientations we uniformly sample the sphere using platonic solids and/or refine this using tessellations of the platonic solids.
Assume we have a number $N_o$ of orientations ${\mathcal{V}}=\{{\mathbf{n}}_1,{\mathbf{n}}_2,...,{\mathbf{n}}_{N_o}\}\subset S^2$, and define the discrete invertible orientation score ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi^d[f]:{\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathcal{V}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ by $$({\mathcal{W}}_\psi^d[f])({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{n}}_i)=(\overline{\psi_{{\mathbf{n}}_i}} \star f)({\mathbf{x}}).
\label{eq:construction1Discrete}$$ The exact reconstruction formula is in the discrete setting given by $$\begin{split}
f({\mathbf{x}}) &= (({\mathcal{W}}_\psi^d)^{-1}[{\mathcal{W}}_\psi^d[f]])({\mathbf{x}}) \\
&= \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}^{-1} \left[ (M_\psi^d)^{-1} \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left[ \tilde {{\mathbf{x}}} \rightarrow \sum_{i=1}^{N_o} (\check {\psi}_{{\mathbf{n}}_{i}} \star {\mathcal{W}}_\psi^d[f](\cdot,{\mathbf{n}}_i))(\tilde {{\mathbf{x}}}) \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}_i) \right] \right] ({\mathbf{x}}),
\end{split}
\label{eq:Reconstruction1Discrete}$$ with $\d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}_i)$ the discrete spherical area measure which for reasonably uniform spherical sampling can be approximated by $\d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}_i)\approx \frac{4 \pi}{N_o}$, and $$M_\psi^d({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = (2\pi) ^ {\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_o} \left| \mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} [\psi_{{\mathbf{n}}_i}]({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \right|^2 \d \sigma({\mathbf{n}}_i).$$ Again, an exact reconstruction is possible iff $0<\delta\leq M_\psi^d ({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\leq M<\infty$.
3D Cake-Wavelets
================
A class of 2D cake-wavelets, see [@ThesisDuits], was successfully used for the 2D orientation score transformation. We now generalize these 2D cake-wavelets to 3D cake-wavelets. Our 3D transformation using the 3D cake-wavelets should fulfill a set of requirements, compare [@Franken2009] :
1. The orientation score should be constructed for a finite number ($N_o$) of orientations.
2. The transformation should be invertible and all frequencies should be transferred equally to the orientation score domain ($M_\psi^d \approx 1$).
3. The kernel should be strongly directional.
4. The kernel should be polar separable in the Fourier domain, i.e., $(\mathcal{F}\psi) ({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) =g(\rho) h (\theta,\phi)$, with ${\boldsymbol{\omega}} = (\omega_x,\omega_y,\omega_z) = (\rho \sin \theta \cos \phi,\rho \sin \theta \sin \phi,\rho \cos \theta)$. Because by definition the wavelet $\psi$ has rotational symmetry around the $z$-axis we have $h (\theta,\phi) = {\gothic{h}}(\theta)$.
5. The kernel should be localized in the spatial domain, since we want to pick up local oriented structures.
6. The real part of the kernel should detect oriented structures and the imaginary part should detect oriented edges. The constructed oriented score is therefore a complex orientation score.
Construction of Line and Edge Detectors {#ssect:Cake}
---------------------------------------
We now discuss the procedure used to make 3D cake-wavelets. According to requirement 4 we only consider polar separable wavelets in the Fourier domain, so that $(\mathcal{F}\psi) ({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) =g(\rho) {\gothic{h}}(\theta)$. For the radial function $g (\rho)$ we use, as in [@Franken2009], $$g (\rho)=\mathcal{M}_N(\rho^2 t^{-1})= e^{-\frac{\rho^2}{t}}\sum_{k=0}^N \frac{(\rho^2 t^{-1})^k}{k !},
\label{eq:}$$ which is a Gaussian function with scale parameter $t$ multiplied by the Taylor approximation of its reciprocal to order $N$ to ensure a slower decay. This function should go to 0 when $\rho$ tends to the Nyquist frequency $\rho_N$. Therefore the inflection point of this function is fixed at $\gamma \, \rho_N$ with $0 \ll \gamma < 1$ by setting $t=\frac{2 (\gamma \,\rho_N)^ 2}{1+ 2N}$. In practice we have $\varrho=\rho_N$, and because radial function $g$ causes $M_\psi^d$ to become really small when coming close to the Nyquist frequency, reconstruction Eq. becomes unstable. We solve this by either using approximate reconstruction Eq. or by replacing $M_\psi^d \rightarrow \max(M_\psi^d,\epsilon)$, with $\epsilon$ small. Both make the reconstruction stable at the cost of not completely reconstructing the highest frequencies which causes some additional blurring.
We now need to find an appropriate angular part ${\gothic{h}}$ for the cake-wavelets. First, we specify an orientation distribution $A:S^2\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+$, which determines what orientations the wavelet should measure. To satisfy requirement 3 this function should be a localized spherical window, for which we propose a B-spline $A(\theta,\phi) =B ^k (\frac{\theta} {s_\theta})$, with $s_{\theta}>0$ and $B^k$ the $k$th order B-spline given by $$B ^k (x) = (B ^ {k-1}*B ^ 0)(x) , \quad B ^ 0(x) =\begin {cases} 1 & \text {if} -\frac{1}{2} < x < \frac{1}{2} \\
0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}.
\label{eq:}$$ The parameter $s_{\theta}$ determines the trade-off between requirements 2 and 3, where higher values give a more uniform $M_\psi^d$ at the cost of less directionality.
First consider setting $h=A$ so that $\psi$ has compact support within a convex cone in the Fourier domain. The real part of the corresponding wavelet would however be a plate detector and not a line detector (Fig. \[fig:cakePieceCreatesPlateDetector\]). The imaginary part is already an oriented edge detector, and so we set
$${\gothic{h}}_ {Im} (\phi) = A(\theta,\phi) -A(\pi -\theta,\phi+\pi)=B ^k \left(\frac{\theta} {s_\theta}\right)-B ^k \left(\frac{\pi-\theta} {s_{\theta}}\right),
\label{eq:Antisymmetrize}$$
where the real part of the earlier found wavelet vanishes by anti-symmetrization of the orientation distribution $A$ while the imaginary part remains. As to the construction of $h_ {Re}$, there is the general observation that we detect a structure that is perpendicular to the shape in the Fourier domain, so for line detection we should aim for a plane detector in the Fourier domain. To achieve this we apply the Funk transform to $A$, and we define $$h_{Re}(\theta,\phi) =F A(\theta,\phi) = \int_{S_p({\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi))} \! A({\mathbf{n}}') \, \d s({\mathbf{n}}'),
\label{eq:CakeWaveletRe}$$ where integration is performed over $S_p ({\mathbf{n}})$ denoting the great circle perpendicular to ${\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi) = (\sin \theta \cos \phi,\sin \theta \sin \phi,\cos \theta)$. This transformation preserves the symmetry of $A$, so we have $h_{Re} (\theta,\phi) ={\gothic{h}}_{Re} (\theta)$. Thus, we finally set $${\gothic{h}}(\theta) ={\gothic{h}}_{Re}(\theta) +{\gothic{h}}_{Im} (\theta).
\label{eq:}$$ For an overview of the transformations see Fig. \[fig:CakeWavelets\].
Efficient Implementations Via Spherical Harmonics
-------------------------------------------------
In Subsection \[ssect:Cake\] we defined the real part and the imaginary part of the wavelets in terms of a given orientation distribution. In order to efficiently implement the various transformations (e.g. Funk transform), and to create the various rotated versions of the wavelet we express our orientation distribution $A$ in a spherical harmonic basis $\{Y_l^m\}$ up to order $L$: $$A(\theta,\phi) =\sum_{l = 0} ^L \sum_{m= -l} ^ {l} c_{l,m} Y_l ^m(\theta,\phi), \quad L \in \mathbb{N}.
\label{eq:}$$ Because of the rotational symmetry around the $z$-axis, we only need the spherical harmonics with $m = 0$, i.e., $A(\theta,\phi) =\sum_{l = 0} ^L c_{l, 0} Y_l ^ 0 (\theta,\phi)$. For determining the spherical harmonic coefficients we use the pseudo-inverse of the discretized inverse spherical harmonic transform (see [@DuitsIJCV2010 Section 7.1]), with discrete orientations given by an icosahedron of tesselation order 15.
### Funk Transform
According to [@Descoteaux2007], the Funk transform of a spherical harmonic equals $$F Y_l^m (\theta,\phi) = \int_{S_p({\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi))} \! Y_l^m({\mathbf{n}}') \, \d s({\mathbf{n}}') =2\pi P_l(0)Y_l^m (\theta,\phi),
\label{eq:}$$ with $P_l (0) $ the Legendre polynomial of degree $l$ evaluated at $0$. We can therefore apply the Funk transform to a function expressed in a spherical harmonic basis by a simple transformation of the coefficients $c_l^m \rightarrow 2\pi P_l(0)c_l^m$.
### Anti-Symmetrization
We have $Y_l^m(\pi -\theta,\phi +\pi)=(-1)^l Y_l^m(\theta,\phi)$. We therefore anti-symmetrize the orientation distribution Eq. (\[eq:Antisymmetrize\]) via $c_l^m\rightarrow (1-(-1)^l) c_l ^ m$.
### Making Rotated Wavelets
To make the rotated versions $\psi_{\mathbf{n}}$ of wavelet $\psi$ we have to find $h_{\mathbf{n}}$ in $\Psi_{\mathbf{n}}=g (\rho)h_{\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi)$. To achieve this we use the steerability of the spherical harmonic basis. Spherical harmonics rotate according to the irreducible representations of the SO(3) group $D_{m,m '} ^ l (\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ (Wigner-D functions)
$${\mathcal{R}}_ {{\mathbf{R}}_{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma}}Y_l^m(\theta ,\phi )=\sum _{m'=l}^l D_{m,m'}^l(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )Y_l^{m'}(\theta ,\phi ).
\label{eq:}$$
Here $\alpha, \beta $ and $\gamma$ denote the Euler angles with counterclockwise rotations, i.e., ${\mathbf{R}}={\mathbf{R}}_ {{\mathbf{e}}_z,\alpha} {\mathbf{R}}_ {{\mathbf{e}}_y,\beta} {\mathbf{R}}_ {{\mathbf{e}}_z,\gamma}$. This gives $$h_{\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi)={\mathcal{R}}_{{\mathbf{R}}_{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }} h(\theta ,\phi ) = \overset{L }{\sum _{l=0} }\overset{l}{\sum _{m=-l} }\overset{l}{\sum _{m'=-l} }a_{l, m} D_{m, m'}^l(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )Y_l^{m'}(\theta ,\phi ).
\label{eq:Rotationh}$$ Because both anti-symmetrization and Funk transform preserve the rotational symmetry of $A$, we have $h(\theta,\phi) =\sum_{l = 0} ^L a_{l, 0} Y_l ^ 0 (\theta,\phi)$, and Eq. (\[eq:Rotationh\]) reduces to $$h_{\mathbf{n}}(\theta,\phi)= \overset{L }{\sum _{l=0}} \overset{l}{\sum _{m'=-l} } a_{l, 0} D_{0, m'}^l(0 ,\beta ,\gamma )Y_l^{m'}(\theta ,\phi ) .
\label{eq:}$$
Applications
============
Adaptive Crossing Preserving Flows
----------------------------------
We now use the invertible orientation score transformation to perform data-enhancement according to Fig. \[fig:OverviewOperations\]. Because ${\mathbb{R}}^ 3\times S ^ 2$ is not a Lie group, it is common practice to embed the space of positions and orientations in the Lie group of positions and rotations SE(3) by setting $$\tilde{U}({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{R}})=U({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{R}}\cdot {\mathbf{e}}_z),\quad U({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{n}})=\tilde{U}({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{R}}_n),
\label{eq:EquivalenceRelation}$$ with ${\mathbf{R}}_{\mathbf{n}}$ any rotation for which ${\mathbf{R}}_{\mathbf{n}}\cdot {\mathbf{e}}_z = {\mathbf{n}}$. This holds in particular for orientation scores $U=\mathcal{W}_{\psi}f$. The operations $\Phi $ which we consider are scale spaces on SE(3) (diffusions), and are given by $\Phi=\Phi_t$ with $$\Phi_t(U)({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{n}})=\tilde{W}(y,{\mathbf{R}}_{\mathbf{n}},t).
\label{eq:}$$ Here $\tilde {W}$ is the solution of $$\quad \frac{\partial \tilde{W}}{\partial t}(g,t) =\sum_{i,j=1}^6 {\mathcal{A}}_i|_g D_{i j} {\mathcal{A}}_j|_g \tilde{W}(g,t),\quad \tilde{W}|_{t=0}=\widetilde{{\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f]},
\label{eq:}$$ where in coherence enhancing diffusion on orientation scores (CEDOS) $D_{i j}$ is adapted locally to data $\widetilde{{\mathcal{W}}_\psi[f]}$ based on exponential curve fits (see [@GaugeFrameNew]), and with ${\mathcal{A}}_i|_{g=({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{R}})}=(L_g)_* {\mathcal{A}}_i|_e$ the left-invariant vector fields on SE(3), for motivation and details see [@DuitsIJCV2010]. Furthermore $D_{i j}$ is chosen such that equivalence relation Eq. is maintained for $\tilde {W}$. These operations are already used without adaptivity in the field of diffusion weighted MRI, where similar data (of the type ${\mathbb{R}}^ 3\times S ^ 2\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^ +$) is enhanced [@DuitsIJCV2010]. We then obtain Euclidean invariant image processing via $$\Upsilon f = {\mathcal{W}}_\psi ^ {*,ext}\circ \Phi \circ {\mathcal{W}}_\psi f= {\mathcal{W}}_\psi ^ {*}\circ \mathbb {P}_\psi \Phi \circ {\mathcal{W}}_\psi f
\label{eq:}$$ which includes inherent projection $\mathbb{P}_\psi$ of orientation scores, even if $\Phi=\Phi_t$ maps outside of the space of orientation scores in the embedding space (see App. \[app:AppendixA\]). Below we show some preliminary results of these flows that enhance the elongated structures while preserving the crossing, Fig. \[fig:Results\] and Fig. \[fig:ResultsAdamKiewitzc\].
3D Vessel Tracking in Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
We use the 3D orientation scores to extend the earlier work on 2D vessel segmentation via invertible orientation scores [@Bekkers2013] to 3D vessel segmentation in MRA-data. Even though true crossing structures hardly appear in 3D data, we do encounter vessels touching other vessels/structures. The orientation scores also allow us to better handle complex structures, such as bifurcations. In Fig. \[fig:ResultsVesselTracking\] we show some first results of the vessel segmentation algorithm.
Conclusion
==========
We have extended 2D cake-wavelets to 3D cake-wavelets, which can be used for a 3D invertible orientation score transformation. Efficient implementation for calculating the wavelets via spherical harmonics were introduced. The developed transformation allows us to consider all kinds of enhancement operations via orientation scores such as the adaptive crossing preserving flows which we are currently working on. Next to data-enhancement we also showed some first results of 3D vessel segmentation using 3D orientation scores.
### Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
We thank Dr. A.J.E.M. Janssen for advice on the presentation of this paper. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant *Lie Analysis*, agr. nr. 335555.
Invertible Orientation Scores of 3D-images and Continuous Wavelet Theory {#app:AppendixA}
========================================================================
The continuous wavelet transform constructed by unitary irreducible representations of locally compact groups was first formulated by Grossman et al. [@Grossmann1985]. Given a Hilbert space $H$ and a unitary irreducible representation $g\mapsto \mathcal{U}_g$ of any locally compact group $G$ in $H$, a non-zero vector $\psi\in H$ is called admissible if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CpsiDef}
C_{\psi}:= \int_{G}\frac{|(\mathcal{U}_{g}\psi,\psi)|^2}{(\psi,\psi)_{H}}d\mu_{G}(g)<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_G$ denotes the left-invariant Haar measure. Given an admissible vector $\psi$ and a unitary representation of a locally compact group $G$ in $H$, the Coherent State (CS) transform $W_\psi:H\rightarrow \mathbb{L}_{2}(G)$ is given by $(W_\psi[f])(g)=(\mathcal{U}_{g}\psi,f)_H$. $W_\psi$ is an isometric transform onto a unique closed reproducing kernel space $\mathbb{C}_{K_{\psi}}^{G}$ with $K_{\psi}(g,g')=\frac{1}{C_\psi}(\mathcal{U}_g\psi,\mathcal{U}_{g'}\psi)_{H}$ as an $\mathbb{L}_2$-subspace [@Ali1998].
We distinguish between the isometric wavelet transform $W_{\psi}:\mathbb{L}_2^\varrho(\mathbb{R}^3)\rightarrow\mathbb{L}_2(G)$ and the unitary wavelet transform ${\mathcal{W}}_{\psi}:\mathbb{L}_2^\varrho(\mathbb{R}^3)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}_K^G$. We drop the formal requirement of $\mathcal{U}$ being square-integrable and $\psi$ being admissible in the sense of , and replace the requirement by , as it is not strictly needed in many cases. This includes our case of interest $G=SE(3)$ and its left-regular action on $\mathbb{L}_2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ where ${\mathcal{W}}_{\psi}$ gives rise to an orientation score ${\mathcal{W}}_{\psi}f:{\mathbb{R}}^{3} \rtimes S^{2} \to \mathbb{C}$ $${\mathcal{W}}_{\psi}f({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{n}})= \widetilde{{\mathcal{W}}_{\psi}f}({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}),$$ with ${\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}$ *any* rotation mapping ${\boldsymbol{e}}_{z}$ onto ${\boldsymbol{n}}$ and $\psi$ symmetric around the $z$-axis. Here the domain is the coupled space of positions and orientations: ${\mathbb{R}}^{3} \rtimes S^{2}:=SE(3)/(\{{\boldsymbol{0}}\} \times SO(2))$, cf. [@DuitsIJCV2010].
From the general theory of reproducing kernel spaces ,[@Ali2014] (where one does not even rely on the group structure), it follows that ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi: {\mathbb{L}}_2^\varrho ({\mathbb{R}}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb {C}_K ^ {{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 \rtimes S^2} $ is unitary, where $\mathbb {C}_K ^ {{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 \rtimes S^2} $ denotes the abstract complex reproducing kernel space consisting of functions on ${{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 \rtimes S^2} $ with reproducing kernel $$K_{({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{n}})} ({\mathbf{y}}',{\mathbf{n}}')=(\mathcal{U}_{({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{R}}_{\mathbf{n}})}\psi,\mathcal{U}_{({\mathbf{y}}',{\mathbf{R}}_ {{\mathbf{n}}'})}\psi)_{\mathbb{L}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^3)},
\label{eq:}$$ with left-regular representation $({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{R}})\mapsto \mathcal{U}_{({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{R}})}\psi$ given by $(\mathcal{U}_{({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{R}})}\psi ) ({\mathbf{x}}) =\psi({\mathbf{R}}^T ({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{y}}))$. Now, as the characterization of the inner product on $\mathbb {C}_K ^ {{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 \rtimes S^2}$ is awkward [@Martens1988], we provide a basic characterization next via the so-called $M_\psi$ inner product. This is in line with the admissibility conditions in [@Fuhr2005].
\[MPsiRecon\] Let $\psi$ be such that (\[eq:AdmissibilityRequirement\]) holds. Then ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi: {\mathbb{L}}_2^\varrho ({\mathbb{R}}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb {C}_K ^ {{\mathbb{R}}^ 3 \rtimes S^2} $ is unitary, and we have $$(f,g)_{{\mathbb{L}}_ 2 ({\mathbb{R}}^ 3)} = ({\mathcal{W}}_\psi f,{\mathcal{W}}_\psi g)_{M_{\psi}},$$ where $({\mathcal{W}}_\psi f,{\mathcal{W}}_\psi g)_{M_{\psi}}=(\mathcal{T}_{M_{\psi}}[{\mathcal{W}}_\psi f],\mathcal{T}_{M_{\psi}}[{\mathcal{W}}_\psi g])_{\mathbb{L}_{2}({\mathbb{R}}^3\rtimes S^2))}$, with $[\mathcal{T}_{M_{\psi}}[U]]({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{n}}):=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\bigg{[}\boldsymbol{\omega}\mapsto(2\pi)^{-3/4}M_{\psi}^{-1/2}(\boldsymbol{\omega})\mathcal{F}[U (\cdot,{\mathbf{n}})](\boldsymbol{\omega}) \bigg{]}({\mathbf{y}})$.
We rely on , where we set $H ={\mathbb{L}}_2 ({\mathbb{R}}^3)$. The rest follows by well posed restriction to the quotient ${\mathbb{R}}^3\rtimes S^2$.
Let $M_\psi>0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. The space $\mathbb{C}_{K}^{{\mathbb{R}}^3\rtimes S^2}$ is a closed subspace of Hilbert space $\mathbb{H}_{\psi}\otimes\mathbb{L}_2(S^2)$, where $\mathbb{H}_{\psi}=\{f\in \mathbb{L}_{2}({\mathbb{R}}^3)|\ M_{\psi}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{F}[f]\in\mathbb{L}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^3)\}$, and projection of embedding space onto the space of orientation scores is given by $(\mathbb {P}_\psi (U)) ({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{n}})= (K_{({\mathbf{n}},{\mathbf{y}})},U)_{M_\psi} = ({\mathcal{W}}_\psi {\mathcal{W}}_\psi ^ {*,ext} (U)) ({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{n}})$, where ${\mathcal{W}}_\psi ^ {*,ext}$ is the natural extension of the adjoint to the embedding space.
[10]{}
S.T. Ali. . , 39(8):3954, 1998.
S.T. Ali, J.-P. Antoine, and J.-P. Gazeau. . Springer, 2014.
E. Bekkers and R. Duits. . , 2014.
B. Burgeth, S. Didas, and J. Weickert. . In [*Visualization and processing of tensor fields*]{}, pages 305–324. Springer,Berlin, 2009.
B. Burgeth, L. Pizarro, S. Didas, and J. Weickert. . In [*Mathematical methods for signal and image analysis and representation*]{}, pages 49–63. Springer London, 2012.
E.J. Creusen, R. Duits, and T.C.J. Dela Haije. . , 1:14–25, 2012.
M. Descoteaux, E. Angelino, S. Fitzgibbons, and R. Deriche. , 58(3):497–510, September 2007.
R. Duits. . PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2005.
R. Duits and E.M. Franken. . , 92(3):231–264, March 2010.
R. Duits, M.H.J. Janssen, J. Hannink, and G.R. Sanguinetti. . .
E.M. Franken and R. Duits. . , 85(3):253–278, February 2009.
F. Führ. . , 1863, 2005.
A. Grossmann, J. Morlet, and T. Paul. . , 26(10):2473, 1985.
S.N. Kalitzin, B.M. [ter Haar Romeny]{}, and M.A. Viergever. . , 31:145–158, 1999.
Tai Sing Lee. . , 18(10), 1996.
F.J.L. Martens. . PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 1988.
U. Sharma and R. Duits. . .
J. Weickert. . , 31:111–127, 1999.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We describe the Lorentz space $L(p,r)$, $0<r<p$, $p>1$, in terms of Orlicz type classes of functions $L_{\Psi}$. As a consequence of this result it follows that Stein’s characterization of the real functions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ that are differentiable at almost all the points in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ [@Stein], is equivalent to the earlier characterization of those functions given by A. P. Calderón [@APC].'
author:
- 'Calixto P. Calderón and Alberto Torchinsky'
title: |
A characterization of the Lorentz Space\
$L(p,r)$ in terms of Orlicz type classes
---
[*In remembrance of N. M. Rivière (1940 – 1978), who believed in\
Lorentz Spaces.*]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In 1981 E. M. Stein proved that if the gradient $\nabla F$ in the distribution sense of a real function $F$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ belongs to the Lorentz space $L(n,1)$, then $F$ is differentiable at almost all the points in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, $n>1$. He further proved that no condition on $\nabla F$ weaker than $\| \nabla F\|_{n,1}^*<\infty$ will guarantee the differentiability of $F$ a.e. in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, [@Stein]. E. M. Stein refers to “local" $L(n,1)$, nevertheless the connection between “local" and “global" should be clear to the reader in this context.
Earlier, in 1951, A. P. Calderón had proved that if $\nabla F$ belongs to the Orlicz class $$L_{\Psi}=\Big\{f: \int_B \Psi\big(|f(x)|\big) \,dx<\infty\Big\},$$ $B$ a ball in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ and $\Psi$ satisfying $$\int_1^\infty \big(t/\Psi(t)\big)^{1/(n-1)}\,dt<\infty,$$ $\Psi(t)$ nonnegative, nondecreasing, then $F$ is differentiable at almost all the points of $B$. A. P. Calderón further showed that no condition on $\nabla F$ weaker than (1), (2) above guarantees the a.e. differentiablity on $B$ [@APC]. Since Calderón’s proof suggests that convexity may not be necessary for $\Psi$, we will not require it in what follows. We will refer to those classes of functions as Orlicz type classes.
The aim of this paper is to establish the connection between the Lorentz space $L(p,r)$, $0<r<p$, $p>1$, and Orlicz type classes that satisfy a condition akin to (2) above. The case $p=n$, $r=1$, is of particular interest as it implies that the differentiability conditions discussed above are equivalent [@CPC0].
In a related context, since both Lorentz and Orlicz spaces, as well as the hybrid Lorentz – Orlicz spaces, arise as intermediate spaces of $L^p$ spaces \[9\], it is also of interest to describe their interconnections. Now, if $I=[0,1]$ denotes the unit interval in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, $L^p(I)$ cannot be expressed as the union of the $L^q(I)$ spaces it contains properly; $f(x)= |x|^{-1/p} \, \ln^{-2/p}(1/|x)|)\chi_{I}\in L^p(I)$ and $f\notin L^{q}(I)$ for $p<q\le\infty $. On the other hand, Welland showed that $L^p(I)$, as well as more general Orlicz spaces on $I$, can be represented as the union of Orlicz spaces that they contain properly [@RW]. Since the Lorentz spaces are monotone with respect to the second index [@RH], and since $L(p,r)(I)\subset L(p,p)(I)=L^p(I)$ in the range that is of interest to us, Welland’s result gives that $L(p,r)(I)$ can be described as the union of Orlicz spaces that it contains, but this is insufficient to us. Our result covers $L(p,r)({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)$ and, more to the point, the Orlicz type classes $L_\Psi$ are taken over the family of functions $\Psi$ that satisfy condition (3) below.
We will work with classes of measurable functions $f$ defined on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$. Let $f^*$ denote the nonincreasing rearrangement of $|f|$, and let $L(p,r)$, [@RH; @NMR], denote the Lorentz space of measurable functions $f$ whose nonincreasing rearrangement $f^*$ satisfies $$\int_0^\infty f^*(t)^r\, t^{r/p-1}\, dt<\infty.$$ We will restrict ourselves to the range $0<r<p$, $p>1$.
Also consider the Orlicz type class $L_\Psi$ of measurable functions $f$ defined on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, such that the rearrangement $f^*$ of $|f|$ satisfies $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big( f^*(t)\big)\,dt<\infty,$$ for a nondecreasing $\Psi\ge 0$ defined on $(0,\infty)$ and satisfying $$\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt<\infty,$$ where $0<r<p$, $p>1$, and $1/p+1/q=1/r$.
The aim of this paper is to prove that for $0<r<p$, $p>1$, $$L(p,r)=\bigcup_\Psi L_\Psi,\quad 1/p+1/q=1/r.$$ Or, in other words, $f\in L(p,r)$ if and only if $$\int_0^\infty \Psi(f^*(t) )\,dt<\infty$$ for some $\Psi$ that satisfies (3) above.
The proof is accomplished in two parts, each dealing with an inclusion in (4). We only point out that the constants $c$ that appear below may vary from appearance to appearance, and are independent of $f$.
Embedding of Orlicz type classes into Lorentz Spaces {#embedding-of-orlicz-type-classes-into-lorentz-spaces .unnumbered}
====================================================
We begin by showing that the Orlicz type classes corresponding to functions $\Psi$ that satisfy (3) above are continuously included in an appropriate Lorentz space. More precisely, we have
Let $f$ be a nonnegative, nonincreasing function defined on $(0,\infty)$ such that $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big(f(t)\big)\,dt<\infty,$$ where $\Psi(t)$ satisfies (3) above.
Then, we have $$\int_0^\infty f(t)^r \, t^{r/p-1}\,dt
\le c\Big(\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt\Big)^{r/q}\Big(\int_0^\infty
\Psi\big(f(t)\big)\,dt\Big)^{r/p}.$$
Let $$J= \int_0^\infty f(t)^r \, t^{r/p-1}\,dt,$$ and consider the interval $I_k$ where $2^k<f\le 2^{k+1}$, ${-\infty<k<\infty}$. Clearly $$J \le \sum_{k} 2^{(k+1)r} \int_{I_k}t^{r/p-1}\,dt\le (p/r)\sum_k 2^{(k+1)r}\,|I_k|^{r/p}\,.$$
Now, multiplying and dividing by $\Psi(2^k)^{r/p}$, by Hölder’s inequality with conjugate indices $(p/r, q/r)$, it readily follows that the sum in the right-hand side of (6) is dominated by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_k 2^{(k+1)r} \Psi(2^k)^{-r/p} &|I_k|^{r/p}\, \Psi(2^k)^{r/p}\nonumber\\
&\le \Big(\sum_k \frac{2^{(k+1)q}}{\Psi(2^k)^{q/p}} \Big)^{r/q} \Big( \sum_k |I_k|\,\Psi(2^k)\Big)^{r/p}.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the sum in the first factor in (7) above. Each summand there can be estimated by $$\frac{2^{(k+1)q}}{\Psi(2^k)^{q/p}}\le c \int_{2^{k-1}}^{2^{k}} \frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt\,,$$ and, consequently, the sum does not exceed $$c\,\sum_{k} \int_{2^{k-1}}^{2^{k}}\frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt
=c \int_0^\infty \frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt\,.$$
As for the second sum, since $$|I_k|\,\Psi(2^k) \le \int_{I_k} \Psi\big(f(t)\big)\,dt\,,$$ it readily follows that $$\sum_k |I_k|\,\Psi(2^k) \le \int_0^\infty \Psi \big(f(t)\big)\,dt\,.$$ Thus, combining (6), (7), (8), and (9) above, the estimate (5) holds, and the proof is finished.
$\blacksquare$
Embedding of Lorentz Spaces into Orlicz type classes {#embedding-of-lorentz-spaces-into-orlicz-type-classes .unnumbered}
====================================================
We complete the proof by showing that if $f\in L(p,r)$ for an appropriate range of values of $p,r$, then $f$ is in an Orlicz type class $L_\Psi$, where $\Psi$ depends on $f$. More precisely, we have
Let $0<r<p$, $p>1$. Let $f$ be a nonnegative, nonincreasing function defined on $(0,\infty)$ such that $$\int_0^\infty f(t)^r\, t^{r/p-1}\,dt<\infty\,.$$ Then, with $1/p+1/q=1/r$, there exists a nonnegative, nondecreasing function $\Psi(t)$ defined on $(0,\infty)$ satisfying (3) above for which $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big(f(t)\big)\,dt<\infty.$$
Let $f_0(t)$ be a strictly positive, strictly decreasing function on $(0,\infty)$ such that $$\lim_{t\to 0^+} f_0(t)=\infty,\qquad \lim_{ t\to\infty} f_0(t)= 0,$$ and $$\int_0^\infty f_0(t)^r \, t^{r/p-1}\, dt< \int_0^\infty f(t)^r \, t^{r/p-1}\, dt\,.$$
Let now $g_0=f+f_0$. Then, $$f(t)< g_0(t),\quad {\text{ all }}t,$$ and $$\int_0^\infty g_0(t)^r\, t^{r/p-1}\,dt\le {\text {max }}(2,2^{r}) \int_0^\infty f(t)^r\,t^{r/p-1}\,dt <\infty\,.$$
Finally, we define the function $g(t)$. Let $J_k$ be the interval where $2^k<g_0(t)\le 2^{k+1}$, and $[a_k,b_k]$ its closure. Then $g(t)$ is defined by $$g(a_k)= 2^{k+1},\qquad g(b_k)= 2^k$$ and extended linearly on $[a_k,b_k]$. It follows that $g(t)$ is strictly decreasing, continuous on $(0,\infty)$, absolutely continuous, invertible, and, $$g_0(t)/2<g(t)< 2\, g_0(t)\,.$$ Furthermore, since $g(t)$ is decreasing and $r<p$ it follows that $$g(\varepsilon)^r\, \varepsilon^{r/p}\le\int_0^\varepsilon g(t)^r\, t^{r/p-1}\, dt,\quad \varepsilon>0,$$ and, consequently, $$\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+} g(\varepsilon)^r\, \varepsilon^{r/p}=0.$$
Likewise, for large $N$, we have $$g(N)^r\, N^{r/p}\le c\,\int_{N/2} ^N g(t)^r\,t^{r/p-1} dt,$$ and, consequently, since $\int_0^\infty g(t)^r\, t^{r/p-1}dt<\infty$, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} g(N)^r\, N^{r/p}=0.$$
Let now $\Psi(t)$ be defined by the equation $$\Psi\big( g(t)\big) =g(t)^r\,t^{r/p-1},$$ and let $\varphi(t)$ be given by $$\Psi(t)= t^r \varphi(t).$$
From (16) and (17) it follows that $$\varphi\big( g(t)\big)= t^{r/p-1}.$$ This gives that $\varphi(t)$ increasing, and, consequently, $\Psi(t)$, and $\Psi(t)/t^r$, are increasing.
Next we verify that $\Psi$ satisfies (3). Since $\Psi(t)=t^r \varphi(t)$ and $r/p+r/q=1$, by (18) it follows that $$\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{q-1}}{\Psi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt = \int_0^\infty
\frac{t^{q-1} t^{r-q}} {\varphi(t)^{q/p}}\,dt
=\int_0^\infty t^{r-1} \varphi(t)^{1-q/r}\,dt\,.$$
By the substitution $t=g(u)$, since $r/p -1 = -r/q$ and $1-q/r=-q/p$, the right-hand side of (19) becomes $$-\int_0^\infty g(u)^{r-1} \,\big( u^{r/p-1}\big)^{1-q/r} \, g'(u)\, du=-\int_0^\infty g(u)^{r-1}\,\, g'(u)\, u^{r/p}\,du\,.$$
Now, on account of (14) and (15), integration by parts gives that (20) evaluates to $$c \int_0^\infty g(u)^{r}\, u^{r/p-1}\,du,$$ which by (12) and (13) is finite, and (3) holds.
Moreover, by (16) it follows that $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big(g(u)\big)\, du<\infty,$$ and, consequently, by (9) and (11), $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big(f(u)/2\big)\, du\le \int_0^\infty \Psi\big(g_0(u)/2\big)\, du\le \int_0^\infty \Psi\big(g(u)\big)\, du<\infty.$$
Repeating the above argument with $2f$ replacing $f$ above, (21) becomes $$\int_0^\infty \Psi\big(2f(u)/2\big)\, du = \int_0^\infty \Psi\big(f(u)\big)\, du<\infty ,$$ (10) holds, and the proof is finished.
$\blacksquare$
Since as noted in the proof $\Psi(t)/t$ increases when $r=1$, $\Psi(t)$ can be regularized to a convex function $\Psi_0(t)$ such that $\Psi_0(t)\le \Psi(t) \le \Psi_0(2t)$, and, therefore, in this case the Orlicz type class $L_\Psi$ is essentially equivalent to an Orlicz space [@MJ; @AT].
[99]{} *Rev. Mat. Univ. Parma* 2, (1951), 203–-214. , *Preprint*. and [J. Lewis,]{} [Maximal smoothing operators and some Orlicz classes.]{}, *Studia Math.* 57 (1976), 285–296. *Enseignement Math.* (2), 12 (1966), 249–276. , [M. A.Thesis, Rice University ]{} (1965). , *Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin.* 32 (1991), no. 4, 667–675. , *Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina* 25 (1970/71), 363–-377. , *Annals of Mathematics* 113, (1981), 383–385. , *Studia Math.* 59 (1976/77), no. 2, 177–-207. , *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* 17 (1966), 135–138.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '> The generative learning phase of Autoencoder (AE) and its successor Denosing Autoencoder (DAE) enhances flexibility of data stream method in exploiting unlabelled samples. Nonetheless, the feasibility of DAE for data stream analytic deserves in-depth study because it characterizes a fixed network capacity which cannot adapt to rapidly changing environments. An automated construction of a denoising autoeconder, namely deep evolving denoising autoencoder (DEVDAN), is proposed in this paper. DEVDAN features an open structure both in the generative phase and in the discriminative phase where input features can be automatically added and discarded on the fly. A network significance (NS) method is formulated in this paper and is derived from the bias-variance concept. This method is capable of estimating the statistical contribution of the network structure and its hidden units which precursors an ideal state to add or prune input features. Furthermore, DEVDAN is free of the problem- specific threshold and works fully in the single-pass learning fashion. The efficacy of DEVDAN is numerically validated using nine non-stationary data stream problems simulated under the prequential test-then-train protocol where DEVDAN is capable of delivering improvement of classification accuracy to recently published online learning works while having flexibility in the automatic extraction of robust input features and in adapting to rapidly changing environments.'
author:
- |
Mahardhika Pratama^\*,1^, Andri Ashfahani^\*,2^, Yew Soon Ong^\*,3^, Savitha Ramasamy^+,4^ and Edwin Lughofer^\#,5^\
^\*^School of Computer Science and Engineering, NTU, Singapore\
^+^Institute of Infocomm Research, A\*Star, Singapore\
^\#^Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria\
{^1^mpratama@, ^2^andriash001@e., ^3^asysong@}ntu.edu.sg, ^4^ramasamysa@i2r.a-star.edu.sg,\
^5^edwin.lughofer@jku.at\
bibliography:
- 'ICDM.bib'
title: 'Autonomous Deep Learning: Incremental Learning of Denoising Autoencoder for Evolving Data Streams'
---
Introduction
============
The underlying challenge in the design of DNNs is seen in the model selection phase where no commonly accepted methodology exists to configure the structure of DNNs [@DeepExpandable]. This issue often forces one to blindly choose the structure of DNNs. DNN model selection has recently attracted intensive research where the goal is to determine an appropriate structure for DNNs with the right complexity for given problems. It is evident that a shallow NN tends to converge much faster than a DNN and handles the small sample size problem better than DNNs. In other words, the size of DNNs strongly depends on the availability of samples. This encompasses the development of pruning [@LearningTheNumber], regularization [@parameterprediction], parameter prediction [@parameterprediction], etc. Most of which start with an over-complex network followed by a complexity reduction scenario to drop the inactive components of DNNs [@distilling]. These approaches, however, do not fully fit to handle streaming data problems because they rely on an iterative parameter learning scenario where the tuning phase is iterated across a number of epochs [@GamaDataStream]. Moreover, a fixed structure is considered to be the underlying bottleneck of this model because it does not embrace or is too slow to respond to new training patterns as a result of concept change especially if network parameters have converged to particular points [@GamaDataStream].
The ideas of online DNNs have started to attract research attention [@DEEPIOT]. In [@Zhou_incrementallearning], online incremental feature learning is proposed using a denoising autoencoder (DAE) [@VincentDAE]. The incremental learning aspect is depicted by its aptitude to handle the addition of new features and the merging of similar features. The structural learning scenario is mainly driven by feature similarity and does not fully operate in the one-pass learning mode. [@OnlineDeepLearning] puts forward the hedge backpropagation method to answer the research question as to how and when a DNN structure should be adapted. This work, however, assumes that an initial structure of DNN exists and is built upon a fixed-capacity network. To the best of our knowledge, the two approaches are not examined with the prequential test-then-train procedure considering the practical scenario where data streams arrive without labels, thus being impossible to first undertake the training process [@GamaDataStream].
In the realm of DNNs, the pre-training phase plays a vital role because it addresses the random initialization problem leading to slow convergence [@Bengio_2013]. From Hinton’s variational bound theory [@HinSal06], the power of depth can be achieved provided the hidden layer has sufficient complexity and appropriate initial parameters. An unsupervised learning step is carried out in the pre-training phase, also known as the generative phase [@HinSal06]. The generative phase implements the feature learning approach which produces a higher-level representation of the input features and induces appropriate intermediate representation [@Hinton_AE]. From the viewpoint of data stream, the generative phase offers refinement of predictive model with the absence of true class label. This case is evident due to the fact that data stream often arrives without labels. Of the several approaches for the generative phase, the autoencoder (AE) is considered the most prominent method [@Hinton_AE]. DAE is a variant of AE which adopts the partial destruction of the original input features [@VincentDAE]. This approach prevents the learning identity function problem and opens the manifold of the original input dimension because the destroyed input variables are likely to sit further than the clean input manifold. Nevertheless, the structure of DAE is user-defined and not well-suited for data stream applications due to their iterative nature.
A deep evolving denoising autoencoder (DEVDAN) for evolving data streams is proposed in this paper. DEVDAN presents an incremental learning approach for DAE which features a fully open and single-pass working principle in both generative and discriminative phase. It is capable of starting its generative learning process from scratch without an initial structure. Its hidden nodes can be automatically generated, pruned and learned on demand and on the fly. Note that this paper considers the most challenging case where one has to grow the network from scratch but the concept is directly applicable in the presence of initial structure. The discriminative model relies on a soft-max layer which produces the end-output of DNN and shares the same trait of the generative phase: online and evolving. DEVDAN distinguishes itself from [@Zhou_incrementallearning] because it works by means of estimation of network significance leading to approximation of bias and variance and is free of user-defined thresholds. A new hidden unit is introduced if the current structure is no longer expressive enough to represent the current data distribution - underfitting whereas an inconsequential unit is pruned in the case of high variance - overfitting. In addition, the evolving trait of DEVDAN is not only limited to the generative phase but also the discriminative phase.
The unique feature of the NS measure is its aptitude to estimate the statistical contribution of a neural network and a hidden node during their lifespan in an online fashion. This approach is defined as a limit integral representation of a generalization error which approximates both the historical and future significance of the overall network and its hidden unit. It is worth mentioning that a different approach from conventional self-organizing radial basis function networks [@Platt; @MRAN] has to be developed because DAE cannot be approached by an input space clustering method. The NS method offers a general framework of a statistical contribution measure and is extendable for different DNNs. Moreover, the NS method is also free of user-defined parameters which are often problem-dependent and hard to assign. It is supported by an adaptive conflict threshold dynamically adjusted with respect to the true performance of DEVDAN and current data distribution.
The performance of DEVDAN has been numerically investigated using nine prominent data stream problems: SEA [@SEA], Hyperplane [@MOA], HEPMASS, SUSY [@Baldi2014SearchingFE], KDDCup [@KDDCup], Weather, electricity pricing [@DitzlerImbalanced], RLCPS [@RLCPS], RFID localization problem. DEVDAN is capable of improving accuracy of conventional DAE and outperforming proposed data stream methods [@pENsemble; @pensembleplus]. It offers a flexible approach to the automatic construction of robust features from data streams and operates in the one-pass learning fashion. Our numerical results are produced under **the prequential test-then-train protocol** - standard evaluation procedure of data stream method [@GamaDataStream]. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: this paper starts with the problem formulation followed by the automatic construction of network structure and the discriminative training phase. The proof of concepts discusses numerical study in nine data stream problems and comparison of DEVDAN against state-of-the art algorithms. Some concluding remarks are drawn in the last section of this paper.
Problem Formulation
===================
Evolving data streams refer to continuous arrival of data points $B_k=[B_1,B_2,...,B_K]$ in a number of time stamps $K$ where $B_k$ may consist of a single data point $B_k=X_1\in\Re^{n}$ or be formed as a data batch of a particular size $B_k=[X_1,X_2,X_t,...,X_T]\in\Re^{T\times n}$. $n$ here denotes the input space dimension and $T$ stands for the size of data chunk. The size of data batch often varies and the number of time stamps is in practise unknown. In realm of real data stream environments, data points come into picture with the absence of true class labels $C\in\Re^{T}$. Labelling process is carried out and is subject to the access of ground truth or expert knowledge [@GamaDataStream]. In other words, a delay is expected in consolidating the true class labels. This issue warrants a generative learning step which can be applied to refine a predictive model in a unsupervised fashion while pending for operator to annotate the true class label of data samples - **the underlying motivation** of DEVDAN’s algorithmic development. This problem also hampers the suitability of the conventional cross validation method or the direct train-test partition method as an evaluation protocol of data stream learner. Hence, the so-called **prequential test-then-train** procedure is carried out here. That is, data streams are first used to test the generalization power of a learner before being exploited to perform model’s update. The performance of a data stream method is evaluated by aggregation of its performance across all time stamps.
DEVDAN is constructed under the denoising autoencoder (DAE) [@VincentDAE] - a variant of autoencoder (AE) [@Hinton_AE] which aims to retrieve the original input information $X_t$ from the noise perturbation. The masking noise scenario is chosen here to induce partially destroyed input feature vector $\widetilde X_t$ by forcing its $n'$ elements to zeros. In other words, only a subset of original input features $n-n'$ goes through DAE. $n'$ corrupted input variables are randomly destructed in every training observation satisfying the joint distribution $q(\widetilde X,X)$ [@VincentDAE]. This mechanism brings DAE a step forward of classical AE since it never functions as an identity function rather extracts key features of predictive problem. The reconstruction process is carried out via encoding-decoding scheme formed with the sigmoid activation function $\frac{1}{1+exp(-s)}$ as follows: $$y=f_{(W,b)}=s(\widetilde X_t W+b)\label{encoder}$$ $$z=f_{(W',c)}=s(y W'+c)\label{decoder}$$ where $W\in\Re^{n \times R}$ is a weight matrix, $b\in\Re^{R},c\in\Re^{n}$ are respectively the bias of hidden units and the decoding function. $R$ is the number of hidden units. The weight matrix of the decoder is constrained such that $W'$ is a reverse mapping $W^{T}$. That is, DAE has a tied weight [@VincentDAE].
The typical characteristic of data stream is the presence of concept drift formulated as a change of the joint-class posterior probability $P(Y_t,X_t)\neq P(Y_{t-1},X_{t-1})$ [@Gamaconceptdrift]. This situation leads to a current model created by previously induced concept $B_{k-1}$ being obsolete. DEVDAN features an open structure where it is capable of initiating its structure from scratch without the presence of a pre-configured structure. Its structure automatically evolves in respect of the network significance approach forming an approximation of the network bias and variance. In other words, DEVDAN initially extracts a single input feature $R=1$ where the number of extracted input features incrementally augments $R=R+1$ if it signifies a underfitting situation, high bias, or decreases $R=R-1$ if it suffers from an overfitting situation, high variance. In realm of concept drift, this is supposed to handle the so-called virtual drift - distributional change of the input space. The virtual drift is interpreted by the change of prior probability $P(X)$ or the class conditional probability $P(X|Y)$ [@Gamaconceptdrift]. The parameter tuning scenario is driven by the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) method in **a single pass** mode with the cross-entropy cost function [@Bengio_Greedy].
Once the true class labels of a data batch $B_k$ has been observed $C_k$, the 0-1 encoding scheme is undertaken to construct a labelled data batch $(X_k,C_k)\in\Re^{T\times (n+m)}$ where $m$ stands for the number of target classes. The discriminative phase of DEVDAN is carried out once completing the generative phase of DEVDAN using a softmax layer trained with the SGD method with only **a single epoch**. Furthermore, the discriminative training process is also equipped by the hidden unit growing and pruning strategies derived in a similar manner as that of the generative training process. An overview of DEVDAN’s learning mechanism is depicted in Fig. 1. One must bear in mind that DEVDAN’s learning scheme can be also applied with an initial model.
Automatic Construction of Network Structure
===========================================
This section formalizes the network significance (NS) method applied to grow and to prune hidden units of DAE.
Growing Hidden Units of DAE {#AA}
---------------------------
The power of DAE can be examined from its reconstruction error which can be formed in terms of mean square error (MSE) as follows: $$MSE=\sum_{t=1}^{T}\frac{1}{T}(X_t-z_t)^{2}$$ where $X_t,z_t$ respectively stand for clean input variables and reconstructed input features of DAE. This formula suffers from two bottlenecks for the single-pass learning scenario: 1) it calls for memory of all data points to understand a complete picture of DAE’s reconstruction capability; 2) Notwithstanding that the MSE can be calculated recursively without revisiting preceding samples, this procedure does not examine the reconstruction power of DAE for unseen data samples. In other words, it does not take into account the generalization power of DAE.
To correct this drawback, let $z$ denotes the estimation of clean input variables $x$ and $E[z]$ stands for the expectation of DAE’s output, the NS method is defined as follows: $$NS=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(x-z)^{2}p(x)dx$$ Note that $E[x]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}xp(x)dx$ where $p(x)$ is the probability density estimation. The NS method can be defined in terms of the expectation of the squared reconstruction error: $$NS=E[(x-z)^{2}]=E[(z-E[z]+E[z]-x)^{2}]$$ Several mathematical derivation steps lead to the bias and variance formula as follows: $$NS=E[(z-E[z])^{2}]+(E[z]-x)^{2}=Var(z)+Bias(z)^{2}\label{eq:NS}$$ where the variance of a random variable $z$ can be expressed as $Var(z)=E[(z-E[z])^{2})]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(z-E[z])^{2}p(x)dx=E[z^{2}]-E[z]^{2}$. The key for solving (\[eq:NS\]) is to find the expectation of the recovered input attributes delineating the statistical contribution of DAE. It is worth mentioning that the statistical contribution captures both the network contribution in respect to past training samples and unseen samples. It is thus written as follows:
$$E[z]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}s(yW'+c)p(y)dy\label{eq:Ez}$$
It is evident that $y$ is induced by the feature extractor $s(\widetilde x +b)$ and is influenced by partially destroyed input features $\widetilde x$ due to the masking noise. Hence, (\[eq:Ez\]) is modified as follows: $$E[z]=s(E[y]W'+c)$$ $$E[y]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}s(\widetilde x W+b)p(\widetilde x)d\widetilde x \label{eq:E_y}$$ Suppose that the normal distribution holds, the probability density function (PDF) $p(\widetilde x)$ is expressed as $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}exp(-\frac{(\widetilde x - \mu)^{2}}{\sigma^{2}})$. It is also known that the sigmoid function can be approached by the probit function $\Phi(\xi x)$ [@Murphy_Machine_Learning] where $\Phi(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x \mathcal{N}(\theta|0,1)d\theta$ and $\xi^{2}=\pi/8$. Following the result of [@Murphy_Machine_Learning], (\[eq:E\_y\]) is derived: $$E[y]=s(\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1+\pi \sigma^{2}/8}}W+b)$$ where $\mu,\sigma$ are respectively the mean and standard deviation of the Gaussian function which can be calculated recursively from streaming data. The final expression of $E[z]$ is formulated as follows: $$E[z]=s(s(\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1+\pi \sigma^{2}/8}}W+b)W'+c) \label{eq:E_z2}$$ where (\[eq:E\_z2\]) is a function of two sigmoid functions. This result enables us to establish the $Bias^{2}=(E[z]-x)^{2}$ in (\[eq:NS\]). Let’s recall $var(z)=E[z^{2}]-E[z]^{2}$. The second term $E[z]^{2}$ is derived from (\[eq:E\_z2\]) while the first term $E[z^{2}]$ is written: $$E[z^{2}]=s(E[y^{2}]W'+c)$$ Due to the fact that $y^{2}=y*y$ , it is obvious that $y^{2}$ is IID variable which allows us to go further as follows: $$E[z^{2}]=s(E[y]E[y]W'+c)$$ $$E[z^{2}]=s(s(\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1+\pi \sigma^{2}/8}}W+b)^{2}W'+c) \label{eq:Ez^}$$ Consolidating all the results of (\[eq:E\_z2\]) and (\[eq:Ez\^\]), the final expression of the NS method is established. The NS method is derived from the expectation of MSE leading to the popular bias and variance formula. This method allows one to examine the quality of the predictive model by directly inspecting the possible underfitting or overfitting situation of a predictive model and capturing the reliability of a predictive model across the overall data space given a particular data distribution. A high NS value indicates either a high variance problem (overfitting) or a high bias problem (underfitting) which cannot be simply portrayed by a system error index. The addition of a new hidden node is supposed to reduce the high bias problem. It is, however, not to be done in the case of overfitting because it exacerbates the overfitting situation.
The hidden unit growing condition is derived from a similar idea to statistical process control which applies the statistical method to monitor the predictive quality of DEVDAN and does not rely on the user-defined parameter [@Gama2006; @Gamaconceptdrift]. Nevertheless, the hidden node growing condition is not modelled as the binomial distribution here because DEVDAN is more concerned about how to reconstruct corrupted input variables rather than performing binary classification. Because the underlying goal of the hidden node growing process is to relieve the high bias problem, a new hidden node is added if the following condition is satisfied: $$\mu_{Bias}^{t} + \sigma_{Bias}^{t} \geq \mu_{Bias}^{min} + \pi\sigma_{Bias}^{min}\label{eq:HUgrowing}$$ where $\mu_{Bias}^{t},\sigma_{Bias}^{t}$ are respectively the mean and standard deviation of Bias at the $t-th$ time instant while $\mu_{Bias}^{min},\sigma_{Bias}^{min}$ are the minimum Bias up to the $t-th$ observation. These variables are computed with the absence of previous data samples by simply updating their values whenever a new sample becomes available. Moreover, $\mu_{Bias}^{min},\sigma_{Bias}^{min}$ have to be reset once (\[eq:HUgrowing\]) is satisfied. Note that the bias can be calculated by decomposing the NS formula in (\[eq:NS\]). This setting is also formalized from the fact that the Bias values should decrease while the number of training observations increases as long as there is no change in the data distribution. On the other hand, a rise in the Bias values signals the presence of concept drift which cannot be addressed by simply learning the DAE’s parameters. A similar approach is adopted in the drift detection method (DDM) [@Gama2006] but no warning phase is arranged in the NS method to avoid the use of windowing approaches. (\[eq:HUgrowing\]) is derived from the so-called sigma rule where $\pi$ governs the confidence degree of sigma rule. $\pi$ is selected as $1.3exp(-{bias^2})+0.7$ which leads $\pi$ to revolve around $[1,2]$ meaning that it attains the confidence level of 68.2% to 95.2%. This strategy aims to improve flexibility of hidden unit growing process which adapts to the learning context and addresses the problem-specific nature of the constant $\pi$. A high bias signifies a underfitting situation which can be resolved by adding complexity of network structure while addition of hidden unit should be avoided in the case of low bias to prevent the variance increase.
Once a new hidden node is appended, its parameters, $b$ is randomly sampled from the scope of $[-1,1]$ for simplicity while $W$ is allocated as $-e$. This formulation comes from the fact that a new hidden unit should drive the error toward zero. In other words, $e=X_t-s(y_tW'+c)+s_{R+1}(yW_{R+1}^{'}+c)=0$ where $R$ is the number of hidden units or extracted features. New hidden node parameters play crucial role to assure improvement of reconstruction capability and to drive to a zero reconstruction error. It is accepted that the scope $[-1,1]$ does not always ensure model’s convergence. This issue can be tackled with adaptive scope selection of random parameters [@SCN].
Hidden Unit Pruning Strategy
----------------------------
The overfitting problem occurs mainly due to a high network variance resulting from an over-complex network structure. The hidden unit pruning strategy helps to find a lower dimensional representation of feature space by discarding its superfluous components. Because a high variance designates the overfitting condition, the hidden unit pruning strategy starts from the evaluation of model’s variance. The same principle as the growing scenario is implemented where the statistical process control method is adopted to detect the high variance problem as follows: $$\mu_{Var}^{t} + \sigma_{Var}^{t} \geq \mu_{Var}^{min} + 2\chi\sigma_{Var}^{min}\label{eq:HUpruning}$$ where $\mu_{Var}^{t},\sigma_{Var}^{t}$ respectively stand for the mean and standard deviation of $Var$ at the $t-th$ time instant while $\mu_{Var}^{min},\sigma_{Var}^{min}$ denote the minimum Bias up to the $t-th$ observation. $\chi$, selected as $1.3exp(-{Var})+0.7$, is a dynamic constant controlling the confidence level of the sigma rule. The term 2 is arranged in (\[eq:HUpruning\]) to overcome a direct-pruning-after-adding problem which may take place right after the feature growing process due to the temporary increase of network variance. The network variance naturally alleviates as more observations are encountered. Note that $Var$ can be calculated with ease by following the mathematical derivation of the NS method. Moreover, $\mu_{Var}^{min},\sigma_{Var}^{min}$ are reset when (\[eq:HUpruning\]) is satisfied.
After (\[eq:HUpruning\]) is identified, the contribution of each hidden unit is examined. Inconsequential hidden unit is discarded to reduce the overfitting situation. The significance of hidden unit is tested via the concept of network significance, adapted to evaluate the hidden unit statistical contribution. This method can be derived by checking the hidden node activity in the whole corrupted feature space $\widetilde x$. The significance of the $i-th$ hidden node is defined as its average activation degree for all possible data samples as follows: $$HS_i=\lim_{T\to\infty}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\frac{s_i(\widetilde x W_i+b_i)}{T} \label{eq:NS_i2}$$ where $W_i,b_i$ stand for the connective weight and bias of the $i-th$ encoding function. Suppose that data samples are sampled from a certain PDF, (\[eq:NS\_i2\]) can be derived as follows: $$HS_i=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} s_i(\widetilde xW_i+b_i) p(\widetilde x) d \widetilde x \label{eq:NS_i3}$$ Because the decoder is no longer used and is only used to complete a feature learning scenario, the importance of the hidden units is examined from the encoding function only. As with the growing strategy, (\[eq:NS\_i3\]) can be solved from the fact that the sigmoid function can be approached by the Probit function. The importance of the $i-th$ hidden unit is formalized as follows: $$HS_i=s(\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1+\pi \sigma^{2}/8}}W_i+b_i)\label{eq:NS_expect}$$ where $\mu,\sigma$ respectively denote the mean and standard deviation of the partially destroyed input features $\widetilde x$. Because the significance of the hidden node is obtained from the limit integral of the sigmoid function given the normal distribution, (\[eq:NS\_expect\]) can be also interpreted as the expectation of $i-th$ sigmoid encoding function. It is also seen that (\[eq:NS\_expect\]) delineates the statistical contribution of the hidden unit in respect to the recovered input attribute. A small HS value implies that $i-th$ hidden unit plays a small role in recovering the clean input attributes $x$ and thus can be ruled out without significant loss of accuracy.
Since the contribution of $i-th$ hidden unit is formed in terms of the expectation of an activation function, the least contributing hidden unit having the minimum $HS$ is deemed inactive. If the overfitting situation occurs or (\[eq:HUpruning\]) is satisfied, the pruning process encompasses the hidden unit with the lowest $HS$ as follows:
$$Pruning \longrightarrow \min_{i=1,...,R} HS_i \label{eq:pruning}$$
The condition (\[eq:pruning\]) aims to mitigate the overfitting situation by getting rid of the least contributing hidden unit. This condition also signals that the original feature representation can be still reconstructed with the rest of $R-1$ hidden units. Moreover, this strategy is supposed to enhance the generalization power of DEVDAN by reducing its variance.
Generative Training Phase
-------------------------
The parameter optimization phase is carried out using the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) approach with only single epoch. Since data points are normalized into the range of $[0,1]$ [@Bengio_Greedy], the SGD procedure is derived using the cross-entropy loss function as follows: $$W,b,c=\arg\min_{W,b,c}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\frac{1}{T}L(X_t,z_t)$$ $$L(X_t,z_t)=-\sum_{t=1}^{T}[X_t log(z_t)+(1-X_t) log(1-z_t)]$$ where $X_t\in\Re^{n}$ is the noise-free input vector and $z_t\in\Re^{n}$ is the reconstructed input vector. $T$ is the number of samples observed thus far. Note that the cross-entropy function can be seen as the negative log-likelihood function. The minimization of the negative log-likelihood function is equivalent to the maximization of the likelihood function from the maximum likelihood optimization principle. Because the SGD method is utilized in the parameter learning scenario to update $W,b,c$, the tuning phase is carried out on a per-sample basis or a single-pass scenario. $T$ is thus set as 1. The first order derivative in the SGD method is calculated with respect to the tied weight constraint $W'=W^{T}$. Note that the parameter adjustment step is carried out under a dynamic network which commences with only a single input feature $R=1$ and grows its network structure on demand.
The notion of DEVDAN allows the model’s structure to be self-organized in the generative phase while pending for operator to feed the true class labels $C_k$. Furthermore, the concept of DAE discovers salient structure of input space by opening manifold of learning problem and expedites parameter’s convergence in the discriminative training phase. all of which can be committed while pending for operator to feed the true class labels. Although DEVDAN is realized in the single hidden layer architecture, it is modifiable to the deep structure with ease by applying the greedy layer-wise learning process [@Bengio_Greedy].
Data sets Performance DEVDAN pEnsemble pEnsemble+ AE DAE
-------------- ------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------- ----------------------------------
SUSY CR $\textbf{77.53}\pm\textbf{3.22}$ $74.44\pm{2.4}$ $76.99\pm{4.6}$ $76.37\pm{3.91}$ $76.24\pm{4}$
ET $4$K $13$K $35$K $1$K $1$
HN $20.6\pm{2.8}$ $2.09\pm{0.99}$ $8.94\pm{2.91}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $435.5\pm{58.9}$ $36.43\pm{21.21}$ $230\pm{80}$ $212$ $212$
HEPMASS CR $\textbf{83.91}\pm\textbf{2.45}$ ${82.6}\pm{1.9}$ $82.3\pm{2.2}$ $79.92\pm{2.73}$ $79.8\pm{2.69}$
$19\%$ ET $1.2$K $12$K $7.6$K $464.45$ $519$
HN $19.99\pm{0.4}$ $2.01\pm{0.69}$ $2.01\pm{0.69}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $622.5\pm{15}$ $24.14\pm{8.23}$ $24.14\pm{8.23}$ $312$ $312$
RLCPS CR $\textbf{99.99}\pm\textbf{0.03}$ $99.7\pm{0.3}$ $99.8\pm{0.3}$ $99.99\pm{0.03}$ $99.99\pm{0.04}$
ET $7$K $60$K $12.6$K $1$K $1$K
HN $60.23\pm{1.82}$ $49.7\pm{15.14}$ $6.96\pm{1.06}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $724.68\pm{26.82}$ $24$ $83.52\pm{12.72}$ $122$ $122$
RFID CR $98.9\pm{3.33}$ $60.4\pm{6.7}$ $60.9\pm{7.6}$ $99.02\pm{3.34}$ $\textbf{99.19}\pm\textbf{2.03}$
localization ET $176.58$ $499$ $700$ $49.94$ $60.81$
HN $51.74\pm{9.47}$ $1.57\pm{0.65}$ $1.31\pm{0.46}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $417.54\pm{76.94}$ $42.7\pm{22.48}$ $43.73\pm{13.52}$ $84$ $84$
Electricity CR $69.4\pm{8.74}$ $\textbf{72.6}\pm\textbf{11.4}$ $72.6\pm{12.1}$ $67.72\pm{10.48}$ $68.61\pm{8.55}$
pricing ET $17.32$ $71.2$ $78.2$ $8.18$ $9.67$
HN $10.58\pm{1.26}$ $1$ $1.01\pm{0.12}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $117.74\pm{17.7}$ $12$ $12$ $112$ $112$
Weather CR $74.04\pm{5.68}$ ${78.4}\pm{4.3}$ $\textbf{78.8}\pm\textbf{4}$ $73.76\pm{5.76}$ $71.18\pm{7.06}$
ET $6.93$ $ 33.49 $ $29.42$ $3.2$ $3.7$
HN $14\pm{0.57}$ $1$ $1$ $10$ $10$
NoP $153.54\pm{24.56}$ $24$ $24.33\pm{2}$ $112$ $112$
KDDCup CR $\textbf{99.84}\pm\textbf{0.21}$ $99.3\pm{0.4}$ $96.7\pm{6}$ $99.83\pm{0.21}$ $99.81\pm{0.21}$
10% ET $338.6$ $5362.9$ $860$ $116.69$ $133.37$
HN $36.01\pm{6.09}$ $1$ $1$ $10$ $10$
NoP $1587\pm{270.72}$ $12$ $12$ $442$ $442$
SEA CR $\textbf{92.29}\pm\textbf{6.48}$ $92\pm{5.7}$ $92\pm{6}$ $91.74\pm{6.61}$ $92.12\pm{6.34}$
ET $38.88$ $178.2$ $200$ $18.59$ $21.4$
HN $18.4\pm{10.4}$ $2.51\pm{0.81}$ $2.51\pm{0.81}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $112.35\pm{62.87}$ $60.3\pm{19.43}$ $60.3\pm{19.43}$ $62$ $62$
Hyperplane CR $\textbf{92.12}\pm\textbf{3.47}$ $91.8\pm{1.9}$ $87.6\pm{6.2}$ $90.92\pm{3.18}$ $91.43\pm{3.29}$
ET $38.34$ $68.2$ $150$ $149.8$ $21.36$
HN $4.21\pm{0.95}$ $2.66\pm{1.79}$ $2.76\pm{0.47}$ $10$ $10$
NoP $31.4\pm{6.77}$ $52.75\pm{44.98}$ $54.68\pm{10.92}$ $72$ $72$
CR: classification rate, ET: execution time, HN: hidden nodes, NoP: number of parameters
Discriminative Training Phase
=============================
Once the true class labels $C_k=[C_1,C_2,...,C_T]\in\Re^{T}$ are obtained, the 0-1 encoding scheme is applied to craft the target vector $C_k\in\Re^{T\times m}$ where $m$ is the number of target class. That is, $C_o=1$ if only if a data sample $X_t$ falls into $o$-th class. A generative model is passed to the discriminative training phase added with a softmax layer to infer the final classification decision as follows: $$\hat{C_t}=softmax(s(X_t W+b) \Phi+\eta)$$ where $\Phi\in\Re^{R \times m}$ and $\eta\in\Re^{m}$ denote the output weight vector and bias of discriminative network respectively while the softmax layer outputs probability distribution across $m$ target classes $softmax(x_0)=\frac{exp(x_o)}{\sum_{k=1}^{m}exp(x_k)}$.
The parameters, $W,b,\Phi,\eta$ are further adjusted using the labelled data chunk $B_k=(X_k,C_k)\in\Re^{T\times(n+m)}$ via the SGD method with only a single epoch. The optimization problem is formulated as follows: $$\arg\min_{W,b,\Phi,\eta}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\frac{1}{T}L(C_t,\hat{C}_t)$$ where the loss function is akin to the generative training phase, the cross-entropy loss function. The adjustment process is executed in the one-pass learning fashion leading to per-sample adaptation process $T=1$.
The structural learning scenario also occurs in the discriminative learning phase where the NS approach can be formulated in respect to the squared predictive error rather than reconstruction error $\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{T}(C_t-\hat{C}_t)^{2}}{T}$. Similar derivation can be applied here but the difference only exists in the output expression of the discrimininative model as $s(X_t W+b)\Phi+\eta$ instead of the encoding and decoding scheme as shown in (\[encoder\]),(\[decoder\]). Moreover, the hidden node growing and pruning conditions still refer to the same criteria (\[eq:HUgrowing\]),(\[eq:HUpruning\]). The pseudocode of DEVDAN’s generative and discriminative phases are placed in the supplemental document.
Proof of Concepts
=================
The learning performance of DEVDAN is numerically validated using nine real-world and synthetic data stream problems: SEA, Hyperplane, Susy, KDDCup, RLCPS, RFID localization, Hepmass, Electricity Pricing and Weather. At least five of nine problems characterize **non-stationary properties**, while the remainder four problems feature salient characteristics in examining the performance of data stream algorithms: big size, high input dimension, etc. We refer readers to supplemental document for detailed characteristics of the nine datasets including the number of time stamps applied in the prequential test-then-train procedure. The numerical results of DEVDAN is compared against conventional AE and DAE where the discriminative phase is adjusted using only a single training epoch to assure fair comparison. AE and DAE structures are initialized before process runs. Comparison against classic AE and DAE is shown to highlight to what extent DEVDAN outperforms its root while DEVDAN is also compared against pENsemble [@pENsemble] and [@pensembleplus]- a prominent data stream algorithm built upon an evolving ensemble classifier concept.
The learning performance of the consolidated algorithms is evaluated according to four criteria: classification rate, number of parameters, execution time and hidden units while the prequential test-then train procedure is followed as our evaluation protocol to simulate real data stream environments. The numerical results refer to the average numerical results across all time stamps. Numerical results are reported in Table 1. All consolidated algorithms are executed in the same computational platform under MATLAB environments with the Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 @3.20 GHz processor and 16 GB RAM. Because of the page limit, all figures pertaining to DEVDAN learning performance and the source code of DEVDAN are placed as supplemental documents. The source code of DEVDAN will be made publicly available once our paper is accepted.
Numerical Results
-----------------
It is reported in Table 1 that DEVDAN produces more accurate prediction than its counterparts in six problems: KDD Cup, SEA, Hyperplane, SUSY, RLCPS and HEPMASS. This fact confirms the efficacy of DEVDAN in coping with non-stationary learning environments because Hyperplane, SEA and KDD Cup problems are well-known in the literature for their non-stationary properties. DEVDAN consistently outperforms both AE and DAE having a fixed structure except only slightly inferior to DAE in the RFID localization problem. DEVDAN also exhibits very competitive performance against ensemble classifiers, pENsemble and pENsemble$+$. It is worth noting that pENsemble and pENsemble$+$ incurs much higher computational complexity than DEVDAN because it is crafted under the concept of multi-model structure. This fact is substantiated by the execution time of pENsemble and pENsemble$+$ consistently slower than DEVDAN in almost all problems. The learning performance of DEVDAN is visualized in the supplemental document.
Conclusion
==========
This paper presents a novel denoising autoencoder (DAE), namely the deep evolving denoising autoencoder (DEVDAN). DEVDAN features a self-organizing property in both generative and discriminative phases where input features can be incrementally constructed and discarded in a fully automated manner with the absence of a user-defined threshold. Our numerical study in nine popular data stream problems shows that DEVDAN delivers the most encouraging numerical result from other four benchmarked algorithms. Our numerical results demonstrate the advantage of DEVDAN’s evolving structure which adapts to dynamic components of data streams. This fact also supports the relevance of generative phase for online data stream which contributes toward refinement of network structure in unsupervised fashion. Nevertheless, it is admitted that DEVDAN is still crafted under a single hidden layer feedforward network. A deep version of DEVDAN will be subject to our future investigation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Although the functional renormalization group (fRG) is by now a well-established method for investigating correlated electron systems, it is still undergoing significant technical and conceptual improvements. In particular, the motivation to optimally exploit the parallelism of modern computing platforms has recently led to the development of the “truncated-unity” functional renormalization group (TU-fRG). Here, we review this fRG variant, and we provide its extension to multiband systems with spin-orbit coupling. Furthermore, we discuss some aspects of the implementation and outline opportunities and challenges ahead for predicting the ground-state ordering and emergent energy scales for a wide class of quantum materials.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Truncated-unity functional renormalization group for multiband systems with spin-orbit coupling'
---
Introduction
============
The rapid progress of condensed matter physics in recent decades, in its full breadth from fundamental science to technological applications, has mainly been based on the systematic development and strengthening of two main pillars: [*materials*]{} and [*methods.*]{}
On the one hand, the discovery of new classes of [*quantum materials*]{} such as high-temperature superconductors and topological insulators has brought forth a rich variety of new effects and astonishing phenomena (for recent reviews see e.g. [@Mackenzie17; @Sun17; @Xu17]). Among others, spin-orbit coupling has been identified as an important player in the formation of exotic phases with unconventional bulk and surface properties [@Winkler; @Smidman17]. Consequently, [*multiband systems with spin-orbit coupling*]{} (for some references, see e.g. [@Schober]) are by now a major topic of cutting-edge research in condensed matter physics, which largely overlaps with the fields of spintronics and topological matter. Their study has led to new theoretical insights regarding, for example, relativistic effects in solids [@Lee; @Laszlo12] and emerging entities such as Majorana quasiparticles [@Lutchyn10; @Oreg10]. In addition, quantum materials with spin-orbit coupling hold the promise for technological applications ranging from high-performance, high-density memories to fault-tolerant topological information processing [@Sinova; @Wu17]. More concretely, the Rashba model has become a paradigm for coupling the spin and orbital degrees of freedom [@Rashba12]. While having traditionally been observed at surfaces or interfaces between different materials, more recently, BiTeX (X = Cl, Br and I) as well as GeTe have attracted much interest as giant [*bulk*]{} Rashba semiconductors [@BiTeIMagn; @Schwalbe16; @Saeed17; @Picozzi14; @Liebmann16]. Hence, these materials are also promising candidates for spintronics applications such as the Datta-Das spin transistor [@Datta89; @Koo09]. In this context, we also mention the recent proposal [@Ciftja] of a spintronic device which does not require the injection of spin-polarized electrons from one quantum dot to the other.
On the other hand, exotic material behavior often originates from electronic correlations, and the quest for new computational methods capable of dealing with these correlations is a driving force in modern materials physics. While the most prominent example for a non-trivial interaction-induced quantum phase may be an ordinary superconductor, more recently, interaction-driven topological phases have also attracted much interest (see e.g. [@Dzero12; @Isobe15]). In particular, the [*interplay between spin-orbit coupling and electron-electron interactions*]{} gives rise to a plethora of unconventional quantum effects such as mixed singlet-triplet superconductivity induced by the Rashba coupling [@GR01; @Schober; @Vijay16]. However, simultaneously treating the enormous number of electrons in a solid requires the development of new computational approaches, which on the one hand capture the essential physics and on the other hand allow for practical calculations on reasonable time scales. Fortunately, the recent advancement of condensed matter science has come along with an equally steep increase in the available computational resources, which is mainly due to the evolution of building blocks of large computing architectures from single-core CPUs to compute nodes with multiple cores. This development naturally requires the adaption of modern calculation methods to optimally exploit the parallelism of modern computing platforms.
In this article, we summarize recent progress in the field of fRG for fermions in solids, which was achieved by the development of the [*truncated-unity functional renormalization group*]{} (TU-fRG) [@Julian17; @Julian17Book; @David17]. Moreover, we take one step forward by adapting this method for application to multiband systems with spin-orbit coupling.
To begin with, the functional renormalization group (fRG) is a field-theoretical approach to the electronic many-body problem, which is capable of treating the different energy scales in the electronic spectrum of a solid as well as the different—and possibly competing—ordering tendencies at low temperatures [@Kopietz; @Metzner; @Platt]. Having undergone various phases of exploration and refinement, it is by now regarded as an unbiased method with the potential of reaching quantitative precision in the prediction of energy scales and parameter ranges [@Julian17]. The different energy scales are treated by successively “integrating out” the high-energy degrees of freedom in the path integral formalism and thereby deriving effective interactions for the low-energy degrees of freedom. In a solid, the latter correspond to the electrons at the Fermi level, hence the fRG can predict the ground state ordering of the many-electron system. As compared to exact methods such as lattice quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations, the fRG has the advantage of not being limited strongly in the choice of tight-binding and interaction parameters (which is necessary in the case of QMC to avoid the occurrence of a sign problem) [@David17Coul]. Until recently, the fRG was usually combined with a Fermi surface patching approximation, whereby it has been successfully applied to various material classes such as high-temperature superconductors [@Giering; @Eberlein14; @Lichtenstein], mono- and few-layer graphene [@Classen; @Lang; @Pena; @Scherer2], and systems with spin-orbit coupling [@Maier; @Dscherer; @Schober]. For recent reviews of the fRG in solid-state physics, we refer the interested reader to Refs. [@Metzner; @Platt; @Schober].
As a recent variant of the fRG technique, the TU-fRG has been developed and applied to extended Hubbard models on the square and honeycomb lattices [@Julian17; @Julian17Book; @David17; @David17Coul]. This method is based on earlier approaches called the [*exchange parametrization fRG*]{} [@Husemann09] (see also [@Husemann12; @Eberlein10; @Maier13]) and the [*singular-mode fRG*]{} (SM-fRG) [@Wang12]. As compared to the exchange parametrization fRG for the two-fermion interaction, the TU-fRG introduces additional insertions of truncated partitions of unity, which decouple the fermionic propagators from the exchange propagators. This leads to a separation of the underlying differential equations and therefore enables an efficient parallelization on a large number of compute nodes (for details on the numerical implementation, see [@Julian17; @David17; @David17Coul]). Remarkably, in the TU-fRG implementation, the CPU time scales only linearly with the momentum resolution of the two-fermion vertex as compared to a quartic dependence in the Fermi surface patching approximation. Therefore, the TU-fRG allows one to capture the wavevector dependence of the effective two-fermion vertices with an unrivaled precision [@Julian17], thus paving the way for quantitative predictions of phase diagrams, leading correlations and emergent energy scales in multiband systems with realistic [*ab initio*]{} interaction parameters. This procedure has already been demonstrated in Ref. [@David17] for the case of graphene. Most recently, it has even been applied in parameter ranges which are not accessible to QMC simulations [@David17Coul].
So far, the application of the TU-fRG has been restricted to spin-SU(2)-invariant systems. In fact, this symmetry is exploited in the very derivation of the flow equations [@Julian17] (see also [@SH00]). Since this restriction excludes the important class of materials with spin-orbit coupling, it is highly desirable to derive a generalization of the TU-fRG which does not assume the SU(2) symmetry of the single-particle Hamiltonian. In this generalization, the two-fermion vertices will not only acquire additional spin indices, but also the general structure of the flow equations will be modified. Apart from providing a general perspective on the TU-fRG technique, it is precisely the goal of the present article to derive such generalized flow equations. In order to keep the formalism simpler we will not discuss the treatment of the frequency dependence of the interactions (for a recent treatment, see [@Eberlein15; @Vilardi17]). Furthermore, we will not consider self-energy corrections on the internal lines (for some discussion of this aspect, see [@Metzner; @Eberlein15; @Vilardi17]). We remark that in the SM-fRG context, generalized flow equations for non-SU(2)-invariant systems have already been derived [@Wang4] and successfully applied to various materials with spin-orbit coupling [@Wang1; @Wang3; @Wang2].
This article is organized as follows: In §\[sec\_channel\], we define the projections of an arbitrary two-particle vertex onto the particle-particle, crossed particle-hole and direct particle-hole channels. In §\[sec\_rge\], we first define the exchange propagators from the respective single-channel coupling functions. Subsequently, we derive the flow equations for these exchange propagators, and we show that the number of relevant equations can be reduced by using an antisymmetry relation between crossed and direct particle-hole terms. Finally, the set of TU-fRG equations is completed by the cross projections between the particle-particle and particle-hole terms, for which we also provide explicit expressions. In §\[sec\_orb\_band\], we derive the transformation laws for the exchange propagators between the orbital (or spin) and the band basis, and we briefly compare these two representations with respect to the numerical effort required to solve the flow equations. In §\[sec\_appl\], we benchmark the generalized TU-fRG equations by applying them to the Rashba model with a local interaction. Restricting us to the particle-particle channel, we provide an analytic solution which is consistent with the ladder resummation of Ref. [@Schober]. Finally, we give an outlook on future applications of the TU-fRG to realistic multiband models with spin-orbit coupling.
Channel decomposition {#sec_channel}
=====================
We put our main focus on the fRG for the two-particle vertex $V$ (see e.g. [@SH00]). The renormalization group equation (RGE) for this vertex is an ordinary differential equation with respect to a scaling parameter $\Lambda$, which has contributions from three different channels: [*particle-particle, crossed particle-hole, and direct particle-hole channel*]{} (see §\[sec\_rge\]). An analysis as well as previous numerical investigations reveal that each channel has a strong dependence on one particular momentum contribution [@Metzner]. Therefore, we define the functionals $\hat P[V]$, $\hat C[V]$ and $\hat D[V]$ as projections onto these channels, which are parametrized by their respective main momentum such that the following equations hold (we use similar conventions as in Ref. [@Eckhardt]): $$\begin{aligned}
V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} \hat P[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2) \, f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}_1) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_4) \,, \label{P_1} \\[5pt]
V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} \hat C[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_1 - {\boldsymbol k}_3) \, f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}_1) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_4) \,, \label{C_1} \\[5pt]
V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} \hat D[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_3 - {\boldsymbol k}_2) \, f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}_1) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_3) \,. \label{D_1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\boldsymbol k}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol k}_2$ are ingoing momenta, while ${\boldsymbol k}_3$ and ${\boldsymbol k}_4 \equiv {\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2 - {\boldsymbol k}_3$ are outgoing momenta of the vertex function (where momentum conservation follows from translational invariance). Furthermore, the [*form factors*]{} $f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k})$ are labeled by an index ${\boldsymbol R}$, which may correspond to the (Bravais) lattice coordinates in the case of plane-wave functions, $f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) = \exp(-\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k} \cdot {\boldsymbol R})$. On the real lattice, the form factors then become bond selectors, $f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol R}') = \delta_{{\boldsymbol R},{\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'}$. This provides a very natural description of the interaction as the sum of interacting fermion bilinears of particle-particle ($P$) or particle-hole type ($C$,$D$) that live on bonds of length ${\boldsymbol R}$. In such a picture, the truncation of the sums in Eqs. , , and beyond a certain $|{\boldsymbol R}_{\rm c}|$ just means that interactions of bilinears with a range longer than $|{\boldsymbol R}_{\rm c}|$ are ignored. Note that this truncation in the pair length does not imply a restriction on the length of the pairwise interaction between the bilinears kept. Depending on the symmetry of the problem under consideration, it may be useful to form linear combinations of the form factors that transform according to a specific irreducible representation of the point group, as done in Ref. [@Julian17] or explained in Ref. [@Platt]. More generally, we only assume that the form factors constitute an orthonormal basis in the following sense: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}) & = \delta_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} \,, \\[5pt]
\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}') & = N {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ denotes the total particle number. We relabel the main momentum transfers as ${\boldsymbol s} = {\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2$, ${\boldsymbol u} = {\boldsymbol k}_1 - {\boldsymbol k}_3$, and ${\boldsymbol t} = {\boldsymbol k}_3 - {\boldsymbol k}_2$, such that Eqs. – are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}', {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}') & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, \hat P[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) \,, \label{def_P_inv} \\[5pt]
V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}' - {\boldsymbol u}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} - {\boldsymbol u}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}') & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, \hat C[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) \,, \\[5pt]
V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}' - {\boldsymbol t}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}', {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} - {\boldsymbol t}) & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, \hat D[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where, for the sake of clarity, we have written out explicitly the fourth momentum argument of the vertex function (which is determined by momentum conservation). The converse equations, which can be regarded as explicit definitions of the functionals (projections onto the different channels) $\hat P[V]$, $\hat C[V]$ and $\hat D[V]$, then read as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat P[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) & = \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}', {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}') \,, \label{def_P} \\[5pt]
\hat C[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) & = \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}' - {\boldsymbol u}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} - {\boldsymbol u}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}') \,, \\[5pt]
\hat D[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) & = \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, V({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}' - {\boldsymbol t}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}', {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} - {\boldsymbol t}) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The conventions that we have chosen here have the following advantages (compare Refs. [@Wang12; @Julian17]):
1. Each form factor in Eqs. – depends on only one momentum, which is part of the original vertex. This will facilitate the following derivations.
2. If two vertices fulfill $V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3, {\boldsymbol k}_4) = -W({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_4, {\boldsymbol k}_3)$, then $$\hat D[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) = -\hat C[W]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{DCsym}$$ In particular, if the vertex $V$ is antisymmetric with respect to its outgoing momenta such that $V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3, {\boldsymbol k}_4) = -V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_4, {\boldsymbol k}_3)$, then $$\hat D[V] = -\hat C[V] \,.$$ These identities will become crucial in §\[subsec\_antisym\].
3. If $V$ is hermitian in the sense that $V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3, {\boldsymbol k}_4) = V^*({\boldsymbol k}_4, {\boldsymbol k}_3, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_1)$, then $$\hat P[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) = \hat P[V]^*_{{\boldsymbol R}' {\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol s}) \,,$$ i.e., the matrix $\hat P[V]({\boldsymbol s})$ is also hermitian for any ${\boldsymbol s}$. The same applies to the matrix $\hat C[V]({\boldsymbol u})$, and to $\hat D[V]({\boldsymbol t})$ provided that $V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3, {\boldsymbol k}_4) = V({\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_4, {\boldsymbol k}_3)$.
Finally, we remark that by definition all wavevectors including ${\boldsymbol s}, {\boldsymbol u}, {\boldsymbol t}$ are restricted to the first Brillouin zone. For example, Eq. is a shorthand notation for $$V({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol k}_1) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}_4) \, \sum_{{\boldsymbol s}} \sum_{{\boldsymbol K}} \delta_{{\boldsymbol s} + {\boldsymbol K}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2} \, \hat P[V]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) \,.$$ Here, we formally sum over all reciprocal lattice vectors ${\boldsymbol K}$, but the condition that ${\boldsymbol k}_1$, ${\boldsymbol k}_2$, and ${\boldsymbol s}$ all lie in the first Brillouin zone fixes precisely one vector ${\boldsymbol K}$ which gives a non-vanishing contribution.
Renormalization group equations {#sec_rge}
===============================
Derivation {#subsec_deriv}
----------
We now consider a general multiband system, where the vertex additionally depends on four [*band indices*]{}, which we denote by Latin letters. (By contrast, orbital or spin indices will be denoted by Greek letters, see §\[sec\_orb\_band\].) In the general case without SU(2) symmetry, the RGE in the band basis reads as follows (see [@SH00], or [@Schober Eqs. (82)–(89)]): $$\label{rg_eq}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\Lambda} (V_\Lambda)_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3)
= \big[ \varPhi_{\Lambda}^{\rm pp} + {\hspace{1pt}}\varPhi_{\Lambda}^{\rm ph,c} + {\hspace{1pt}}\varPhi_{\Lambda}^{\rm ph,d} {\hspace{1pt}}\big]_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4} ({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) \,,$$ where the particle-particle, crossed particle-hole and direct particle-hole terms are given by (suppressing $\Lambda$ dependencies in the notation) $$\begin{aligned}
& \varPhi^{\rm pp}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) = \label{eq_phipp} \\[3pt] \nonumber
& -\frac 1 N \sum_{\ell_1, {\hspace{1pt}}\ell_2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} V_{n_1 n_2 \ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}) \, L^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_1 + {\boldsymbol p}_2 - {\boldsymbol k}) \, V_{\ell_1 \ell_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_1 + {\boldsymbol p}_2 - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) \,, \\[6pt]
& \varPhi^{\rm ph,c}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) \label{eq_phiphd} = \\[3pt] \nonumber
& \frac 2 N \sum_{\ell_1, {\hspace{1pt}}\ell_2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} V_{n_1 \ell_2 n_3 \ell_1}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} + {\boldsymbol p}_3 - {\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) \, L^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} + {\boldsymbol p}_3 - {\boldsymbol p}_1) \, V_{\ell_1 n_2 \ell_2 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k} + {\boldsymbol p}_3 - {\boldsymbol p}_1) \,, \\[6pt]
& \varPhi^{\rm ph,d}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_3) = -\varPhi^{\rm ph,c}_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}({\boldsymbol p}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_2, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol p}_1 + {\boldsymbol p}_2 - {\boldsymbol p}_3) \,. \label{eq_phiphc}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the [*particle-particle loop*]{} $L^-$ and the [*particle-hole loop*]{} $L^{+}$ are defined as $$\label{def_lmp}
L^\mp_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2)= \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\Lambda} {\hspace{1pt}}\Big( \chi(e_{\ell_1}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_1) ) \,{\hspace{1pt}}\chi(e_{\ell_2}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_2) ) \Big) \, F^\mp_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2) \,,$$ with the functions $F_\Lambda^{\mp}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disc_2a}
F^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2) & = \frac{1 - f(e_{\ell_1}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_1) ) - f(e_{\ell_2}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_2) )}{e_{\ell_1}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_1) + e_{\ell_2}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_2)} \,, \\[5pt] \label{disc_2b}
F^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2) & = \frac{f(e_{\ell_1}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_1) ) - f(e_{\ell_2}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_2) )}{e_{\ell_1}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_1) - e_{\ell_2}{\hspace{-1pt}}({\boldsymbol k}_2)} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $e_\ell({\boldsymbol k}) = E_\ell({\boldsymbol k}) - \mu$ are the eigenvalues of the single-particle Hamiltonian measured relatively to the chemical potential, and $f(e) = ({\mathrm e}^{\beta e} + 1)^{-1}$ denotes the Fermi distribution function. We have assumed a momentum regulator $\chi_\Lambda(e({\boldsymbol k}))$, which suppresses all momenta inside a shell of thickness $\Lambda$ around the Fermi surfaces [@Metzner], but the above formulas can easily be generalized to other regulators (see e.g. [@Husemann09]). Moreover, inherent in the above RGE is the level-two truncation, which neglects all Green functions with six or more external legs. Futher neglected are the self-energy and the frequency dependence of the four-point function. These approximations have already been applied successfully in many works before [@Metzner; @Platt; @Schober].
We now define the scale-dependent [*single-channel coupling functions*]{} as follows (suppressing momentum dependencies to lighten the notation): $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(P)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda) & := \int_{\Lambda_0}^\Lambda {\mathrm{d}}\Lambda' \, \varPhi^{\rm pp}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda') \,, \label{def_VP} \\[3pt]
V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda) & := \int_{\Lambda_0}^\Lambda {\mathrm{d}}\Lambda' \, \varPhi^{\rm ph,c}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda') \,, \label{def_VD} \\[3pt]
V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda) & := \int_{\Lambda_0}^\Lambda {\mathrm{d}}\Lambda' \, \varPhi^{\rm ph,d}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}(\Lambda') \,, \label{def_VC} \end{aligned}$$ such that the scale-dependent vertex can be decomposed into four contributions, $$\label{decom_V}
V(\Lambda) = V^{(0)} + V^{(P)}(\Lambda) + V^{(C)}(\Lambda) + V^{(D)}(\Lambda) \,,$$ where $V^{(0)} \equiv V(\Lambda_0)$ is the initial interaction. Furthermore, we define the [*exchange propagators*]{} as the following matrices (suppressing again $\Lambda$ dependencies): $$\begin{aligned}
P^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol s}) & := \hat P[V^{(P)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) \,, \label{def_mat_P} \\[5pt]
C^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol u}) & := \hat C[V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) \,, \label{def_mat_D} \\[5pt]
D^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol t}) & := \hat D[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{def_mat_C}\end{aligned}$$ Per constructionem, a scale derivative acting on these matrices yields the following RGE: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot P^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol s}) & = \hat P[\varPhi^{\rm pp}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) \,, \label{rge_P} \\[5pt]
\dot C^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol u}) & = \hat C[\varPhi^{\rm ph,c}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) \,, \label{rge_D} \\[5pt]
\dot D^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol t}) & = \hat D[\varPhi^{\rm ph,d}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{rge_C}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain a closed system of differential equations, one further has to project the right-hand sides onto the form-factor basis. For this purpose, we insert [*partitions of unity*]{} of the form-factor basis [@Julian17], $$\label{unity}
1 = \sum_{{\boldsymbol q}} \delta_{{\boldsymbol q}, {\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol q}'} = \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol q}} \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}^*({\boldsymbol q}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol q}') \,,$$ on both sides of the fermion loops $L^{\mp}$ in Eqs. –. After a lengthy but straightforward calculation (analogous to Ref. [@Julian17]), we obtain the following RGE in matrix form, where we denote by $\mathbbmsl P$, $\mathbbmsl C$ and $\mathbbmsl D$ the matrices with respective entries $P_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}$, $C_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}$, and $D_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}$ (for the analogous equations in the SM-fRG framework, see [@Wang4 Eqs. (A3)]): $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbbmsl P}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol s}) & = \sum_{\ell_1, {\hspace{1pt}}\ell_2} \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{n_1 n_2 \ell_1 \ell_2}]({\boldsymbol s}) \, \mathbbmsl L^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \, \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\ell_2 \ell_1 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) \,, \label{rge_Pmat} \\[5pt]
\dot{\mathbbmsl C}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol u}) & = 2 {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{\ell_1, {\hspace{1pt}}\ell_2} \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V_{n_1 \ell_2 n_3 \ell_1}]({\boldsymbol u}) \, \mathbbmsl L^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol u}) \, \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V_{\ell_1 n_2 \ell_2 n_4}]({\boldsymbol u}) \,, \label{rge_Dmat} \\[5pt]
\dot{\mathbbmsl D}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol t}) & = -2 {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \hat{\mathbbmsl D}[V_{n_1 \ell_2 \ell_1 n_4}]({\boldsymbol t}) \, \mathbbmsl L^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol t}) \, \hat{\mathbbmsl D}[V_{\ell_1 n_2 n_3 \ell_2}]({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{rge_Cmat}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the loop matrices are given in terms of Eq. by $$\begin{aligned}
\big[ \mathbbmsl L^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \big]_{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2} & = \frac 1 N {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol q}} L^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol q}, {\boldsymbol q}) \, f_{{\boldsymbol R}_1}({\boldsymbol q}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}_2}^*({\boldsymbol q}) \,, \label{loopminus} \\[5pt]
\big[ \mathbbmsl L^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol u}) \big]_{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2} & = \frac 1 N {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol q}} L^+_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol q}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol q} - {\boldsymbol u}) \, f_{{\boldsymbol R}_1}({\boldsymbol q}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}_2}^*({\boldsymbol q}) \,. \label{loopplus}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by substituting the decomposition into the right-hand sides of Eqs. – and performing the projections in the various channels (see §\[sec\_proj\]) we obtain a closed system of differential equations for the matrices $\mathbbmsl P$, $\mathbbmsl C$ and $\mathbbmsl D$. Since for implementing these flow equations numerically, the form-factor expansion in Eq. has to be [*truncated*]{} appropriately (see the remarks in §\[sec\_channel\], and for a detailed discussion, see [@Julian17]), the resulting technique is called “truncated-unity fRG” or “TUfRG”.
Antisymmetry of particle-hole terms {#subsec_antisym}
-----------------------------------
We now come to a crucial observation which allows us to further reduce the number of relevant channels in the generalized TU-fRG equations (where the SU(2) symmetry has not been exploited). In fact, the crossed and the direct particle-hole terms are directly related through Eq. , and with the definitions –, this implies that $$\label{antisym_cd}
V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) = -V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2 - {\boldsymbol k}_3) \,.$$ Further using the definitions – and the property , it follows that $$\mathbbmsl D_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol t}) = \hat{\mathbbmsl D}[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol t}) = -\hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}]({\boldsymbol t}) = -\mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{antisym}$$ Hence, the two matrices $\mathbbmsl C$ and $\mathbbmsl D$ are actually not independent of each other but simply related by the antisymmetry in the last two indices. As a consequence, one can show that the RGE is in fact equivalent to Eq. , and can therefore be discarded. We are thus left with only two RGE for the matrices $\mathbbmsl P$ and $\mathbbmsl C$ as given by Eqs. and . We remark that the antisymmetry property is already well-established in SM-fRG works (see e.g. [@Wang4]).
Projections {#sec_proj}
-----------
It remains to perform the projections in Eqs. – to obtain a closed system of RGE for the matrices $\mathbbmsl P$ and $\mathbbmsl C$. First, in the $P$-channel we have $$\hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] = \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(0)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] + \mathbbmsl P_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4} + \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] + \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] \,, \label{sum_P}$$ which follows directly from the decomposition and from the definition , i.e., $\mathbbmsl P = \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(P)}]$. The second-last term can be evaluated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat P[V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s})
= \frac 1 {N^2} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}', {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}') \label{doublek} \\[3pt]
& = \frac 1 {N^2} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}_2} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}_1}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol k}') \, C^{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k} + {\boldsymbol k}' - {\boldsymbol s}) \,. \label{zw_1}\end{aligned}$$ We identify the form factors with plane-wave functions, $f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) = \exp(-\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k} \cdot {\boldsymbol R})$, and perform a Fourier transformation of the matrix $\mathbbmsl C$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}) & = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}} {\mathrm e}^{-\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}} \,{\hspace{1pt}}\mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol R}) \,, \\[5pt]
\mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol R}) & = \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} {\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}} \,{\hspace{1pt}}\mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we transform Eq. into $$\frac{1}{N^2} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}_2,{\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}''} {\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k} \cdot (-{\boldsymbol R} + {\boldsymbol R}_1 - {\boldsymbol R}'')} \, {\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol k}' \cdot ({\boldsymbol R}' - {\boldsymbol R}_2 - {\boldsymbol R}'')} \, {\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i{\boldsymbol s} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}''} \, C^{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol R}'') \,.$$ Next, evaluating the sums over ${\boldsymbol k}$ and ${\boldsymbol k}'$ yields two delta functions, which can be used to eliminate ${\boldsymbol R}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol R}_2$. Hence, we arrive at $$\label{proj_PD}
\hat P[V^{(C)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}{\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol s} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}^{{\boldsymbol R} + {\boldsymbol R}''{\hspace{-1pt}}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}'-{\boldsymbol R}''}({\boldsymbol R}'') \,.$$ In particular, we note that this procedure (as used already in Ref. [@Wang12]) has reduced the double-wavevector sums of Eq. to a single sum over form-factor indices ${\boldsymbol R}''$. This sum is usually finite because the truncated form-factor matrices $C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}^{{\boldsymbol R}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol R})$ are nonzero only for a finite number of components ${\boldsymbol R}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol R}_2$.
Similarly, we find (using the property or ), $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat P[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) = -{\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol s} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}'} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}{\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i{\boldsymbol s} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}C^{{\boldsymbol R} + {\boldsymbol R}''{\hspace{-1pt}}, {\hspace{1pt}}-{\boldsymbol R}' - {\boldsymbol R}''}_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}({\boldsymbol R}'') \,.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we perform the projections in the $D$ channel. Again, we have $$\hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] = \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V^{(0)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] + \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V^{(P)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] + \mathbbmsl C_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4} + \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}] \,,$$ where we have used Eq. . A straightforward calculation gives $$\hat C[V^{(P)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}{\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i{\boldsymbol u} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}''} P_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}^{{\boldsymbol R} + {\boldsymbol R}''{\hspace{-1pt}}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}' - {\boldsymbol R}''}({\boldsymbol R}'') \,,$$ as well as $$\label{proj_DC}
\hat C[V^{(D)}_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol u}) = -\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}{\mathrm e}^{\textnormal i {\boldsymbol u} \cdot {\boldsymbol R}''} {\hspace{1pt}}C^{{\boldsymbol R} - {\boldsymbol R}' + {\boldsymbol R}''{\hspace{-1pt}}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}''}_{n_1 n_2 n_4 n_3}(-{\boldsymbol R}') \,.$$ In summary, in the non-SU(2)-symmetric case considered here, the channel-decomposed RGE for the matrices $\mathbbmsl P$ and $\mathbbmsl C$ are given by Eqs. , , , , , –.
Orbital versus band basis {#sec_orb_band}
=========================
Transformation laws
-------------------
For multiband systems, the vertex function can be represented either in the [*band basis*]{} or in the [*orbital basis*]{}, where these terms refer to the respective single-particle bases. Given the unitary matrix $U_{\sigma n}({\boldsymbol k})$ which diagonalizes the single-particle Hamiltonian, these two representations of the vertex function are related as follows (see e.g. [@Schober]): $$\begin{aligned}
& V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) = \label{trafo} \\[5pt] \nonumber
& \sum_{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_4} U_{\sigma_1 n_1}^*({\boldsymbol k}_1) {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_2 n_2}^*({\boldsymbol k}_2) {\hspace{1pt}}V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_3 n_3}({\boldsymbol k}_3) {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_4 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}_1 + {\boldsymbol k}_2 - {\boldsymbol k}_3) \,.\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned before, we denote band indices by Latin letters and orbital indices by Greek letters. Later, we will consider the Rashba model as a two-band model, where the $\sigma_i$ can be identified with [*spin indices*]{}. In any case, given these two representations of the vertex function, we can also define the respective channel projections $\hat P[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]$ or $\hat P[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]$ as in §\[sec\_channel\] (and similarly for $D$ and $C$). For deriving the transformation laws between these different matrices, we start from Eq. in the band basis, i.e., $$\hat P[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) = \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') \, V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') \,.$$ We switch over to the spin basis using Eq. , and then employ the converse relation in the spin basis, i.e., $$V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') = \sum_{{\boldsymbol R}_1, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol R}_2} f_{{\boldsymbol R}_1}^*({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol k}') \, \hat P[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \,. \smallskip$$ Thus, we arrive at the following transformation law for the particle-particle projection: $$\label{trafo_P}
\begin{aligned}
& \hat P[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_4} {\hspace{1pt}}\sum_{{\boldsymbol R}_1, {\boldsymbol R}_2} \bigg( \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}_1}^*({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}U^*_{\sigma_2 n_2}({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_1 n_1}^*({\boldsymbol k}) \bigg) \\[5pt]
& \times \hat P[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R}_1 {\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \, \bigg( \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}_2}({\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_3 n_3}({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_4 n_4}({\boldsymbol k}') \bigg) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Defining the matrix $$U^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 n_1 n_2}({\boldsymbol s}) := \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}) \, U_{\sigma_1 n_1}({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}U_{\sigma_2 n_2}({\boldsymbol k}) \,,$$ we can write Eq. in matrix form as $$\label{mat_trafo_P}
\hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_4} [\mathbbmsl U_{\sigma_2 \sigma_1 n_2 n_1}({\boldsymbol s})]^{\dagger} \, \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) \, \mathbbmsl U_{\sigma_3 \sigma_4 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol s}) \,.$$ The converse equation reads $$\hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{n_1, \ldots, n_4} \mathbbmsl U_{\sigma_2 \sigma_1 n_2 n_1}({\boldsymbol s}) \, \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) \, [\mathbbmsl U_{\sigma_3 \sigma_4 n_3 n_4}({\boldsymbol s})]^{\dagger} \,.$$ Similarly, with the matrix $$X^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 n_1 n_2}({\boldsymbol u}) := \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f_{{\boldsymbol R}'}^*({\boldsymbol k}) \, U_{\sigma_1 n_1}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}U^*_{\sigma_2 n_2}({\boldsymbol k} - {\boldsymbol u}) \,,$$ we obtain the transformation laws $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mat_trafo_D}
\hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol u}) & = \sum_{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_4} [\mathbbmsl X_{\sigma_1 \sigma_3 n_1 n_3}({\boldsymbol u})]^\dagger \, \hat{\mathbbmsl C}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol u}) \, \mathbbmsl X_{\sigma_4 \sigma_2 n_4 n_2}({\boldsymbol u}) \,, \\[5pt] \hat{\mathbbmsl D}[V_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}]({\boldsymbol t}) & = \sum_{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_4} [\mathbbmsl X_{\sigma_1 \sigma_4 n_1 n_4}({\boldsymbol t})]^\dagger \, \hat{\mathbbmsl D}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol t}) \, \mathbbmsl X_{\sigma_3 \sigma_2 n_3 n_2}({\boldsymbol t}) \,. \label{mat_trafo_C}\end{aligned}$$ These transformation laws can be used to switch between the band basis and the orbital/spin basis in the TU-fRG scheme.
RGE in orbital basis
--------------------
While in §\[subsec\_deriv\] we have derived the channel-decomposed RGE in the band basis, one can analogously deduce the RGE in the orbital basis (see also [@Schober §III.E]). For example, the exchange propagator in the orbital basis, $$P^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol s}) := \hat P[V^{(P)}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]_{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) \,,$$ fulfills the following RGE: $$\label{RGE_spin}
\dot{\mathbbmsl P}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_4} \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \tau_1 \tau_2}]({\boldsymbol s}) \, \mathbbmsl L^-_{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4}({\boldsymbol s}) \, \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\tau_4 \tau_3 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) \,,$$ where the particle-particle loop in the orbital basis depends on [*four*]{} orbital indices and is given in terms of its counterpart in the band basis, Eq. , by $$\label{loop_orbital}
\mathbbmsl L^-_{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4}({\boldsymbol s}) = \sum_{\ell_1, \ell_2} \mathbbmsl U_{\tau_1 \tau_2 \ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \, \mathbbmsl L^-_{\ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s}) \, [\mathbbmsl U_{\tau_3 \tau_4 \ell_1 \ell_2}({\boldsymbol s})]^\dagger \,.$$ Similarly, one can derive the RGE for the matrices $\mathbbmsl C$ and $\mathbbmsl D$ in the orbital basis.
Discussion {#sec_compare}
----------
We conclude this section by a short comparison between the band basis and the orbital basis, focusing on practical aspects of the numerical implementation. The question which picture to choose arises in systems with more than one site per sublattice in the case of spin-rotational invariance, and even with one site per sublattice if spin-orbit coupling makes the single-particle Hamiltonian non-diagonal in the spins. While SM-fRG works like [@Wang12] use the orbital basis, previous TU-fRG studies like [@David17] and [@David17Coul] were fomulated in the band basis.
On the one hand, the band basis diagonalizes the free Hamiltonian and the free Green function, and therefore the loop terms depend on only two band indices (see the explicit expressions –). By contrast, in the orbital basis the Green function depends on two orbital indices, and correspondingly the loop terms depend on four orbital indices (see Eq. ). As a consequence, the CPU time required for a numerical implementation of the TU-fRG scales considerably with the number of orbitals $n_{\rm o}$ or the number of bands $n_{\rm b}$. Concretely, taking $n_{\rm b}= n_{\rm o}$, if we wish to compute the whole vertex function in the orbital basis, e.g. via Eq. , then we need to (i) calculate all $n_{\rm o}^4$ entries of the exchange propagator matrices, (ii) perform $n_{\rm o}^2$ summations for calculating the loop terms via Eq. , and (iii) perform the $n_{\rm o}^4$ summations on the right-hand side of the RGE . Thus, the CPU time scales as $n_{\rm o}^{10}$, i.e., with the 10th power of the number of orbitals. By contrast, since in the band basis the loop terms are given explicitly by Eqs. –, and since the right-hand sides of the RGE – require only a summation over two band indices, the CPU time scales only as $n_{\rm b}^6$, i.e., with the 6th power of the number of bands.
On the other hand, the initial two-particle vertex is usually given in the orbital basis, where it often has a weak momentum dependence (corresponding to a local interaction in real space). By transforming the vertex into the band basis via Eq. , it will typically acquire a complicated structure in momentum space (corresponding to a potentially complicated non-local form in real space). For the exchange propagators of the TU-fRG, this implies that a form-factor expansion in the orbital basis will lead to much faster convergence than in the band basis. In fact, we will confirm this last observation in the next section, where we will derive analytical expressions for the particle-particle exchange propagator in the Rashba model, both in the orbital basis and in the band basis (see Eqs. and , respectively). It should also be noted that e.g. [@David17Coul] discusses explicitly the convergence issues entailed by the projection of a longer-ranged initial interaction. Furthermore, at least the dominating parts of the bare interaction can usually be understood as a sum of terms with pairwise identical orbital indices. Hence, it may constitute a useful approximation to focus on the renormalization of these terms, which improves the scaling with $n_{\rm o}$.
Application to Rashba model {#sec_appl}
===========================
We consider a general two-band model with the single-particle Hamiltonian given by $$\label{gen_Ham}
H_0({\boldsymbol k}) = f({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}\mathbbm 1 + {\boldsymbol g}({\boldsymbol k}) \cdot {\boldsymbol \sigma} \,,$$ where $f({\boldsymbol k})$ and $g_i({\boldsymbol k})$ ($i = x, y, z$) are real functions, and ${\boldsymbol \sigma} = (\sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z)$ denotes the vector of Pauli matrices. We assume time-reversal symmetry, which implies that $f({\boldsymbol k}) = f(-{\boldsymbol k})$ as well as ${\boldsymbol g}({\boldsymbol k}) = -{\boldsymbol g}(-{\boldsymbol k})$ (see e.g. [@Schober Appendix A.2]). In particular, the Rashba model is recovered from the more general Eq. by setting $$f({\boldsymbol k}) = \hbar^2 |{\boldsymbol k}|^2 / 2 m^* \,, \quad g_x({\boldsymbol k}) = -k_y \,, \quad g_y({\boldsymbol k}) = k_x \,, \quad g_z({\boldsymbol k}) = 0 \,.$$ For this model with a local initial interaction, it turned out [@Schober] that the particle-hole terms are negligible in the RG flow. The remaining particle-particle ladder could be resummed analytically in the spin basis [@Schober §III.E]. Correspondingly, we here neglect the matrix $\mathbbmsl C$ and restrict attention to the remaining RGE for the matrix $$\mathbbmsl P_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol s}) {\hspace{1pt}}= {\hspace{1pt}}\hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(P)}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) {\hspace{1pt}}= {\hspace{1pt}}\hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) - \hat{\mathbbmsl P}[V^{(0)}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}]({\boldsymbol s}) \,.$$ For an initial onsite interaction, $$V^{(0)}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol k}_1, {\boldsymbol k}_2, {\boldsymbol k}_3) = \frac U 2 {\hspace{1pt}}(\delta_{\sigma_1 \sigma_3} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\sigma_2 \sigma_4} - \delta_{\sigma_1 \sigma_4} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\sigma_2 \sigma_3} ) \,,$$ the analytical solution of this RGE reads as follows: $$\label{sol_spin}
P^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}({\boldsymbol s}) = -\frac 1 2 {\hspace{1pt}}\big({\hspace{0.5pt}}g_\Lambda({\boldsymbol s}) + U{\hspace{0.5pt}}\big) \, (\delta_{\sigma_1 \sigma_3} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\sigma_2 \sigma_4} - \delta_{\sigma_1 \sigma_4} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\sigma_2 \sigma_3} ) \, \delta_{{\boldsymbol R}, {\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol 0}} \, \delta_{{\boldsymbol R}'{\hspace{-1pt}}, {\hspace{0.5pt}}{\boldsymbol 0}} \,,$$ with the scale-dependent scalar function $$g_\Lambda({\boldsymbol s}) = -U {\hspace{1pt}}\bigg( 1 + U \int_{\Lambda_0}^{\Lambda} B_{\Lambda'}({\boldsymbol s}) {\hspace{1pt}}{\mathrm{d}}\Lambda' \bigg)^{\!\!-1} \,.$$ Here, we have defined the auxiliary function $$\begin{aligned}
B({\boldsymbol s}) & = \frac 1 2 \sum_{\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_4} (\delta_{\tau_1 \tau_3} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\tau_2 \tau_4} - \delta_{\tau_1 \tau_4} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\tau_2 \tau_3} ) \, [\mathbbmsl L^-_{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4}({\boldsymbol s})]_{{\boldsymbol 0} {\boldsymbol 0}} \\[5pt]
& = \frac 1 2 \sum_{\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_4} (\delta_{\tau_1 \tau_3} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\tau_2 \tau_4} - \delta_{\tau_1 \tau_4} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{\tau_2 \tau_3} ) \, \frac 1 N \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}} L^-_{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4}({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ which coincides with [@Schober Eq. (178)]. Remarkably, the exchange propagator in the spin basis remains local at any scale below the initial scale $\Lambda_0$.
Next, we transform Eq. into the band basis by means of Eq. . Taking advantage of the formula (40) in Ref. [@Schober], we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pinband}
P_{n_1 n_2 n_3 n_4}^{{\boldsymbol R} {\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol s}) & = -\frac 1 8 {\hspace{1pt}}\big({\hspace{0.5pt}}g({\boldsymbol s}) + U{\hspace{0.5pt}}\big) {\hspace{1pt}}\frac 1 {N^2} \sum_{{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol k}'} f_{{\boldsymbol R}}({\boldsymbol k}) {\hspace{1pt}}f^*_{{\boldsymbol R}'}({\boldsymbol k}') {\hspace{1pt}}\Big[ {\hspace{0.5pt}}n_1 n_3 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k})} \\[5pt] \nonumber
& \quad \, + n_2 {\hspace{1pt}}n_4 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k})} - n_1 n_4 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k})} - n_2 {\hspace{1pt}}n_3 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k})} \Big] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi({\boldsymbol k})$ denotes the polar angle of the vector ${\boldsymbol g}({\boldsymbol k})$, and where the band indices $n_i \in \{-, +\}$ label the lower or upper band, respectively (see [@Schober §II]). Further using Eq. , we read off the vertex function in the band basis as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vert_band}
V_{n_1\ldots n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}{\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') & = -\frac 1 8 {\hspace{1pt}}{\hspace{0.5pt}}g({\boldsymbol s}) {\hspace{1pt}}\Big[ {\hspace{0.5pt}}n_1 n_3 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k})} + n_2 {\hspace{1pt}}n_4 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k})} \\[5pt] \nonumber
& \hspace{2.2cm} - n_1 n_4 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k})} - n_2 {\hspace{1pt}}n_3 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol s} - {\boldsymbol k})} \Big] \,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for ${\boldsymbol s} = {\boldsymbol 0}$, this reduces to $$V_{n_1 \ldots n_4}({\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}-{\boldsymbol k}, {\hspace{1pt}}-{\boldsymbol k}') = \frac 1 2 {\hspace{1pt}}{\hspace{0.5pt}}g({\boldsymbol 0}) \, \delta_{n_1 n_2} {\hspace{1pt}}\delta_{n_3 n_4} {\hspace{1pt}}n_1 {\hspace{0.5pt}}n_4 \, {\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k}') - \mathrm i \varphi({\boldsymbol k})} \,,$$ which is again consistent with the results of Ref. [@Schober]. We note that the exchange propagator in the band basis, Eq. , is not local anymore (in contrast to the expression in the orbital basis). Thus, in accordance with the remarks in §\[sec\_compare\], a numerical implementation of the TU-fRG in the band basis would require one to keep track of a large number of form factors.
Finally, the above analytical solution for the Rashba model also gives some insights into the general advantages of the TU-fRG technique. In fact, our expression in the band basis shows a complicated momentum dependence, where for ${\boldsymbol s} \not = {\boldsymbol 0}$ the vertex function does not only depend on the angular variables $\varphi({\boldsymbol k})$ and $\varphi({\boldsymbol k}')$. For reproducing the correct form of the effective interaction in a numerical implementation, it would therefore be necessary to take into account a sufficiently fine mesh of discrete wavevectors over the whole Brillouin zone. This, however, would be computationally demanding for an ordinary Fermi surface patching scheme (where the CPU time scales with the fourth power of the number of patches). By contrast, the TU-fRG scales only linearly with the number of Bloch momenta [@Julian17] and therefore allows for a much higher resolution of the momentum dependencies.
Conclusion and Outlook
======================
We have reviewed the TU-fRG as a flexible and unbiased tool for investigating correlated electron systems, and we have adapted it for application to multiband systems with spin-orbit coupling. In particular, we have defined the single-channel coupling functions and exchange propagators in the general case without SU(2) symmetry. As a consequence of an antisymmetry relation, only two exchange propagators (which correspond to the particle-particle and the crossed particle-hole term) actually need to be considered. Furthermore, we have derived the corresponding flow equations, which are of a particularly simple form (see Eqs. –, and compare them to the corresponding equations in the SU(2)-symmetric case, i.e., [@Julian17 Eqs. (22)–(24)]). In fact, these flow equations are analogous to the corresponding equations in the SM-fRG [@Wang4]. On the right-hand side of the flow equations, projections between the different channels have to be performed, for which we have derived explicit expressions in §\[sec\_proj\]. We have also compared the different formulations of the TU-fRG in the band basis and the orbital basis. Finally, we have analytically solved the channel-decomposed RGE in the particle-particle channel for the Rashba model with a local interaction, whereby we have shown the consistency of this solution with the ladder resummation of Ref. [@Schober].
To put this work into perspective, let us summarize the main advantages of the TU-fRG and outline possible future applications: First, in a numerical implementation the CPU time scales only linearly with the number of discrete Bloch momenta, which allows one to reach an extremely high momentum-space resolution. At the same time, the time-consuming part of calculating the right-hand sides of the flow equations can be parallelized efficiently on a large number of compute nodes [@Julian17]. For these reasons, the TU-fRG may be particularly advantageous in cases where Fermi surface patching with an insufficient momentum resolution influences the leading instability or the form of the effective interaction (see e.g. [@Volpez16]). Furthermore, the speed-up gained from the efficient parallelization can be used to treat complicated multiband systems (for a proof of principle see [@David17]) or long-range interactions, which generally lead to sharp structures in momentum space (see [@David17Coul]). Other possible future directions include the treatment of three-dimensional band structures (where usually, the implementation of Fermi surface patching is numerically too expensive), the investigation of frequency-dependent interaction vertices, or the consideration of self-energy feedback onto the flow of the two-particle vertex. As general advantages of the TU-fRG, we further mention its applicability in wide parameter ranges (in which it complements non-perturbative methods such as lattice QMC), and its unbiasedness with regard to different (and possibly competing) ordering tendencies [@Metzner].
With the present extension of the TU-fRG to non-SU(2)-symmetric systems, we have further enlarged its range of applications to embrace the important class of spin-orbit coupled materials. These include non-centrosymmetric (and possibly topological) superconductors [@Smidman17], Rashba semiconductors [@Ishizaka; @Liebmann16], and Weyl semimetals [@Zyuzdin12]. In particular, the three-dimensional dispersion of Weyl semimetals has hindered so far a direct application of the fRG with Fermi surface patching, whereas their investigation using TU-fRG is feasible and currently underway. Thus, we expect the TU-fRG and its generalization presented here to play an important role in the quantitative description of correlated quantum materials.
Funding {#funding .unnumbered}
=======
This research was supported by the DFG grants HO 2422/10-1, 11-1, and 12-1 and by the DFG RTG 1995.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Christian J. Eckhardt, Julian Lichtenstein, Manfred Salmhofer, David Sánchez de la Peña, Michael M. Scherer and Qianghua Wang for discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a new technique based on fixed-delay interferometry for high throughput, high precision and multi-object Doppler radial velocity (RV) surveys for extra-solar planets. The Doppler measurements are conducted through monitoring the stellar fringe phase shifts of the interferometer instead of absorption line centroid shifts as in state-of-the-art echelle spectroscopy. High Doppler sensitivity is achieved through optimizing the optical delay in the interferometer and reducing photon noise by measuring multiple fringes over a broadband. This broadband operation is performed through coupling the interferometer with a low to medium resolution post-disperser. The resulting fringing spectra over the band pass are recorded on a 2-D detector, with fringes sampled in the slit spatial direction and the spectrum sampled in the dispersion direction. The resulting total Doppler sensitivity is, in theory, independent of dispersing power of the post-disperser, which allows development of new generation RV machines with much reduced size, high stability and low cost compared to echelles. This technique has the potential to improve RV survey efficiency by 2-3 orders of magnitude over cross-dispersed echelle spectroscopy approach to allow a full sky RV survey of hundreds of thousands of stars for planets, brown dwarfs, and stellar companions once the instrument is operated as a multi-object instrument and optimized for high throughput. The simple interferometer response potentially allows this technique to be operated at other wavelengths independent of popular iodine reference sources, being actively used in most of the current echelles for Doppler planet searches, to search for planets around early type stars, white dwarfs, and M, L and T dwarfs for the first time. The high throughput of this instrument could also allow investigation of extra-galactic objects for RV variations at high precision.'
author:
- Jian Ge
title: 'Fixed-delay Interferometry for Doppler Extra-solar Planet Detection'
---
Introduction
============
Interferometer techniques based on variable optical delays have already been proposed for high precision RV measurements (Connes 1985; Fradsen et al. 1993; Douglas 1997), the most recent of which is Holographic Heterodyning Spectroscopy (HHS). To our knowledge, none of these techniques has yet achieved RV precision on a par with cross-dispersed echelle spectroscopy ($\sim$ 3 m/s)(Butler et al. 1996). The fundamental limitation of interferometric techniques is the narrow band pass (e.g. $\sim$ 30 Å) compared to the broadband operation of the echelle ($\sim$ 1000 Å), which provides $\sim$ 6 times higher Doppler error than the echelles at the same spectral resolution.
The narrow band limitation can be overcome by a new kind of interferometer approach based on a fixed optical delay and a post-disperser. Fixed-delay interferometers with narrow band passes have been used in high precision RV measurements in solar astrophysics since 1980’s (Title & Ramsey 1980; Harvey et al. 1995; Kozhevatov e al. 1995; 1996). The best RV precision of $\sim$ 3 m/s has been reported with solar observations (Kozhevatov e al. 1995; 1996). Recent laboratory work with a wide angle Michelson interferometer with a fixed delay and a medium resolution grating post-disperser appears to offer $\sim$ 1 m/s RV precision, similar to the echelle spectroscopy (Erskine & Ge 2000). The first light of a prototype instrument based on this concept at the Hobby-Eberly 9 m and Palomar 5 m telescopes in 2001 demonstrates that $\sim$ 8 m/s RV precision has been achieved with stellar observations (Ge et al. 2001; van Eyken et al. 2001; Ge et al. 2002). Here we present the theoretical principle behind this new RV technique, its performance comparison with the cross-dispersed echelle technique and its new capability for all sky RV surveys for extra-solar planets.
Principle of Fixed-delay Interferometry
=======================================
This new approach is illustrated in Figure 1. The circular incoming beam from a telescope is converted to a rectangular one by cylindrical optics, split into two beams with equal amplitude and fed to an interferometer with a fixed optical delay in one of the arms to form fringes in stellar absorption lines. The uncorrelated fringes over a broadband (white fringes) are separated by a post-disperser and recorded on a 2-D detector array with fringes sampled on the slit spatial direction and the spectrum sampled in the dispersion direction. This post-disperser can be any dispersing device (e.g. grating, prism, grism, Fabry-Perot interferometer). The fringe period in the slit spatial direction is proportional to wavelength. Therefore, fringes over a bandwidth similar to, or larger than, that of the echelles can be properly sampled and measured on a suitable detector array (e.g. CCD), which can help reduce RV measurement noise due to photon statistics.
In this interferometer, high contrast interference fringes are formed when the optical path difference is within the coherence length (Goodman 1984). Parallel fringes are created when the faces of the two interferometer mirrors are slightly tilted with respect to each other. The interference order, $m$, is determined by $$m\lambda =d,$$ where $d$ is the total optical delay, and $\lambda$ is the operating wavelength. Once the delay is fixed, Doppler RV motion will shift the fringes to different orders. The corresponding Doppler velocity shift, $\Delta v$, is $$\Delta v=\frac{c\lambda}{d}\Delta m.$$ The Doppler analysis is performed on the$``$normalized" fringe (i.e., divided by the continuum), which can be represented as a function of velocity $$I=1+\gamma_i sin(2\pi\frac{v}{c\lambda/d}+\phi_0),$$ where $\gamma_i$ is the fringe visibility, and $\phi_0$ is the phase value for the first pixel of the fringe. Along the fringe, the average uncertainty in the velocity from one pixel is $$\sigma_p=<\frac{\epsilon_I}{dI/dv}>\approx\frac{c\lambda}{4d\gamma_i(S/N)},$$ where $\epsilon_I$ is the uncertainty in the residual intensity at the pixel, for a normalized spectrum, $\epsilon_I
=1/(S/N)$, where $(S/N)$ is the signal-to-noise ratio at the pixel, and the average slope over one side of the fringe (half period) of the sinusoidal interferometer response $$<\frac{dI}{dv}>=\frac{4d\gamma_i}{c\lambda}$$ is used. If an interference fringe is sampled by $N_{pix}$ pixels, then the total intrinsic Doppler error under photon noise limits is $$\sigma_{f,i}\approx\frac{c\lambda}{4d\gamma_i\sqrt{F_i}},$$ where $(S/N) =\sqrt{N_{ph}}$ is applied, $N_{ph}$ is the number of photons received by each pixel, and $F_i = N_{pix}N_{ph}$ is the total photon number collected by each fringe. It is clear that the Doppler precision in the interferometer approach is determined by delay, visibility, and total photons collected in each fringe. If we simply assume that each stellar intrinsic absorption line is a Gaussian shape with a FWHM of $\Delta \lambda_i$ and a depth of $D_i$ ($0\leq D_i\leq 1$), then the visibility as a function of optical delay can be derived (Goodman et al. 1984) as $$\gamma_i=D_i e^{-3.56\frac{d^2}{l_c^2}},$$ where $l_c = \lambda^2/\Delta \lambda_i$ is the coherence length of the interferometer beam. A simple derivation shows that $(d\gamma_i)$ reaches a maximum value of $0.23D_il_c$, when $d = 0.37l_c$ as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the minimum intrinsic Doppler error per fringe is $$\sigma_{f,i}\approx\frac{1.1c\lambda}{D_il_c\sqrt{F_i}},$$ This formula indicates that the intrinsic Doppler error for each fringe decreases with increasing coherence length of the light, the flux per fringe and also with increasing absorption line depth. If multiple fringes ($N_i$) over a broadband are used for Doppler RV measurements, then the total Doppler error is $$\sigma_{f,i,t}\approx\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_i}}\frac{1.1c\lambda}{D_il_c\sqrt{F_i}},$$ assuming line depths, widths, and $F_i$ are the same for all fringes. For the multiple fringe measurements, the intrinsic line profiles are convolved with the response of the post-disperser, which affects RV precision. Assuming that the post-disperser response profile is approximately a Gaussian function with a FWHM of $\Delta \lambda_g$, the FWHM of the observed line is $\Delta
\lambda_o \approx \Delta \lambda_g$ if $\Delta \lambda_g >>\Delta
\lambda_i$. The observed absorption line depth is $$D_o\approx \frac{\Delta\lambda_i}{\Delta\lambda_o}D_i.$$ The observed flux within each fringe (or absorption line) is increased to $$F_o\approx \frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i}F_i.$$ The total measured Doppler error per fringe becomes $$\sigma_{f,o}\approx
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i}}\sigma_{f,i}.$$ The Doppler sensitivity for each fringe is decreased due to the use of the post-disperser. However, if the detector dimension in the dispersion direction and the sampling of each resolution element are fixed, then the total number of absorption lines covered by the array, $N_o$, increases to $$N_o\approx \frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i}N_i,$$ if the absorption line density is approximately constant over the wavelength coverage. Therefore, the total Doppler error $$\sigma_{f,o,t}\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_o}}\frac{1.1c\lambda}{D_ol_c\sqrt{F_o}}\approx \sigma_{f,i,t}.$$ is independent of the resolution of the post-disperser, which is significantly different from the echelle approach and offers new possibilities for Doppler planet searches.
In the cross-dispersed echelle spectroscopy, a total measured Doppler error (photon noise error) for a stellar absorption line with an intrinsic FWHM, $\Delta \lambda_i$, and depth, $D_i$, at a spectral resolution of $\Delta \lambda_o$ is described as $$\sigma_{e,o}\approx(\frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i})^{3/2}\frac{c\Delta
\lambda_i}{D_i\lambda\sqrt{F_i}}=
(\frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i})^{3/2}\sigma_{e,i},$$ where $\Delta\lambda_o=\sqrt{\Delta\lambda_e^2+\Delta\lambda_i^2}$, $\Delta \lambda_e$ is the FWMH of the echelle response. For a fixed bandwidth of the echelle, e.g., $\sim$ 1000 Å determined by the bandwidth of iodine absorption in the Visible for calibrations (Butler et al. 1996), the total measured echelle error is $$\sigma_{e,o,t}\approx(\frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i})^{3/2}\sqrt{\frac{N_i}{N_e}}\sigma_{e,i,t}
\approx (\frac{\Delta\lambda_o}{\Delta\lambda_i})^{3/2}\sqrt{\frac{N_i}{N_e}}\sigma_{f,o,t},$$ where the total number of stellar lines covered in this band, $N_e$, is fixed. This indicates that the Doppler error in the echelle approach strongly depends on the echelle resolving power. At typical echelle resolution such as $R \sim$ 60,000 (e.g. Suntzeff et al. 1994; Vogt et al. 1994; D’Odorico et al. 2000), the Doppler error is $\sim$ 1.3 times higher than that in the interferometer approach for the same wavelength coverage and photon flux. Therefore, in order to approach the highest possible Doppler precision, approximately the same as that in the interferometer approach, limited only by the stellar intrinsic line profiles, the spectral resolving power must be much higher than the stellar intrinsic line width, i.e. $\Delta\lambda_e<<\Delta\lambda_i$.
Discussions
===========
The independence of Doppler sensitivity with the post-disperser resolving power in the interferometer approach potentially allows about two to three orders of magnitude improvement in RV survey speed for planets over echelle techniques. The use of low resolution but high efficiency post-dispersers can significantly boost the overall detection efficiency and allow single dispersion order operations for potential multiple object observations. The current echelle instruments are limited to a few percent total detection efficiency, or less; this includes telescope transmission, slit loss, spectrograph and detection loss, due to use of very high resolution echelle and complicated camera optics (Vogt et al. 1994; Suntzeff et al 1996; D’Odorico et al. 2000). An interferometer coupled with a low resolution dispersing instrument potentially offers perhaps $\sim$ 30% detection efficiency, 5-10 times higher than the echelle, thus allowing to extend RV survey depth to fainter objects with fixed size telescope. This high efficiency can be achieved because both of the interferometer and low resolution spectrograph can be optimized for high transmission[^1]. The potential operation of the instrument in a multi-object mode allows simultaneous observations of hundreds of objects in a single exposure with broadband coverage on a large 2-D detector array. Full sky coverage of an RV survey for planets becomes possible with a wide field telescope.
In addition, the simple response function potentially offers lower systematic errors than those echelle approaches. Currently, the systematic errors associated with the echelle instrument response account for about 2 m/s Doppler error largely due to the de-convolution of observed stellar spectra to create star templates (Butler et al. 1996; Valenti 2000). Since this process is not required in this interferometer approach, the systematic error can be well below 2 m/s. Hence, Doppler precision of sub m/s is potentially reachable through increasing photons collected by each fringe and increasing wavelength coverage. We have achieved $\sim$ 8 m/s Doppler precision with star light at the HET with an approximately $\sim$ 140 Å wavelength coverage, a $R = 6700$ post-disperser and a S/N $\sim$ 100 per pixel. This error is consistent with photon-noise limit[^2].
Another exciting possibility with this interferometer technique is to extend RV surveys for planets in wavelengths other than the visible, previously not covered by echelle surveys. Since the interferometer response is simple and stable, there is no need for calibrating instrument response as for the echelle. Instrument wavelength calibrations (or instrument zero velocity drift measurements) can be conducted with reference sources with a lower line density than the iodine used in the echelle. Therefore, this instrument can be easily adapted to other wavelengths for maximizing the photon flux, and number of stellar absorption lines for precision Doppler RV measurements. The candidate stars for this potential survey include late M, L, and T dwarfs, early type B, A stars and white dwarfs. Late M, L and T dwarfs have peak fluxes in the near-IR. For instance, the late M dwarfs have peak flux in the near-IR, at least a factor 10 higher than at the visible (Kirkpatrick et al. 1993; 1999) and since a number of molecular absorption lines are concentrated in this wavelength region, observing time can be significantly reduced if the IR spectra can be used for RV measurements. A and B main sequence stars have very broad intrinsic absorption lines dominated by the Balmer series due to rapid rotation. White dwarfs have very broad intrinsic absorption lines due to pressure broadening. Typical rotation velocity for normal A and B type stars is about 150 km/s, $\sim$ 30 times faster than a typical late type star (Gray 1992; Dravins 1987). Due to the broader intrinsic line profile, the intrinsic Doppler error for these stars increases by $\sim$ 6 times compared to the late type stars. However, with deep Balmer absorption lines over large wavelength coverage of most of the Balmer lines and high signal-to-noise ratio data, it is possible to achieve $\sim$ a few m/s Doppler precision for detecting planets around these stars for the first time.
The author is grateful to David Erskine, Julian van Eyken, Suvrath Mahadevan, Larry Ramsey, Don Schneider, Steinn Sigurdsson, Web Traub, Ron Reynolds, Fred Roesler, Stuart Shaklan, Harvey Moseley, Bruce Woodgate, Roger Angel, Mike Shao, Chas Beichman, Ed Jenkins & Jim Gunn for stimulating discussions on this new instrument concept.
Barden, S.C, Arns, J.A., Colburn, W.S. & Williams, J.B. 2000, PASP. 112, 809 Butler, R.P., Marcy, G.W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., & Vogt, S. S. 1996, PASP, 108, 500 Connes P. 1985, ApSS, 110, 211 D’Odorico, S. et al. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4005, 121 Douglas, N.G. 1997, PASP, 109, 151 4 Dravins, D. 1987, A&A, 172, 200 Erskine & Ge 2000, in Imaging the Universe in Three Dimensions: Astrophysics with Advanced Multi-Wavelength Imaging Devices, (APS series) Edited by W. van Breugel & J. Blland-Hawthorn, 195, 510 10 Frandsen, F., Douglas, N.G., & Butcher, H.R. 1993, A&A, 279, 310 Gray, D.F. 1992, The Observation and analysis of stellar photospheres (Cambridge Astrophysics Series) Ge, J., et al. 2001, BAAS, 199, 3304 11 Ge, J., van Eyken, J., & Mahadevan, S. 2002, to be submitted to ApJ Letters Goodman, J.W. 1984, Statistical Optics (A Wiley-Interscience Publication) Harvey, J. et al. 1995, in Gong’94: Helio- and Astro-Seismology, (APS series), Edited by R.K. Ulrich, E.J. Rhodes, Jr. & W. Däppen, 76, 432 Kirkpatrick, D.J., et al. 1993, ApJ, 402, 643 18 Kirkpatrick, D.J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 802 19 Kozhevatov, I.E., Kulikova, E.Kh. & Cheragin, N.P. 1995, Astronomy Letters, 21, 418 Kozhevatov, I.E., Kulikova, E.H., & Cheragin, N.P. 1996, Solar Physics, 168, 251 Suntzeff, N.B. 1994, PASP, 107, 990 15. Title, A.M., & Ramsey, H.E. 1980, Applied Optics, 19, 2046 Traub, W. 2002 private communications Valenti, J. 2000 private communications Van Eyken, J., et al. 2001, BAAS, 199, 0303 12 Vogt, S.S. et al. 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362
**Figure Captions**
Figure 1. – Principle of a fixed-delay interferometer and a post-disperser. The fringe data was taken with a prototype instrument, called Exoplanet Tracker (ET) and a 1kx1k CCD array, developed at Penn State(Ge et al. 2001; van Eyken et al. 2001). The stellar interference fringes, formed by a Michelson type interferometer with $\sim$ 7 mm optical delay, lie in the horizontal direction and are sampled by $\sim$ 60 pixels. The fringes over different wavelengths are separated by a first order diffraction grating with a resolving power of R $\sim$ 6,000, a factor of ten times lower than typical echelle spectrographs and recorded in the vertical direction of the CCD.
Figure 2. – Product of delay and fringe visibility vs. delay in the interferometer for a gaussian shaped profile. The maximum for $d\gamma = 0.23D_il_c$ is at $d=0.37l_c$. The optimal value for delay depends on shape of the stellar line profile.
[^1]: For instance, a Michelson type interferometer with corner cube mirrors can feed both interferometer outputs to the detector at $\sim$ 90% efficiency (Traub 2002). A low resolution spectrograph using a volume phase grating can potentially reach $\sim$ 70% transmission (Barden et al. 2000). Together with the telescope transmission ($\sim$ 80%), fiber-feed transmission ($\sim$ 70%) and detector quantum efficiency ($\sim$ 90%), the total detection efficiency can reach $\sim$ 30%. Details about the total transmission budget will be discussed in a follow-up paper (Ge et al, 2002)
[^2]: The reason that we were not able to reach higher precision is that the calibration error from using iodine reference is $\sim$ 7 m/s, dominating the total measurement error. At $R \sim$ 6700, mean fringe visibility for iodine absorption lines are too low ($\sim$ 2.5%) compared to that for stellar absorption lines ($\sim$ 7%). In the future, a calibration source with much higher fringe visibility will replace the iodine for achieving sub m/s. Details on new calibration techniques will be reported in the follow-up paper (Ge et al. 2002)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Microscopic RPA calculations based on the cranked shell model are performed to investigate the quadrupole and octupole correlations for excited superdeformed bands in [$^{190}$Hg]{}, [$^{192}$Hg]{}, and [$^{194}$Hg]{}. The $K=2$ octupole vibrations are predicted to be the lowest excitation modes at zero rotational frequency. At finite frequency, however, the interplay between rotation and vibrations produces different effects depending on neutron number: The lowest octupole phonon is rotationally aligned in [$^{190}$Hg]{}, is crossed by the aligned two-quasiparticle bands in [$^{192}$Hg]{}, and retains the $K=2$ octupole vibrational character up to the highest frequency in [$^{194}$Hg]{}. The $\gamma$ vibrations are predicted to be higher in energy and less collective than the octupole vibrations. From a comparison with the experimental dynamic moments of inertia, a new interpretation of the observed excited bands invoking the $K=2$ octupole vibrations is proposed, which suggests those octupole vibrations may be prevalent in SD Hg nuclei.'
address:
- 'AECL, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario K0J 1J0, Canada'
- 'Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606–01, Japan'
- ' Department of Mathematical Physics, Lund Institute of Technology, Box 118, S-22100, Lund, Sweden'
- ' Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812, Japan'
author:
- 'Takashi Nakatsukasa[^1]'
- Kenichi Matsuyanagi
- Shoujirou Mizutori
- 'Yoshifumi R. Shimizu'
title: |
Microscopic Structure of High-Spin Vibrational Excitations\
in Superdeformed $^{190,192,194}$Hg
---
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
Theoretical and experimental studies of collective vibrational states built on the superdeformed (SD) yrast band are open topics of interest in the field of high-spin nuclear structure. Since the large deformation and rapid rotation of SD bands may produce a novel shell structure, we expect that surface vibrations will exhibit quite different features from those found in spherical and normal-deformed nuclei. According to our previous work[@MSM90; @NMM92; @NMM93; @Miz93; @Nak95], low-lying octupole vibrations are more important than quadrupole vibrations when the nuclear shape is superdeformed. Strong octupole correlations in SD states have been also suggested theoretically in Refs.[@DWS90; @Abe90; @HA90; @Bon91; @LDR91; @ND92; @Ska92; @Ska93]. Experimentally, octupole correlations in SD states have been suggested for $^{152}$Dy[@Dag95], $^{193}$Hg[@Cul90] and $^{190}$Hg[@Cro94; @Cro95]. We have reported theoretical calculations corresponding to these data for $^{193}$Hg[@NMM93] and $^{152}$Dy[@Nak95]. In this paper, we discuss the quadrupole and octupole correlations for [$^{190}$Hg]{} (which have been partially reported in Refs.[@Cro95; @Wil95; @Nak95_2]) and for the neighboring SD nuclei $^{192,194}$Hg.
We have predicted the low-lying $K=2$ octupole vibrations for SD Hg isotopes $^{190,192,194}$Hg ($E_x\sim 1$MeV)[@NMM93; @Miz93]. These predictions differ from the results of generator-coordinate-method (GCM) calculations[@Ska93] in which the $K=0$ octupole state is predicted to be the lowest in SD [$^{192}$Hg]{} and the excitation energies are significantly higher ($E_x\sim 2$MeV) than in our predictions. Experimentally [@Cro95], the routhians of the lowest octupole state decrease with the rotational frequency, for example from $E'_x\approx 0.7$MeV to 0.3MeV as $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}$ goes from 0.25 to 0.35MeV, therefore to compare the theoretical routhians directly with the experimental ones, we need to calculate them at finite rotational frequency. For this purpose, the cranked shell model extended by the random-phase approximation (RPA) provides us with a powerful tool to investigate collective excitations at high angular momentum.
A great advantage of this model is its ability to take into account effects of the Coriolis coupling on the collective vibrational motions in a rapidly rotating system. Since in the normal-deformed nuclei it is known that Coriolis coupling effects are important even for the $3^-$ octupole states[@NV70], one may expect strong Coriolis mixing for high-spin octupole states built on the SD yrast band. On the other hand, our previous calculations suggested weak Coriolis mixing for the lowest octupole state in [$^{192}$Hg]{}[@NMM93] and $^{152}$Dy[@Nak95]. This may be because the angular momentum of the octupole phonon is strongly coupled to the symmetry axis due to the large deformation of the SD shape. Generally speaking, Coriolis mixing is expected to occur more easily in nuclei with smaller deformation. However this expectation may not hold for octupole bands in all SD nuclei because Coriolis mixing depends on the shell structure. In this paper we find a significant difference in the Coriolis mixing between an octupole band in [$^{190}$Hg]{} and the other bands.
Another advantage of this model is that it gives us a unified microscopic description of collective states, weakly-collective states, and non-collective two-quasiparticle excitations. A transition of the octupole vibrations into aligned two-quasiparticle bands at high-spin in normal-deformed nuclei has been predicted by Vogel[@Vog76]. In Ref.[@Nak95_2], this transition is discussed in the context of experimental data on rare-earth and actinide nuclei, and a damping of octupole collectivity at high spin was suggested. Since similar phenomena may happen to octupole vibrations in SD states, it is important that our model describes the interplay between collective and non-collective excitations.
Recent experimental studies reveal a number of interesting features of excited SD bands in even-even Hg isotopes. In [$^{190}$Hg]{}, almost constant dynamic moments of inertia ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ have been observed by Crowell et al.[@Cro94]. Ref.[@Cro95] has established the relative excitation energy of this band and confirmed the dipole character of the decay transitions into the yrast SD band. This band has been interpreted as an octupole vibrational band. Two more excited bands in [$^{190}$Hg]{} have been observed recently by Wilson et al.[@Wil95], one of which shows a sharp rise of ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ at low frequency. In [$^{192}$Hg]{}, Fallon et al.[@Fal95] have reported two excited bands which exhibit peaks in ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ at high frequency. In contrast with these atypical ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ behaviors, two excited bands in [$^{194}$Hg]{} originally observed by Riley et al.[@Ril90] and extended by Cederwall et al.[@Ced95] show a smooth increase with rotational frequency. We show in this paper that this ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ behavior can be explained with a single theoretical model which microscopically takes into account shape vibrations and the Coriolis force.
The purpose of this paper is to present the RPA method based on the cranked shell model and its ability to describe a variety of nuclear properties including shape vibration at large deformation and high spin. We propose a plausible interpretation for the microscopic structure of excited SD bands in $^{190,192,194}$Hg, and show that octupole bands may be more prevalent than expected in these SD nuclei. Section \[sec: model\] presents a description of the model, in which we stress our improvements to the cranked Nilsson potential and to the coupled RPA method in a rotating system. Section \[sec: detail\] presents details of the calculation in which the pairing and effective interactions are discussed. The results for the excited SD [$^{190}$Hg]{}, [$^{192}$Hg]{}, and [$^{194}$Hg]{}are presented in section \[sec: results\], and compared with the experimental data in section \[sec: comparison\]. The conclusions are summarized in section \[sec: conclusion\].
Theoretical framework {#sec: model}
=====================
The theory of the cranked shell model extended by the random-phase approximation (RPA) was first developed by Marshalek[@Mar75] and has been applied to high-spin $\beta$ and $\gamma$ vibrational bands[@EMR80; @SM83; @SM95] and to octupole bands[@RER86; @MSM90; @NMM92; @NMM93; @Miz93; @Nak95]. Since this theory is suitable for describing the collective vibrations built on deformed high-spin states, it is very useful for investigating vibrational motion built on the SD yrast band.
The cranked Nilsson potential with the local Galilean invariance
----------------------------------------------------------------
We start with a rotating mean field with a rotational frequency ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$ described by $$\label{sp-potential}
h_{\rm s.p.}=h_{\rm Nilsson}
+ \Gamma_{\rm pair} - {\omega_{\rm rot}}J_x \ + h_{\rm add},$$ where $h_{\rm Nilsson}$ is a standard Nilsson potential defined in single-stretched coordinates, $r'_i=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_i}{\omega_0}} r_i$ and $p'_i=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_i}} p_i$ ($i=x,y,z$), $$\label{Nilsson}
h_{\rm Nilsson}=\left( \frac{\omega_i}{\omega_0} \right)
\left( \frac{{{\bf p}'}^2}{2M}
+\frac{M\omega_0^2}{2} {{\bf r}'}^2 \right)
+v_{ll}\left({{\bf l}'}^2
-\langle {{\bf l}'}^2 \rangle_N\right)
+v_{ls}{\bf l}'\cdot {\bf s} \ ,$$ where ${\bf l}'={\bf r}'\times {\bf p}'$. The pairing field $\Gamma_{\rm pair}$ is defined by $$\label{pair-field}
\Gamma_{\rm pair} = -\sum_{\tau=n,p}\Delta_\tau
\left(P_\tau^\dagger + P_\tau\right) -\sum_{\tau=n,p} \lambda_\tau N_\tau
\ ,$$ where $P_\tau = \sum_{k\in\tau,k>0} c_{\bar{k}} c_k$ and $N_\tau=\sum_{k\in\tau} c_k^\dagger c_k$ are the monopole-pairing and number operators, respectively. In section \[sec: detail-MF\], we discuss the details of the pairing field used in the calculations.
A standard cranked Nilsson potential has the disadvantage that it overestimates the moments of inertia compared to a Woods-Saxon potential. This problem comes from the spurious velocity-dependence associated with the ${\bf l^2}$-term in the Nilsson potential which is absent for Woods-Saxon. If the mean-field potential is velocity independent, the local velocity distribution in the rotating nucleus remains isotropic in velocity space, which means that the flow pattern becomes the same as for a rigid-body rotation[@BM75]. However, in the cranked Nilsson potential, this isotropy of the velocity distribution is significantly broken due to the ${\bf l^2}$-term. Thus the Coriolis force introduces a spurious flow in the rotating coordinate system, proportional to the rotational frequency. This spurious effect can be compensated by an additional term that restores the local Galilean invariance. This additional term is obtained by substituting (the local Galilean transformation) $${\bf p} \longrightarrow
{\bf p}-M\left(\mbox{\boldmath ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$}\times {\bf r}\right)\ ,$$ in the ${\bf ls}$- and ${\bf l^2}$-terms of the Nilsson potential. This prescription was suggested by Bohr and Mottelson[@BM75], and developed by Kinouchi and Kishimoto[@Kin88]. For a momentum-dependent potential $V({\bf r},{\bf p})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V({\bf r},{\bf p}) + h_{\rm add} &=&
V\left({\bf r},{\bf p}
-M\left(\mbox{\boldmath ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$}\times {\bf r}\right)\right) \ ,\\
&\approx& V({\bf r},{\bf p}) - {\omega_{\rm rot}}M \left( y \frac{\partial}{\partial p_z}
- z \frac{\partial}{\partial p_y}\right) V({\bf r},{\bf p})\ ,\\
&=& V({\bf r},{\bf p}) + \frac{i}{\hbar} {\omega_{\rm rot}}M \left( y \left[ z,V\right]
- z \left[ y,V\right] \right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we assume uniform rotation around the $x$-axis, $\mbox{\boldmath ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$}=({\omega_{\rm rot}},0,0)$. Following this prescription, the additional term $h_{\rm add}$ in eq.(\[sp-potential\]) is obtained for the Nilsson potential (\[Nilsson\]), $$\label{additional-term}
h_{\rm add}=-\frac{{\omega_{\rm rot}}}{\sqrt{\omega_y\omega_z}}\left\{
v_{ll} \left(2M\omega_0 {{\bf r}'}^2
- \hbar\left(N_{\rm osc}+\frac{3}{2} \right)\right) l'_x
+v_{ls}M\omega_0\left({{\bf r}'}^2 s_x
- r'_x \left({\bf r}'\cdot {\bf s}\right)\right)\right\} \ .$$ Note that the term proportional to $\left( N_{\rm osc}+\frac{3}{2} \right)$ in eq.(\[additional-term\]) comes from the velocity-dependence of $\langle {{\bf l}'}^2 \rangle_N$ in eq.(\[Nilsson\]). This result, eq.(\[additional-term\]), has been applied to the SD bands in $^{152}$Dy [@Nak95] where the single-particle routhians were found to be very similar to those obtained by using the Woods-Saxon potential. In Fig. \[dy152\_J\], moments of inertia for SD $^{152}$Dy calculated with and without the additional term (\[additional-term\]) are displayed. Since the effects of the mixing among the major oscillator shells $N_{\rm osc}$ are neglected in calculating our routhians, kinematic (${{\cal J}^{(1)}}$) and dynamic (${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$) moments of inertia are obtained by adding the contributions of the $N_{\rm osc}$-mixing effects to the values calculated without them: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\cal J}^{(1)}}&=&
\frac{\langle J_x \rangle}{{\omega_{\rm rot}}} + {\it\Delta}{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis} \ ,\\
{{\cal J}^{(2)}}&=&
\frac{d\langle J_x \rangle}{d{\omega_{\rm rot}}} + {\it\Delta}{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis} \ ,\\
{\it\Delta}{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis} &=&
{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis}-{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis}^{{\it\Delta}N=0}
= 2 \sum_{n({\it\Delta}N=2)}
\frac{|{\langle n |}J_x {| 0 \rangle}|^2}{E_n-E_0} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\it\Delta}{\cal J}_{\rm Inglis}$ is difference between the Inglis moments of inertia with and without the ${\it\Delta}N_{\rm osc}=2$ contributions[@SVB90]. The ${{\cal J}^{(1)}}$ and ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ values calculated with the additional term are very close to the rigid-body value at low frequency, which means that the spurious effects of the ${\bf l}^2$-term have been removed. Note that the abscissa of Fig. \[dy152\_J\] corresponds to the “bare” rotational frequency without renormalization. The drastic reduction of ${{\cal J}^{(1)}}$ and ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ at high frequency is corrected by the additional term, and this is seen to be important in reproducing the experimental ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$-behavior of the yrast SD band.
The RPA in the rotating frame
-----------------------------
The residual interactions are assumed to be in a separable form, $$H_{\rm int} = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\rho,\alpha}
\chi_\rho R_\rho^\alpha R_\rho^\alpha \ ,
\label{residual-int}$$ where $R_\rho^\alpha$ are one-body Hermitian operators, and $\chi_\rho$ are coupling strengths. The indices $\alpha$ indicate the signature quantum numbers ($\alpha=0,1$) and $\rho$ specifies other modes. In this paper, we take as $R_\rho^\alpha$ the monopole pairing and the quadrupole operators for positive-parity states, and the octupole and the isovector dipole operators for negative-parity states (see eq.(\[operator\_R\])). Since the $K$-quantum number is not conserved at finite rotational frequency, it is more convenient to make the multipole operators have good signature quantum numbers. In general, the Hermitian multipole (spin-independent) operators with good signature quantum numbers are constructed by $$Q_{\lambda K}^\alpha =
\frac{i^{\lambda+\alpha+K}}{\sqrt{2(1+\delta_{K0})}}
\left( r^\lambda Y_{\lambda K}
+ (-)^{\lambda+\alpha} r^\lambda Y_{\lambda -K} \right) \quad\quad
(K\ge 0)
\label{multipole-op}$$ where the spherical-harmonic functions $Y_{\lambda K}$ are defined with respect to the symmetry ($z$-) axis. All multipole operators are defined in doubly-stretched coordinates, ($r^{''}_i=\frac{\omega_i}{\omega_0} r_i$), which can be regarded as an improved version of the conventional multipole interaction. Sakamoto and Kishimoto[@SK89] have shown that at the limit of the harmonic-oscillator potential (at ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$), it guarantees nuclear self-consistency[@BM75], restoration of the symmetry broken in the mean field, and separation of the spurious solutions. The coupling strengths $\chi_\rho$ should be determined by the self-consistency condition between the density distribution and the single-particle potential (see section \[sec: detail-RPA\] for details).
To describe vibrational excitations in the RPA theory, we must define the [*quasiparticle vacuum*]{} on which the vibrations are built. The observed moments of inertia ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ of the yrast SD bands smoothly increase in the A=190 region, which suggests that the internal structure also smoothly changes as a function of the frequency ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$. Therefore the [*adiabatic representation*]{}, in which the quasiparticle operators are always defined with respect to the yrast state ${| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle}$, is considered to be appropriate in this work.
In terms of quasiparticles, the Hamiltonian of eq.(\[sp-potential\]) can be diagonalized (by the general Bogoliubov transformation) as $$h_{\rm s.p.}=\mbox{const.}
+ \sum_\mu \left( E_\mu a_\mu^\dagger a_\mu \right)
+ \sum_{\bar\mu} \left( E_{\bar\mu} a_{\bar\mu}^\dagger a_{\bar\mu}
\right) \ ,$$ with $$a_\mu {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle} = a_{\bar\mu} {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle} = 0 \ ,$$ where ($a_\mu^\dagger, a_{\bar\mu}^\dagger$) represent the quasiparticles with signature $\alpha=(1/2,-1/2)$, respectively. The excitation operators of the RPA normal modes ${X_n^\alpha}^\dagger$ ($\alpha=0,1$) are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{X_n^0}^\dagger &=& \sum_{\mu\bar\nu} \left\{
\psi_n^0(\mu\bar\nu) a_\mu^\dagger a_{\bar\nu}^\dagger
+\varphi_n^0(\mu\bar\nu) a_{\bar\nu} a_\mu \right\} \ ,\\
\label{normal-mode-0}
{X_n^1}^\dagger &=& \sum_{\mu < \nu} \left\{
\psi_n^1(\mu\nu) a_\mu^\dagger a_\nu^\dagger
+\varphi_n^1(\mu\nu) a_\nu a_\mu \right\}
+\sum_{\bar{\mu} < \bar{\nu}} \left\{
\psi_n^1(\bar{\mu}\bar{\nu}) a_{\bar\mu}^\dagger a_{\bar\nu}^\dagger
+\varphi_n^1(\bar{\mu}\bar{\nu}) a_{\bar\nu} a_{\bar\mu} \right\} \ ,
\label{normal-mode-1}\end{aligned}$$ where indices $n$ specify excited states and $\psi_n^\alpha(\mu\nu)$ ($\varphi_n^\alpha(\mu\nu)$) are the RPA forward (backward) amplitudes. Quasiparticle-scattering terms such as $a_\mu^\dagger a_\nu$ are regarded as higher-order terms in the boson-expansion theory and are neglected in the RPA[^2].
The equation of motion and the normalization condition in the RPA theory, $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ h_{\rm s.p.}+H_{\rm int}, {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger
\right]_{\rm RPA} &=& \hbar\Omega_n^\alpha {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger \ ,
\label{RPA-eom}\\
\left[ X_n^\alpha, {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger \right]_{\rm RPA} &=&
\delta_{nn'} \ ,
\label{RPA-norm}\end{aligned}$$ are solved with the following multi-dimensional response functions: $$S_{\rho\rho'}^\alpha (\Omega) =
\sum_{\gamma\delta} \left\{
\frac{{R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta)}^* R_{\rho'}^\alpha(\gamma\delta)}
{E_\gamma+E_\delta-\hbar\Omega}
+\frac{R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta) {R_{\rho'}^\alpha(\gamma\delta)}^*}
{E_\gamma+E_\delta+\hbar\Omega}
\right\} \ ,$$ where $(\gamma\delta)=(\mu\bar\nu)$ for $\alpha=0$ states, and $(\gamma\delta)=(\mu<\nu),(\bar\mu<\bar\nu)$ for $\alpha=1$ states. The two-quasiparticle matrix elements $R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta)$ are defined by $R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta)\equiv{\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|}a_\delta a_\gamma
R_\rho^\alpha {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle}$. Let us denote the transition matrix elements between the RPA excited states ${| n \rangle}$ and the yrast state as $$t_\rho^\alpha (n) \equiv t_n\left[ R_\rho^\alpha \right]
\equiv {\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|} R_\rho^\alpha {| n \rangle}
= {\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|} \left[ R_\rho^\alpha, {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger \right] {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle}
= \left[ R_\rho^\alpha, {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger \right]_{\rm RPA} \ .$$ Then, the equation of motion (\[RPA-eom\]) is equivalent to $$t_\rho^\alpha (n) = \sum_{\rho'} \chi_\rho^\alpha
S_{\rho\rho'}^\alpha(\Omega) t_{\rho'}^\alpha (n) \ .
\label{RPA-eq}$$ RPA solutions (eigen-energies) $\hbar\Omega_n$ are obtained by solving the equation, $$\det \left( S_{\rho\rho'}^\alpha (\Omega) -
\frac{1}{\chi_\rho}\delta_{\rho\rho'} \right) = 0\ ,
\label{RPA_dispersion_eq}$$ which corresponds to the condition that eq.(\[RPA-eq\]) has a non-trivial solution ($t_\rho^\alpha (n)\neq 0$). Each RPA eigenstate is characterized by the corresponding forward and backward amplitudes which are calculated as $$\psi_n^\alpha(\gamma\delta)
= \frac{\sum_\rho \chi_\rho^\alpha t_\rho^\alpha (n)
R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta)}
{E_\gamma + E_{\delta} -\hbar\Omega_n}\ ,\quad
\varphi_n^\alpha(\gamma\delta)
= \frac{-\sum_\rho \chi_\rho^\alpha t_\rho^\alpha (n)
{R_\rho^\alpha(\gamma\delta)}^*}
{E_\gamma + E_\delta +\hbar\Omega_n}\ ,$$ and satisfies the normalization condition (\[RPA-norm\]). The transition matrix elements ${\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|} Q {| n \rangle}$ of any one-body operator $Q$ can be expressed in terms of these amplitudes $\psi_n$ and $\varphi_n$. $$\begin{aligned}
t_n\left[ Q \right] &\equiv& {\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|} Q {| n \rangle} \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\gamma\delta}\left\{
{Q(\gamma\delta)}^* \psi_n(\gamma\delta)
- Q(\gamma\delta) \varphi_n(\gamma\delta) \right\} \ .
\label{Q-amplitude}\end{aligned}$$ The phase relation between the matrix elements $Q(\gamma\delta)$ and the amplitudes ($\psi_n(\gamma\delta),\varphi_n(\gamma\delta)$) is very important, because it determines whether the transition matrix element $t_n\left[ Q \right]$ is coherently enhanced or canceled out after the summation in eq.(\[Q-amplitude\]). For instance, a collective quadrupole vibrational state has a favorable phase relation for the quadrupole operators. Therefore, it gives large matrix elements for the $E2$ operators, while for the M1 operators, the contributions are normally canceled out after the summation.
Finally we obtain a diagonal form of the total Hamiltonian in the rotating frame by means of the RPA theory, $$H' = h_{\rm s.p.} + H_{\rm int}
\approx \mbox{const.}
+ \sum_{n,\alpha}
\hbar\Omega_n^\alpha {X_n^\alpha}^\dagger X_n^\alpha \ .$$ It is worth noting that since the effect of the cranking term on the quasiparticles depends on rotational frequency, the effects of Coriolis coupling on the RPA eigenstates are automatically taken into account.
Details of calculations {#sec: detail}
=======================
The mean-field parameters and the improved quasiparticle routhians {#sec: detail-MF}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We adopt standard values for the parameters $v_{ll}$ and $v_{ls}$[@BR85] and use different values of the oscillator frequency $\omega_0$ for neutrons and protons in the Nilsson potential (\[Nilsson\]) in order to ensure equal root-mean-square radii[@BK68]. $$\label{oscillator_frequency}
\omega_0 \longrightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2N}{A}\right)^{1/3} \omega_0\ ,
& \mbox{for neutrons} \ ,\\
\left(\frac{2Z}{A}\right)^{1/3} \omega_0\ ,
& \mbox{for protons} \ ,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\hbar\omega_0=41A^{-1/3}$MeV.
The quadrupole deformation $\epsilon$ is determined by minimizing the total routhian surface (TRS), and the strength for the monopole pairing interaction $G$ is taken from the prescription of Ref.[@Bra72] with the average pairing gap $\tilde\Delta = 12A^{-1/2}$MeV and the cut-off parameter of the pairing model space $\Lambda = 1.2\hbar\omega_0$. In principle the pairing gaps ($\Delta_n,\Delta_p$) and the chemical potentials ($\lambda_n,\lambda_p$) should be calculated self-consistently satisfying the usual BCS conditions at each rotational frequency: $$\begin{aligned}
G_\tau {\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|}P_\tau {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle} &=& \Delta_\tau\ ,
\label{gap_equation}\\
{\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|} N_\tau {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle} &=& N (Z) \quad\mbox{ for } \tau=n(p)\ .
\label{number_equation}\end{aligned}$$ However, the mean-field treatment of the pairing interaction predicts a sudden collapse of the proton pairing gap at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx0.3\mbox{MeV}$ and of the neutron gap at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx0.5\mbox{MeV}$. This transition causes a singular behavior in the moments of inertia which is inconsistent with experimental observations. It arises from the poor treatment of number conservation, and such sudden transitions should not occur in a finite system like the nucleus. In this paper we have therefore adopted the following phenomenological prescription for the pairing correlations at finite frequency[@Wys90]: $$\label{phenom_pairing}
\Delta_\tau(\omega) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta_\tau(0) \left(1-\frac{1}{2}
\left( \frac{\omega}{\omega_c} \right)^2\right),
& \mbox{for }\omega < \omega_c, \\
\frac{1}{2}\Delta_\tau({0})
\left( \frac{\omega_c}{\omega} \right)^2,
& \mbox{for }\omega > \omega_c,
\end{array}
\right.\ .$$ The chemical potentials are calculated with eq.(\[number\_equation\]) at each rotational frequency. The parameters $\Delta(0)=0.8$ (0.6) MeV and $\hbar\omega_c=0.5$ (0.3) MeV for neutrons (protons) are used in common for $^{190,192,194}$Hg.
The quadrupole deformation $\epsilon=0.44$ is used in the calculations. For simplicity, we assume the deformation to be constant with rotational frequency, and neglect hexadecapole deformation. The equilibrium deformation and pairing gaps have been determined at ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$, with the truncated pairing model space $\Lambda=1.2\hbar\omega_0$. Then, the pairing force strengths $G_\tau$ are adjusted so as to reproduce the pairing gap of eq.(\[phenom\_pairing\]) in the whole model space.
The experiments[@Cro94; @Cro95] have reported a sharp rise of ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ moments of inertia for the yrast SD band in [$^{190}$Hg]{}at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.4 \mbox{MeV}$. This rise was reproduced in the cranked Woods-Saxon calculations[@Dri91] and results from a crossing between the yrast band and the aligned $\nu(j_{15/2})^2$ band, however, the predicted crossing frequency was lower ($\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.3\mbox{MeV}$) than in the experiment. Our Nilsson potential without the additional term (\[additional-term\]) indicates the same disagreement. In order to demonstrate the effects of the term $h_{\rm add}$ on the routhians, we present in Fig. \[hg190\_routh\_comp\] the quasiparticle routhians for [$^{190}$Hg]{} with $h_{\rm add}$, without $h_{\rm add}$, and for the standard Woods-Saxon potential ($\beta_2=0.465$, $\beta_4=0.055$). By including, $h_{\rm add}$, the correct frequency is reproduced. This term affects the proton routhians: for example, the alignment of the intruder $\pi j_{15/2} (\alpha=-1/2)$ orbit is predicted to be $i\approx 6.5\hbar$ without $h_{\rm add}$ and this orbit becomes the lowest at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\geq 0.37\mbox{MeV}$. The alignment is significantly reduced ($i\approx 4\hbar$) with $h_{\rm add}$. The behavior of high-$N$ intruder orbits in the proton routhians are similar to those in the Woods-Saxon potential. It is worth noting that the conventional renormalization in the Nilsson potential scales the rotational frequency for all orbits, while eq.(\[additional-term\]) renormalizes alignment in a different way depending on the spurious effect on each orbit.
The residual interactions and the RPA {#sec: detail-RPA}
-------------------------------------
We adopt the following operators as $R_\rho^\alpha$ in the residual interactions (\[residual-int\]). $$\label{operator_R}
\begin{array}{lllllll}
P_+ & P_- & Q_{20}^0 & Q_{21}^\alpha & Q_{22}^\alpha & &
\mbox{for positive-parity states}\ ,\\
Q_{30}^1 & Q_{31}^\alpha & Q_{32}^\alpha & Q_{33}^\alpha
& \tilde\tau_3 Q_{10}^1 & \tilde\tau_3 Q_{11}^\alpha
& \mbox{for negative-parity states}\ ,
\end{array}$$ where $\tilde\tau_3 = \tau_3 -(N-Z)/A$ which is needed to guarantee the translational invariance. Here, the operators $Q_{\lambda K}^\alpha$ are defined by eq.(\[multipole-op\]) in the doubly-stretched coordinates, and $P_\pm$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
P_+ &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{P} + \tilde{P^\dagger}\right)\ ,\\
P_- &=& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{P} - \tilde{P^\dagger}\right)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{P}=P-{\langle {\omega_{\rm rot}}|}P{| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle}$. Note that the $K=0$ quadrupole (octupole) operator $Q_{20}$ ($Q_{30}$) has a unique signature $\alpha=0$ ($\alpha=1$), which corresponds to the fact that $K=0$ bands have no signature partners.
Since we use the different oscillator frequency $\omega_0$ for neutrons and protons in the Nilsson potential (see eq.(\[oscillator\_frequency\])), we use the following modified doubly-stretched multipole operators for the isoscalar channels: $$Q_{\lambda K}^\alpha \longrightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2N}{A}\right)^{2/3} Q_{\lambda K}^\alpha\ ,
& \mbox{for neutrons}\ ,\\
\left(\frac{2Z}{A}\right)^{2/3} Q_{\lambda K}^\alpha\ ,
& \mbox{for protons}\ .
\end{array}
\right.$$ This was originally proposed by Baranger and Kumar[@BK68] for quadrupole operators. Recently Sakamoto[@Sak93] has generalized it for an arbitrary multipole operator and proved that by means of this scaling the translational symmetry is restored in the limit of the harmonic-oscillator potential. In addition, for the collective RPA solutions this treatment makes the transition amplitudes of the electric operators approximately $Z/A$ of those of the mass operators, in the same way as in the case of the static quadrupole moments[@SM95].
We use the pairing force strengths $G_\tau$ reproducing the pairing gaps of eq.(\[phenom\_pairing\]). For the isovector dipole coupling strengths, we adopt the standard values in Ref.[@BM75], $$\chi_{1K}=-\frac{\pi V_1}{A\langle (r^2)^{''} \rangle_0}\ ,$$ with $A\langle (r^2)^{''} \rangle_0 = \langle \sum_k^A (r_k^2)^{''} \rangle_0$ and $V_1 = 130$MeV. The self-consistent values for the coupling strengths $\chi_{\lambda K}$ of the isoscalar quadrupole and octupole interactions can be obtained for the case of the anisotropic harmonic-oscillator potential[@SK89; @Sak93]: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{2K}^{\rm HO} &=&
\frac{4\pi M\omega_0^2}{5A\langle(r^2)^{''}\rangle}\ ,\\
\chi_{3K}^{\rm HO} &=&
{4\pi \over 7} M\omega^2_0
\biggl\{A\langle (r^4)^{''}
\rangle +
{2 \over 7}(4 - K^2) A\langle (r^4P_2)^{''}\rangle \nonumber\\
&+& {1 \over 84}(K^2(7K^2 - 67) + 72) A\langle (r^4P_4)^{''}
\rangle \biggr\}^{-1}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$A\langle (r^n P_\l )\rangle \equiv \left(\frac{2N}{A}\right)^{2/3}
\langle \sum_k^N (r_k)^n P_\l \rangle_0
+ \left(\frac{2Z}{A}\right)^{2/3}
\langle \sum_k^Z (r_k)^n P_\l \rangle_0\ .$$
A large model space has been used for solving the coupled RPA equations, including seven major shells with $N_{\rm osc}=3\sim 9$ $(2\sim 8)$ for neutrons (protons) in the calculations of positive-parity states, and nine major shells with $N_{\rm osc}=2\sim 10$ $(1\sim 9)$ for the negative-parity states. The mesh of the rotational frequency for the calculations has been chosen as ${\it\Delta}\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}=0.01 \mbox{MeV}$ which is enough to discuss the properties of band crossing and Coriolis couplings.
Since our mean-field potential is not the simple harmonic oscillator, we use scaling factors $f_\lambda$ as $$\chi_{\lambda K} = f_\lambda \cdot \chi_{\lambda K}^{\rm HO}\ ,
\label{coupling-strength}$$ for the isoscalar interactions with $\lambda=2$ and 3. These factors are determined by the theoretical and experimental requirements: As for the octupole interactions, we have the experimental routhians for the lowest octupole vibrational state in SD [$^{190}$Hg]{}[@Cro95]. We assume the common factor $f_3$ for all $K$-values and fix it so as to reproduce these experimental data. In this case $f_3=1$ can nicely reproduce the experimental routhians[^3], and we use the same value for [$^{192}$Hg]{} and [$^{194}$Hg]{}. For the quadrupole interactions, we determine it so as to reproduce the zero-frequency (Nambu-Goldstone) mode for $K=1$ at ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$ and use the same value for $K=0$ and 2. $f_2=1.007$, 1.005, and 1.005 are obtained for [$^{190}$Hg]{}, [$^{192}$Hg]{}, and [$^{194}$Hg]{}, respectively, by using the adopted model space. The fact that these values of $f_\lambda$ are close to unity indicates that the size of the adopted model space is large enough.
According to systematic RPA calculations for the low-frequency $\beta$, $\gamma$, and octupole states in medium-heavy deformed nuclei, we have found that the values of $f_\lambda$ reproducing the experimental data are very close to unity for the Nambu-Goldstone mode, the $\gamma$ and octupole vibrational states. On the other hand, those values are quite different from unity for the $\beta$ vibrational states. This may be associated with the simplicity of the monopole pairing interaction. Since we can not find the realistic force strength $\chi_{20}$ for SD states, we do not discuss the property of the $\beta$ vibrations in this paper.
The results of numerical calculations {#sec: results}
=====================================
Quasiparticle routhians
-----------------------
In this section we present calculated quasiparticle routhians in the improved cranked Nilsson potential and discuss their characteristic feature. In Fig. \[neutron\_routhians\] we compare the neutron quasiparticle routhians for $^{190,192,194}$Hg. The proton routhians of [$^{190}$Hg]{} are shown above in Fig. \[hg190\_routh\_comp\] and are almost identical for [$^{192}$Hg]{} and [$^{194}$Hg]{}.
The calculations show the strong interaction strength between the $\pi($\[642 5/2\]$)^2$ configuration (for simplicity we denote these orbits by $\pi 6_1$ and $\pi 6_2$ in the following) and the yrast configuration which may contribute to the smooth increase of the yrast ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ moments of inertia. On the other hand, the interaction of $\nu$\[761 3/2\] orbits ($\nu 7_1$ and $\nu 7_2$ in the following) strongly depends on the chemical potential (neutron number): The interaction is strongest in [$^{194}$Hg]{}, and weakest in [$^{190}$Hg]{}. This is qualitatively consistent with the experimental observation of the yrast ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ moments of inertia and the experimental quasiparticle routhians in $^{191,193}$Hg[@Joy94; @Car95].
The characteristic features of the high-$N$ intruder orbits are similar to those of the Woods-Saxon potential, except the alignments of $\nu 7_1$ and $\nu 7_2$ orbits which are, respectively, $i\approx 3\hbar$ and $2\hbar$ in ours while $i\approx 4\hbar$ and $3\hbar$ in Woods-Saxon’s. This results in the different crossing frequency between the ground band and the $\nu (j_{15/2})^2$ band, as discussed in section \[sec: detail-MF\]. The observed crossing in [$^{190}$Hg]{} and the quasiparticle routhians in $^{191,193}$Hg seem to favor our results. There are some other minor differences concerning the position of each orbit in the Nilsson and in the Woods-Saxon potential. However, these differences do not seriously affect our main conclusions because the collective RPA solutions are not sensitive to the details of each orbit.
The octupole vibrations {#sec: octupole-results}
-----------------------
Here, we discuss the negative-parity excitations in SD $^{190,192,194}$Hg. We have solved the RPA dispersion equation (\[RPA\_dispersion\_eq\]) and have obtained all low-lying solutions ($E'_x \leq 2$MeV). The excitation energies and the $B(E3)$ values calculated at ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$ are listed in Table \[oct-E-E3\]. This result shows that $K=2$ octupole states are the lowest for these Hg isotopes, which is consistent with our previous results[@NMM93; @Miz93]. The $B(E3; 0^+ \rightarrow 3^-,K)$ are calculated by using the strong coupling scheme[@BM75] neglecting effects of the Coriolis force. Absolute values of $B(E3)$s cannot be taken seriously because they depend on the adopted model space and are very sensitive to the octupole coupling strengths $\chi_{3K}$: For instance, if we use $f_3=1.05$ instead of $f_3=1$ in eq.(\[coupling-strength\]), the $B(E3)$ increase by about factor of two while the reduction of their excitation energy is about 15%. In addition, the effects of the Coriolis coupling tend to concentrate the $B(E3)$ strengths onto the lowest octupole states[@NV70].
At ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$, the lowest $K=2$ octupole states exhibit almost identical properties in $^{190,192,194}$Hg. However they show different behavior as functions of ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$ as shown in Figs. \[oct\_hg190\], \[oct\_hg192\], and \[oct\_hg194\], respectively. All RPA solutions, including non-collective solutions as well as collective vibrational ones, are presented in these figures. The size of the circle on the plot indicates the magnitude of the $E3$ transition amplitudes between an RPA solution and the yrast state.
The $(K,\alpha)=(2,1)$ octupole state in [$^{190}$Hg]{} has significant Coriolis mixing and the octupole phonon is aligned along the rotational axis at higher frequency. This is caused by the relatively close energy spacing between the $K=2$ and the $K=0, 1$ octupole states in this nucleus. These low-$K$ members of the octupole multiplet are calculated to lie much higher in [$^{192}$Hg]{} and [$^{194}$Hg]{}, which reduces the Coriolis mixing in these nuclei. As a result of these phonon alignments, the experimental routhians for Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{} are nicely reproduced by the lowest $\alpha=1$ octupole state. It should be emphasized that although the excitation energy at one frequency point can be obtained by adjusting the octupole-force strengths, the agreement over the whole frequency region is not trivial.
Since there is no $K=0$ octupole state in the signature $\alpha=0$ sector, the Coriolis mixing is much weaker for the lowest $(K,\alpha)=(2,0)$ octupole state. The calculation predicts that this state is crossed by the negative-parity two-quasiparticle band $\nu(7_1\otimes[642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.27\mbox{MeV}$.
In [$^{192}$Hg]{}, the same kind of crossing is seen for both signature partners of the $K=2$ octupole bands. We can clearly see, for the lowest excited state in each signature sector, the transition of the internal structure from collective octupole states (large circles in Fig. \[oct\_hg192\]) to non-collective two-quasineutrons (small circles). The two-quasineutron configurations which cross the octupole vibrational bands are $7_1\otimes[642\ 3/2](\alpha=-1/2)$ for $\alpha=1$ and $7_1\otimes[642\ 3/2](\alpha=1/2)$ for $\alpha=0$. The crossing frequency is lower for the $\alpha=1$ band due to signature splitting of the $\nu$\[642 3/2\] orbits.
In contrast to $^{190,192}$Hg, the $K=2$ octupole bands in [$^{194}$Hg]{} indicate neither the signature splitting nor the crossings. The routhians are very smooth up to the highest frequency. This is because the neutron orbits $7_1$ and $7_2$ have a “hole” character and their interaction strengths with the negative-energy orbits become larger with increasing neutron numbers (see Fig. \[neutron\_routhians\]). Therefore these orbits go to higher energy and the energies of the two-quasiparticle bands $\nu(7_1\otimes[642\ 3/2])$ never come lower than the $K=2$ octupole bands even at the highest frequency.
These properties of the $K=2$ octupole vibrations come from the effects of the Coriolis force and from the chemical-potential dependence of the aligned two-quasiparticle bands. In order to reproduce these rich properties of the collective vibrations at finite frequency, a microscopic model, which can describe the interplay between the Coriolis force and the correlations of shape fluctuations, is needed.
The $\gamma$ vibrations {#sec: gamma-results}
-----------------------
In this section we present results for the $\gamma$-vibrational states built on the SD yrast band. As mentioned in section \[sec: detail-RPA\], we do not discuss the property of the $\beta$ band since it is difficult to determine a reliable value of the coupling strength $\chi_{20}$ for the K=0 channel of the quadrupole interaction.
The properties of $\gamma$ bands at ${\omega_{\rm rot}}=0$ are listed in Table \[gamma-E-E2\]. The excitation energies of $\gamma$ vibrations are predicted to be higher than the $K=2$ octupole vibrations by 200–350 keV. It is known that calculations using the full model space considerably overestimate the $B(E2)$ values. In Ref.[@SM95], it has been shown that the three $N_{\rm osc}$-shells calculation reproduces the experimental values very well. If we use the model space $N_{\rm osc}=5\sim 7$ ($4\sim 6$) for neutrons (protons), then the $B(E2)$ values in the table decrease by about factor 1/3. The collectivity of the $\gamma$ vibrations turns out to be very weak in these SD nuclei.
Figs. \[quad\_hg190\], \[quad\_hg192\], and \[quad\_hg194\] illustrate the excitation energy of $\gamma$ vibrations as functions of the rotational frequency for [$^{190}$Hg]{}, [$^{192}$Hg]{}, and [$^{194}$Hg]{}, respectively. The unperturbed two-quasiparticle routhians are also depicted by solid (neutrons) and dashed (protons) lines. Since the $K$ quantum number is not a conserved quantity at finite rotational frequency, we have defined the solutions with the large $K=2$ $E2$ transition amplitude as the $\gamma$ vibrations. As seen in the figure, they lose their vibrational character by successive crossings with many two-quasiparticle bands and become the dominant two-quasiparticle states at high frequency. The reduction of collectivity is more rapid for the $\alpha=0$ $\gamma$ vibrations, because the two-quasiparticle states come down more quickly in the $\alpha=0$ sector. Similar crossings occur for the $K=2$ octupole bands in [$^{192}$Hg]{} (see Fig. \[oct\_hg192\]), however, the crossing frequency is much higher than that of the $\gamma$ bands. This is because the excitation energies of the octupole bands are relatively lower than those of the $\gamma$ bands. The predicted properties of $\gamma$ vibrations are different from those in Ref.[@Gir92].
In the frequency region ($0.15\leq\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\leq 0.4\mbox{MeV}$) where the excited SD bands are observed in experiments, the $\gamma$ bands are predicted to be higher than both the $K=2$ octupole bands and the lowest two-quasiparticle states. Therefore the experimental observation of the $\gamma$ vibrations is expected to be more difficult than that of the octupole bands.
Comparison with experimental data {#sec: comparison}
=================================
In this section, we compare the results obtained in the previous section with the available experimental data for the excited SD bands in $^{190,192,194}$Hg. The routhians relative to the yrast SD band have been observed only for Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{} and the comparison with our calculated routhians has been done in the section \[sec: octupole-results\]. The excitation energies of the other bands are not known. Therefore, in order to compare our theory with experimental data, we have calculated the dynamic moments of inertia ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$.
The ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ of the excited bands are calculated as $${{\cal J}^{(2)}}(\omega) = {{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0(\omega) + \frac{di}{d\omega}
= {{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0(\omega) - \frac{d^2 E'_x}{d\omega^2} \ ,
\label{J2-inertia}$$ where ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0$ denotes the dynamic moments of inertia for the yrast SD bands (RPA vacuum), and $i$ and $E'_x$ are the calculated alignments and routhians relative to the yrast band, respectively. The ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0$ values of the yrast SD bands are taken from the experiments and approximated by the Harris expansion, $${{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0(\omega) = J_0 + 3 J_1 \omega^2 + 5 J_2 \omega^4 \ .
\label{Harris}$$ It is known that the effect of pairing fluctuations is important in reproducing the moments of inertia at high spin. However, since our model provides us with relative quantities (excitation energy, alignment, etc.) between the excited bands and the yrast band, it is not critical if we neglect the pairing fluctuations. In other words, the fluctuations are included in the experimental ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}_0$ of eq.(\[J2-inertia\]).
The lower the excitation energy of an excited band relative to the yrast SD band, the more strongly will it be populated. In experiments, the SD bands are populated at high frequency, thus, it is the excitation energy in the feeding region at high frequency that is relevant in this problem. We list in Table \[Ex\] the calculated excitation energies of the low-lying positive- and negative-parity states at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}=0.4\mbox{MeV}$.
In [$^{190}$Hg]{} three excited SD bands (Bands 2, 3 and 4) have been observed[@Cro94; @Cro95; @Wil95]. Band 2 has been assigned as the lowest octupole band[@Cro94; @Cro95] because of its strong decays into the yrast SD band. According to our calculations, in addition to this octupole band ($\alpha=1$), the aligned two-quasineutron bands come down at high frequency. We assign Band 4 at high frequency as the $\nu (7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ because this negative-parity two-quasineutron state is crossed by the $\alpha=0$ octupole band at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.26\mbox{MeV}$ which may correspond to the observed sharp rise of ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx
0.23\mbox{MeV}$ (Fig. \[oct\_hg190\]). The positive-parity $\nu (7_1 \otimes 7_2)_{\alpha=0}$ state is also relatively low-lying at high frequency. Since this band does not show any crossing at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}> 0.12\mbox{MeV}$ in the calculations, this may be a good candidate for Band 3 (Fig. \[quad\_hg190\]).
In [$^{192}$Hg]{} two excited SD bands (Bands 2 and 3) have been observed[@Fal95] and both bands exhibit a bump in ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.3$ (Band 2) and $0.33\mbox{MeV}$ (Band 3). We assume these bands correspond to $\nu(7_1\otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0,1}$ at high frequency. This two-quasineutron configuration for Band 2 is the same as that suggested in Ref.[@Fal95]. However our theory predicts a different scenario at low spin: This band is crossed by the octupole band ($\alpha=1$) at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.3\mbox{MeV}$. Thus, Band 2 is interpreted as an $\alpha=1$ octupole vibrational band in the low-frequency region ($\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}<0.3\mbox{MeV}$). In the same way, the bump in ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ in Band 3 is interpreted as a crossing between $\nu(7_1\otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ and the $\alpha=0$ octupole vibrational band (Fig. \[oct\_hg192\]).
For high frequencies, the positive-parity $\nu(7_1 \otimes [512\ 5/2])$ state is calculated to lie almost at the same energy as the lowest $\alpha=0$ negative-parity state. However no crossing is predicted for the $\alpha=1$ state at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}> 0.15\mbox{MeV}$ but many crossings are predicted for the $\alpha=0$ state (Fig. \[quad\_hg192\]). Both properties are incompatible with the observed features.
In [[$^{194}$Hg]{}]{}, two excited SD bands (Bands 2 and 3) have been observed[@Ril90; @Ced95]. In contrast to [$^{192}$Hg]{}, the observed dynamic moments of inertia ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ do not show any singular behavior and are more or less similar to those of the yrast band. Bands 2 and 3 have been interpreted as signature partners because the $\gamma$-ray energies of Band 3 are observed to lie mid-way between those of Band 2 and furthermore the bands have similar intensity[@Ril90]. From these observations and the excitation energies listed in Table \[Ex\], we assume that both bands correspond to $K=2$ octupole vibrations ($\alpha=0$, 1), which are calculated to be the lowest excited states (Fig. \[oct\_hg194\]). Any other assignment faces serious difficulties: (i) The positive-parity two-quasiparticle configurations listed in Table \[Ex\] have no signature partners. (ii) The other low-lying two-quasiparticle states occupy $\nu 7_1$ or $\pi 6_1$ orbits. Now the increase in ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ for the yrast SD band is partially attributed to the alignment of these high-$j$ intruder orbits and, since the blocking effect of the quasiparticles prevents any alignment due to band crossings involving these orbits, the lack of alignment should produce an ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ curve quite different from those of the yrast SD band. (iii) The configuration $\nu ([512\ 5/2]\otimes [624\ 9/2])$ suggested in Ref.[@Ril90] has the problem with its magnetic property, which has been recently pointed out in Ref.[@SRA95]. If this configuration is the $K^\pi=7^-$, then strong M1 transitions between the signature partners should have been observed. The energy of the $K^\pi=2^-$ configuration is certainly lowered by octupole correlations. In our calculations, however, this configuration accounts for only 20% of all components constituting the octupole vibration. The $\gamma$ vibrations are calculated to be much higher and crossed by several two-quasiparticle bands (Fig. \[quad\_hg194\]). Therefore, we believe the octupole vibration is the best candidate[^4].
Assuming the above configurations, the dynamic moments of inertia ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ are calculated with eq.(\[J2-inertia\]), and compared with the experimental data (Fig. \[J2\]). In [$^{190}$Hg]{}, the characteristic features are well reproduced for Bands 2 and 4; the constant ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ of Band 2 (the $\alpha=1$ octupole vibration), and the bump of Band 4 (the crossing between the $\alpha=0$ octupole vibration and the aligned two-quasineutron band) are reproduced although the crossing frequency is smaller in the experiment. For Band 3, the high ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ values at low spin are well accounted for by the alignment-gain of the two-quasineutron state. However the calculation predicts the lack of alignment due to the blocking of $N=7$ orbits at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}>0.25\mbox{MeV}$, which makes the ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ smaller than those of the yrast band.
In [$^{192}$Hg]{}, the bumps of ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ are nicely reproduced in the calculations, which correspond to the crossings between $K=2$ octupole vibrations and the aligned two-quasineutron bands in each signature partner. The alignment gain ${\it \Delta}i$ before and after crossing for Band 2 is ${\it\Delta} i\approx 2\hbar$ which is comparable to the experimental value ${\it\Delta} i_{\rm exp}\approx 2.6\hbar$[@Fal95].
The agreement is less satisfactory in [$^{194}$Hg]{}. The calculated ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ are lower than the experimental data for $0.2\leq\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\leq 0.35\mbox{MeV}$ (similar disagreement can be seen for Band 3 in [$^{192}$Hg]{}). This effect comes from the blocking effect mentioned above, associated with the $\nu 7_1$, $\nu 7_2$, $\pi 6_1$ and $\pi 6_2$ orbits. In the RPA (Tamm-Dancoff) theory (neglecting the backward amplitudes), the octupole vibrations are described by superposition of two-quasiparticle excitations, $${| \rm oct.vib. \rangle} =
\sum_{\gamma\delta} \psi(\gamma\delta){| \gamma\delta \rangle}\ ,$$ where ${| \gamma\delta \rangle}=a_\gamma^\dagger a_\delta^\dagger {| {\omega_{\rm rot}}\rangle}$. Some of these components ${| \gamma\delta \rangle}$ associated with the particular orbits ($\nu 7_1$, $\nu7_2$, $\pi 6_1$ and $\pi6_2$) show significant lack of alignment. However, if the octupole vibrations are collective enough, the amplitudes $\psi(\gamma\delta)$ are distributed over many two-quasiparticle excitations ${| \gamma\delta \rangle}$. Thus, each amplitude becomes small and blocking effects may be canceled.
In order to demonstrate this “smearing” effect of collective states, we use a slightly stronger octupole force, $f_3=1.05$ in eq.(\[coupling-strength\]), and carry out the same calculations for [$^{194}$Hg]{}. The results are shown in Fig. \[J2\_hg194\]. The higher coupling strengths make the octupole vibrations more collective and the experimental data are better reproduced. Perhaps the collectivity of these octupole vibrations was underestimated in the calculations with $f_3=1$.
Finally we should mention the decays from the octupole bands to the yrast SD band. We have assigned all observed excited SD bands (except Band 3 in [$^{190}$Hg]{}) as octupole vibrational bands (at least in the low-spin region). However, strong dipole decays into the yrast band have been observed only for Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{}. Although this seems to contradict our proposals, in fact our calculations provide us with a qualitative answer.
Let us discuss the relative $B(E1; {\rm oct}\rightarrow {\rm yrast})$ values. Using the $E1$ recoil charge ($-Ze/A$ for neutrons and $Ne/A$ for protons), then the $B(E1)$ values at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}=0.25\mbox{MeV}$ are calculated to be small for all the $K=2$ octupole bands except for the $\alpha=1$ (Band 2) in [$^{190}$Hg]{}: With the scaling factors $f_3=1\sim 1.08$ in eq.(\[coupling-strength\]), the calculation suggests $B(E1)\approx 10^{-7}$ W.u. for the $(K,\alpha)=(2,0)$ octupole bands, and $B(E1)\approx 10^{-8}\sim 10^{-6}$ W.u. for the $(K,\alpha)=(2,1)$ bands. The $B(E1)$ for Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{} is predicted to be larger than these values by 1 – 2 orders of magnitude, $B(E1)\approx 10^{-6}\sim 10^{-4}$W.u. Although the absolute values are very sensitive to the parameters used in the calculation, the $E1$ strengths of Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{} are always much larger than those for the other bands.
To clarify the reason for this $E1$ enhancement in this particular band, we display the $E3$ amplitudes ($K=0$, 1, 2 and 3) of these octupole states as functions of frequency in Fig. \[E3\_amplitudes\]. As mentioned in section \[sec: octupole-results\], the Coriolis mixing is completely different between Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{} and the others: The former has significant Coriolis mixing at finite frequency while the latter retains the dominant $K=2$ character up to very high spin. Since the $K=2$ octupole components can not carry any $E1$ strength, the strong $E1$ transition amplitudes come from Coriolis coupling, namely the mixing of the $K=0$ and 1 octupole components. Therefore, the observed decay property does not contradict our interpretation.
Conclusions {#sec: conclusion}
===========
The microscopic structure of the $\gamma$ and the octupole vibrations built on the SD yrast bands in $^{190,192,194}$Hg were investigated with the RPA based on the cranked shell model. The $K=2$ octupole vibrations are predicted to lie lowest. To reproduce the characteristic features of the experimental data it was essential to include octupole correlations and the effect of rapid rotation explicitly. From the calculations, we assigned the following configurations to the observed excited bands:
---------------- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[$^{190}$Hg]{} Band 2 : the rotationally-aligned $\alpha=1$ octupole vibration.
Band 3 : the two-quasineutron band $\nu(7_1 \otimes 7_2)$.
Band 4 : the $(K,\alpha)=(2,0)$ octupole vibration at low spin,
the two-quasineutron band $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ at high spin.
[$^{192}$Hg]{} Band 2 : the $(K,\alpha)=(2,1)$ octupole vibration at low spin,
the two-quasineutron band $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=1}$ at high spin.
Band 3 : the $(K,\alpha)=(2,0)$ octupole vibration at low spin,
the two-quasineutron band $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ at high spin.
[$^{194}$Hg]{} Band 2 : the $(K,\alpha)=(2,0)$ octupole vibration.
Band 3 : the $(K,\alpha)=(2,1)$ octupole vibration.
---------------- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these assignments, most of the experimentally observed features were well accounted for in our theoretical calculations.
The Coriolis force makes the lowest octupole state in [$^{190}$Hg]{} align along the rotational axis, while this effect is predicted to be very weak for other octupole states. This is due to the relatively low excitation energy of the $K=0$ ($\alpha=1$) octupole state in [$^{190}$Hg]{}, in which the close spacing in energy of the octupole multiplet makes the Coriolis mixing easier. This aligned octupole phonon in [$^{190}$Hg]{} reproduces the observed behavior for Band 2.
Our interpretation for the excited SD bands in [$^{192}$Hg]{} solves a puzzle mentioned in Ref. [@Fal95] in which Band 2 was assigned as the two-quasineutron excitation $\nu (7_3\otimes [642\ 3/2])$. The bump in the ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ curve was considered to be associated with a crossing between the $\nu 7_1$ and $\nu$\[512 5/2\] orbits. According to this assignment, we expect similar properties for the observed crossing in [$^{192}$Hg]{} and $^{193}$Hg, and the difference of crossing frequencies and alignment gains was a puzzle. This is no longer a puzzle in our interpretation because the microscopic structure of Band 2 is the octupole vibration (before the crossing). Due to the correlation-energy gains, the excitation energies of the octupole vibrations should be lower than the unperturbed two-quasiparticle states. Therefore it is natural that the observed crossing frequency is larger than the one predicted by the quasiparticle routhians without the octupole correlations.
Our interpretation also solves some difficulties in [$^{194}$Hg]{}: The smooth ${{\cal J}^{(2)}}$ behavior of Bands 2 and 3 can be explained by the “smearing” effect of the collective states. The non-observation of the expected strong M1 transitions between Bands 2 and 3[@SRA95] is solved by substituting the $K=2$ octupole vibrations for the two-quasineutron states $\nu ([512\ 5/2]\otimes [624\ 9/2])$, because the octupole correlations lower the $K=2$ configurations and the summation of many two-quasiparticle ($M1$) matrix elements may be destructive (see discussion below eq.(\[Q-amplitude\])).
The enhanced $E1$ transitions from the octupole states to the yrast SD band are expected only for Band 2 in [$^{190}$Hg]{}. This comes about because the other octupole states do not have strong Coriolis mixing and keep their $K=2$ character even at high frequency. This agrees with experimental observations.
Although most of the observed properties are explained by our calculations, there remain some unsolved problems in [$^{190}$Hg]{} and [$^{192}$Hg]{}. For [$^{190}$Hg]{}, according to the calculations with constant pairing gaps reported in Ref.[@Nak95_2], it is suggested that Band 4 may correspond to the $(K,\alpha)=(1,0)$ octupole band which is predicted to be crossed by the two-quasineutron band $\nu(7_1\otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$ at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\approx 0.21\mbox{MeV}$. Because of the phenomenological treatment for the pairing gaps at finite frequency, it is difficult to deny this possibility. The experimental intensity of Band 3 raises another ambiguity: Since it is much weaker than Bands 2 and 4, it might be associated with a higher-lying configurations[@Wil95]. For [$^{192}$Hg]{}, our calculations predict no signature splitting for the lowest octupole bands at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}\leq 0.25\mbox{MeV}$. Therefore one may expect $\gamma$-ray energies typical of the signature-partner pair for Bands 2 and 3 similar to that in [$^{194}$Hg]{}, which is different from what is observed[@Fal95]. Improvement of the pairing interactions (fluctuations, quadrupole pairing) might solve these problems as well as enable us to perform reliable RPA calculations for $\beta$ vibrations.
Theoretical study of octupole vibrations carrying large $E1$ strengths would be of great interest, because this could offer direct experimental evidence. An improved version of calculations for $E1$ strengths of high-spin octupole bands are in progress, taking into account the restoration of translational and Galilean invariance. The $K=0$ octupole vibration in $^{152}$Dy has been predicted in Ref.[@Nak95] and its decay into the yrast band has been suggested [@Dag95]. Strong $E1$ transition probabilities have been suggested by Skalski[@Ska94] for $K=0$ octupole states in the A=190 region. Therefore, the search for low-lying low-$K$ octupole vibrations is an important subject for the future.
We would like to acknowledge W. Nazarewicz for discussions and suggestions for this paper. One of authors (T.N.) also thank B. Crowell, P. Fallon, J.F. Sharpey-Schafer, J. Skalski and A.N. Wilson for valuable discussions. Three of us (T.N., K.M. and Y.R.S.) thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for partial support during the completion of this work.
[99]{} S. Mizutori, Y.R. Shimizu and K. Matsuyanagi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**83**]{}, 666 (1990); [**85**]{}, 559 (1991); [**86**]{}, 131 (1991). T. Nakatsukasa, S. Mizutori and K. Matsuyanagi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**87**]{}, 607 (1992). T. Nakatsukasa, S. Mizutori and K. Matsuyanagi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**89**]{}, 847 (1993). S. Mizutori, T. Nakatsukasa, K. Arita, Y.R. Shimizu and K. Matsuyanagi, Nucl. Phys. [**A557**]{}, 125c (1993). T. Nakatsukasa, K. Matsuyanagi, S. Mizutori and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Lett. [**B343**]{}, 19 (1995). J. Dudek, T.R. Werner and Z. Szymański, Phys. Lett. [**B248**]{}, 235 (1990). S. Åberg, Nucl. Phys. [**A520**]{}, 35c (1990). J. Höller and S. Åberg, Z. Phys. [**A336**]{}, 363 (1990). P. Bonche, S.J. Krieger, M.S. Weiss, J. Dobaczewski, H. Flocard and P.-H. Heenen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 876 (1991). Xunjun Li, J. Dudek and P. Romain, Phys. Lett. [**B271**]{}, 281 (1991). W. Nazarewicz and J. Dobaczewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 154 (1992). J. Skalski, Phys. Lett. [**B274**]{}, 1 (1992). J. Skalski, P.-H. Heenen, P. Bonche, H. Flocard and J. Meyer, Nucl. Phys. [**A551**]{}, 109 (1993). P.J. Dagnall et al., Phys. Lett. [**B335**]{}, 313 (1995). D.M. Cullen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1547 (1990). B. Crowell et al., Phys. Lett. [**B333**]{}, 320 (1994). B. Crowell et al., Phys. Rev. [**C51**]{}, R1599 (1995). A.N. Wilson et al., Proceedings of European Physical Society XV Divisional Conference, St Petersburg, Russia, April 1995, [*Low Energy Nuclear Dynamics*]{} (LEND 95), (World Scientific), in press. T. Nakatsukasa, Act. Phys. Pol. B, in press; Proceedings of XXIV Mazurian Lakes School of Physics, Piaski, Poland, August 1995 (Preprint TASCC-P-95-26). K. Neergård and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. [**A145**]{}, 33 (1970); [**A149**]{}, 209 (1970); [**A149**]{}, 217 (1970). P. Vogel, Phys. Lett. [**B66**]{}, 431 (1976). P. Fallon et al., Phys. Rev. [**C51**]{}, R1609 (1995). M.A. Riley et al., Nucl. Phys. [**A512**]{}, 178 (1990). B. Cederwall et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 3150 (1995). E.R. Marshalek, Phys. Rev. [**C11**]{}, 1426 (1975); Nucl. Phys. [**A266**]{}, 317 (1976). J.L. Egido, H.J. Mang and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. [**A339**]{}, 390 (1980). Y.R. Shimizu and K. Matsuyanagi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**79**]{}, 144 (1983); [**72**]{}, 799 (1984). Y.R. Shimizu and K. Matsuzaki, Nucl. Phys. [**A588**]{}, 559 (1995). I.M. Robledo, J.L. Egido and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. [**A449**]{}, 201 (1986). A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, [*Nuclear Structure*]{}, Vol.2, (Benjamin, New York,1975). S. Kinouchi, Ph.D.Thesis (1988), Univ. of Tsukuba. Y.R. Shimizu, E. Vigezzi and R.A. Broglia, Nucl. Phys. [**A509**]{}, 80 (1990). H. Sakamoto and T. Kishimoto, Nucl. Phys. [**A501**]{}, 205 (1989). T. Bengtsson and I. Ragnarsson, Nucl. Phys. [**A436**]{}, 14 (1985). M. Baranger and K. Kumar, Nucl. Phys. [**A110**]{}, 490 (1968). M. Brack, J. Damgaard, A.S. Jensen, H.C. Pauli, V.M. Strutinsky and C.Y. Wong, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**44**]{}, 320 (1972). R. Wyss, W. Satula, W. Nazarewicz and A. Johnson, Nucl. Phys. [**A511**]{}, 324 (1990). M.W. Drigert et al., Nucl. Phys. [**A530**]{}, 452 (1991). H. Sakamoto, Nucl. Phys. [**A557**]{}, 583c (1993). M.J. Joyce et al., Phys. Lett. [**B340**]{}, 150 (1994). M.P. Carpenter et al., Phys. Rev. [**C51**]{}, 2400 (1995). M. Girod, J.P. Delaroche, J. Libert and I. Deloncle, Phys. Rev. [**C45**]{}, R1420 (1992). P.B. Semmes, I. Ragnarsson and S. Åberg, Phys. Lett. [**B345**]{}, 185 (1995). J. Skalski, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 2011 (1994).
-------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
K=0 K=1 K=2 K=3 K=0 K=1 K=2 K=3 K=0 K=1 K=2 K=3
E \[ MeV \] 1.37 1.45 1.20 1.52 1.55 1.58 1.18 1.53 1.83 1.62 1.14 1.53
$B(E3)/B(E3)_{\rm s.p.}$ 6.6 11.9 10.0 1.0 7.6 10.1 10.1 0.8 11.5 11.2 10.2 0.7
-------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: Calculated excitation energies of octupole vibrations and $B(E3; 0^+ \rightarrow 3^-,K)$ values estimated using the strong coupling scheme for SD $^{190,192,194}$Hg. []{data-label="oct-E-E3"}
[$^{190}$Hg]{} [$^{192}$Hg]{} [$^{194}$Hg]{}
-------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
E \[ MeV \] 1.39 1.50 1.45
$B(E2)/B(E2)_{\rm s.p.}$ 2.7 3.0 3.8
: Calculated excitation energies of $\gamma$ vibrations and $B(E2; 0^+ \rightarrow 2^+,K=2)$ values estimated using the strong coupling scheme for SD $^{190,192,194}$Hg. []{data-label="gamma-E-E2"}
---------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
The lowest The second The lowest The second
[$^{190}$Hg]{} $E_x'$ \[ keV \] 113 389 $\approx 0$ 256
config. $\nu(7_1 \otimes 7_2)_{\alpha=0}$ $\nu(7_1 \otimes [505\ 11/2])_{\alpha=0,1}$ $(\mbox{oct.vib.})_{\alpha=1}$ $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$
exp. Band 3 Band 2 Band 4
[$^{192}$Hg]{} $E_x'$ \[ keV \] 611 611 441 632
config. $\nu(7_1 \otimes [512\ 5/2])_{\alpha=1}$ $\nu(7_1 \otimes [512\ 5/2])_{\alpha=0}$ $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=1}$ $\nu(7_1 \otimes [642\ 3/2])_{\alpha=0}$
exp. Band 2 Band 3
[$^{194}$Hg]{} $E_x'$ \[ keV \] 857 892 738 759
config. $\nu([514\ 7/2])^2_{\alpha=0}$ $\pi([530\ 1/2])^2_{\alpha=0}$ $(\mbox{oct.vib.})_{\alpha=0}$ $(\mbox{oct.vib.})_{\alpha=1}$
exp. Band 2 Band 3
---------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
: The lowest and the second lowest configurations at $\hbar{\omega_{\rm rot}}=0.4\mbox{MeV}$ in each parity sector. The proposed assignments of the observed excited SD bands are also shown. The excitation energies of the negative-parity two-quasineutron states, 256keV for [$^{190}$Hg]{} and 441 and 632keV for [$^{192}$Hg]{}, contain very weak octupole correlations. The corresponding unperturbed two-quasineutron energies are 261, 460 and 635 keV, respectively. []{data-label="Ex"}
[^1]: E-mail : [nakatsuk@cu1.crl.aecl.ca]{}
[^2]: In the following, the notation $[A,B]_{\rm RPA}$ means that we neglect these higher order terms in calculating the commutator between $A$ and $B$.
[^3]: This value depends on the treatment of the pairing gaps at finite frequency. If we use constant pairing gaps against ${\omega_{\rm rot}}$ we get the best value $f_3=1.05$.
[^4]: The signature for Bands 2 and 3 is determined by following the spin assignment in Ref.[@Ril90].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We trace progress and thinking about the Strominger-Yau-Zaslow conjecture since its introduction in 1996. In particular, we aim to explain how the conjecture led to the algebro-geometric program developed by myself and Siebert, whose objective is to explain mirror symmetry by studying degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds. We end by outlining how tropical curves arise in the mirror symmetry story.'
address: 'UCSD Mathematics, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0112, USA'
author:
- Mark Gross
title: ' The Strominger-Yau-Zaslow conjecture: From torus fibrations to degenerations.'
---
\#1 \#1 \#1\#2\#3[0\#1\#2\#30]{} \#1[ ]{} \#1[ ]{} \#1[[\#1]{}\^]{}
[^1]
Introduction. {#introduction. .unnumbered}
=============
Up to the summer of 1996, there had been a number of spectacular successes in mirror symmetry. After the pioneering initial work of Candelas, de la Ossa, Greene and Parkes [@COGP] which calculated the instanton predictions for the quintic three-fold, Batyrev [@Bat] gave a powerful mirror symmetry construction for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in toric varieties, later generalized by Batyrev and Borisov [@BB] to complete intersections in toric varieties. Kontsevich [@Kstable] introduced his notion of stable maps of curves and studied their moduli, setting the stage for a new flowering of enumerative geometry. Eventually, this led to the mathematical calculation of Gromov-Witten invariants for the quintic in varying forms, [@Givental; @LLY; @Bert; @Gath]. In between, a great deal of the structure of mirror symmetry was elucidated by many researchers in both string theory and algebraic geometry.
On the other hand, at that time I had been primarily interested in the geometry of Calabi-Yau manifolds. Many of the results about mirror symmetry seemed to rely primarily on information about the ambient toric varieties; in particular, Givental’s work [@Givental] and succeeding work by Lian, Liu and Yau [@LLY], Bertram [@Bert] and Gathmann [@Gath] always performed calculations on the moduli space of stable maps into ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ rather than the quintic, and in the Batyrev-Borisov type constructions, while there was a clear combinatorial relationship between the ambient toric varieties, there was no apparent geometric relationship between the Calabi-Yaus themselves. As a result, I tended to avoid thinking about mirror symmetry precisely because of this lack of geometric understanding.
This changed dramatically in June of 1996, when Strominger, Yau and Zaslow [@SYZ] released their paper “Mirror Symmetry is $T$-duality.” They made a remarkable proposal, based on recent ideas in string theory, that for the first time gave a geometric interpretation for mirror symmetry.
Let me summarize, very roughly, the physical argument here. Developments in string theory in the mid-1990s had introduced the notion of *Dirichlet branes*, or $D$-branes. These are submanifolds of space-time, with some additional data, which should serve as a boundary condition for open strings, i.e. we allow open strings to propagate with their endpoints constrained to lie on a $D$-brane. Remembering that space-time, according to string theory, looks like ${\mathbb{R}}^{1,3}\times X$, where ${\mathbb{R}}^{1,3}$ is ordinary space-time and $X$ is a Calabi-Yau three-fold, we can split a $D$-brane into a product of a submanifold of ${\mathbb{R}}^{1,3}$ and one on $X$. It turned out, simplifying a great deal, that there were two particular types of submanifolds on $X$ of interest: *holomorphic* $D$-branes, i.e. holomorphic submanifolds with a holomorphic line bundle, and *special Lagrangian* $D$-branes, which are *special Lagrangian submanifolds* with flat $U(1)$ bundle:
Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold with $\omega$ the Kähler form of a Ricci-flat metric on $X$ and $\Omega$ a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $n$-form. Then a submanifold $M\subseteq
X$ is *special Lagrangian* if it is Lagrangian, i.e. $\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}} M=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} X$ and $\omega|_M=0$, and in addition ${\operatorname{Im}}\Omega|_M=0$.
The origins of mirror symmetry in physics suggest that if $X$ and $\check X$ are a mirror pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds, then string theory on a compactification of space-time using $X$ should be the same as that using $\check X$, but with certain data interchanged. In the case of $D$-branes, the suggestion is that the moduli space of holomorphic $D$-branes on $X$ should be isomorphic to the moduli space of special Lagrangian $D$-branes on $\check X$. Now $X$ itself is the moduli space of points on $X$. So each point on $X$ should correspond to a pair $(M,\nabla)$, where $M\subseteq\check
X$ is a special Lagrangian submanifold and $\nabla$ is a flat connection on $M$.
A theorem of McLean [@McLean] tells us that the tangent space to the moduli space of special Lagrangian deformations of a special Lagrangian submanifold $M\subseteq
\check X$ is $H^1(M,{\mathbb{R}})$. Of course, the moduli space of flat $U(1)$-connections modulo gauge equivalence on $M$ is the torus $H^1(M,{\mathbb{R}})/H^1(M,{\mathbb{Z}})$. In order for this moduli space to be of the correct dimension, we need $\dim H^1(M,{\mathbb{R}})=n$, the complex dimension of $X$. This suggests that $X$ consists of a family of tori which are dual to a family of special Lagrangian tori on $\check X$. An elaboration of this argument yields the following conjecture:
*The Strominger-Yau-Zaslow conjecture*. If $X$ and $\check X$ are a mirror pair of Calabi-Yau $n$-folds, then there exists fibrations $f:X\rightarrow B$ and $\check f:\check X\rightarrow B$ whose fibres are special Lagrangian, with general fibre an $n$-torus. Furthermore, these fibrations are dual, in the sense that canonically $X_b=H^1(\check X_b,{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\check X_b=H^1(X_b,{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})$ whenever $X_b$ and $\check X_b$ are non-singular tori.
I will clarify this statement as we review the work of the past ten years; however, as I have stated this conjecture, it is likely to be false. On the other hand, there are weaker versions of the conjecture which probably are true. Even better, these weaker statements are probably within reach of modern-day technology (with a lot of hard work). Nevertheless, there has been a lot of good progress on precise versions of the above conjecture at the topological and symplectic level. In addition, the conjecture has been successful at explaining many features of mirror symmetry, some of which are still heuristic and some of which are rigorous. It is my belief that a final satisfactory understanding of mirror symmetry will flow from the SYZ conjecture, even if results do not take the form initially suggested by it.
My main goal here is to explain the journey taken over the last ten years. I want to focus on explaining the evolution and development of the ideas, rather than focus on precise statements. Except in the first few sections, I will give few precise statements.
In those first sections, I will clarify the above statement of the conjecture, and show how it gives a satisfactory explanation of mirror symmetry in the so-called semi-flat case, i.e. the case when the metric along the special Lagrangian fibres is flat. This leads naturally to a discussion of affine manifolds, metrics on them, and the Legendre transform. These now appear to be the key structures underlying mirror symmetry.
We next take a look at the case when singular fibres appear. In this case we need to abandon the precise form of duality we developed in the semi-flat case and restrict our attention to topological duality. In the realm of purely topological duality, the SYZ conjecture has been entirely successful at explaining topological features of mirror symmetry for a large range of Calabi-Yau manifolds, including those produced by the Batyrev-Borisov construction for complete intersections in toric varieties.
Moving on, we take a look at Dominic Joyce’s arguments demonstrating the problems with the strong form of the SYZ conjecture stated above. This forces us to recast the SYZ conjecture as a limiting statement. Mirror symmetry is always about the behaviour of Calabi-Yau manifolds near maximally unipotent degenerations. A limiting form of the SYZ conjecture suggests that one can find special Lagrangian tori on Calabi-Yau manifolds near a maximally unipotent degeneration, and as we approach the limit point in complex moduli space, we expect to see a larger portion of the Calabi-Yau manifold filled out by special Lagrangian tori. Unlike the original SYZ conjecture, though still difficult, this one looks likely to be accessible by current techniques.
This form of the conjecture then motivates a new round of questions. In this limiting picture, we expect the base $B$ of the hypothetical special Lagrangian fibration to be the so-called Gromov-Hausdorff limit of a sequence of Calabi-Yau manifolds approaching the maximally unipotent degeneration. Gromov-Hausdorff convergence is a metric space concept, while maximally unipotent degeneration is an algebro-geometric, Hodge-theoretic concept. How do these two concepts relate? In the summer of 2000, Kontsevich suggested that the Gromov-Hausdorff limit will be, roughly, the dual intersection complex of the algebro-geometric degeneration, at least on a topological level. We explore this idea in §6.
On the other hand, how does this help us with mirror symmetry? Parallel to these developments on limiting forms of the SYZ conjecture, my coauthor Bernd Siebert had been studying degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds using logarithmic geometry with Stefan Schröer. Siebert noticed that mirror symmetry seemed to coincide with a combinatorial exchange of logarithmic data on the one side and polarizations on the other. Together, we realised that this approach to mirror symmetry meshed well with the limiting picture predicted by SYZ. Synthesizing these two approaches, we discovered an algebro-geometric version of the SYZ approach, which I will describe here. The basic idea is to forget about special Lagrangian fibrations, and only keep track of the base of the fibration, which is an affine manifold. We show how polyhedral decompositions of affine manifolds give rise to degenerate Calabi-Yau varieties, and conversely how certain sorts of degenerations of Calabi-Yau varieties, which we call *toric degenerations*, give rise to affine manifolds as their dual intersection complex. Mirror symmetry is again explained by a discrete version of the Legendre transform much as in the semi-flat case.
We end with a discussion of the connection of tropical curves with this approach. The use of tropical curves in curve counting in two-dimensional toric varieties has been pioneered in work of Mihkalkin [@Mik]; Nishinou and Siebert [@NS] generalized this work to higher dimensions using an approach directly inspired by the approach I discuss here. On the other hand, tropical curves have not yet been used for counting curves in Calabi-Yau manifolds, so I will end the paper by discussing how tropical curves arise naturally in our picture.
I would like to thank the organizers of the Seattle conference for running an excellent conference, and my coauthors Pelham Wilson and Bernd Siebert on SYZ related results; much of the work mentioned here came out of work with them.
First a topological observation.
================================
Before doing anything else, let’s ask a very basic question: why should dualizing torus fibrations interchange Hodge numbers of Calabi-Yau threefolds? If you haven’t seen this, it’s the first thing one should look at as it is particularly easy to see, if we make a few assumptions. Suppose we are given a pair of Calabi-Yau threefolds $X$ and $\check X$ with fibrations $f:X\rightarrow B$, $\check f:\check X\rightarrow B$ with the property that there is a dense open set $B_0\subseteq B$ such that $f_0:f^{-1}(B_0)\rightarrow B_0$ and $\check f_0:\check f^{-1}(B_0)\rightarrow
B_0$ are torus fibre bundles. So all the singular fibres of $f$ and $\check f$ lie over $\Gamma:=B\setminus B_0$. (Note that unless $\chi(X)=0$, there must be some singular fibres.) Finally, assume $f_0$ and $\check f_0$ are dual torus fibrations, i.e. $f_0$ can be identified with the torus fibration $R^1\check f_{0*}({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow B_0$ and $\check f_0$ can be identified with the torus fibration $R^1 f_{0*}({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow B_0$. (This is a slight abuse of notation: by $R^1\check f_{0*}({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})$ we really mean the torus bundle obtained by taking the vector bundle associated to the local system $R^1\check f_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}$ and dividing out by the family of lattices $R^1\check f_{0*}{\mathbb{Z}}$.)
If $V/\Lambda$ is a single torus with $V$ an $n$-dimensional vector space and $\Lambda$ a lattice in $V$, then $H^p(V/\Lambda,{\mathbb{R}})\cong \bigwedge^p {\vee}{V}$, while the dual torus, ${\vee}{V}/{\vee}{\Lambda}$, has $H^p({\vee}{V}/{\vee}{\Lambda},
{\mathbb{R}})\cong \bigwedge^p V$. If we choose an isomorphism $\bigwedge^n V\cong
{\mathbb{R}}$, then we get an isomorphism $H^p(V/\Lambda,{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^{n-p}({\vee}{V}/
{\vee}{\Lambda},{\mathbb{R}})$. Similarly, in the relative setting for $f_0$ and $\check f_0$, if we have an isomorphism $R^3f_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}\cong {\mathbb{R}}$, we obtain isomorphisms $$R^pf_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}\cong R^{3-p}\check f_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}.$$ We now make a simplifying assumption. Let $i:B_0\hookrightarrow B$ be the inclusion. We will say $f$ is *${\mathbb{R}}$-simple* if $$i_*R^pf_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}\cong R^pf_*{\mathbb{R}}$$ for all $p$. (We can in general replace ${\mathbb{R}}$ by any abelian group $G$, and then we say $f$ is $G$-simple.) Of course, not all torus fibrations are ${\mathbb{R}}$-simple, but it turns out that the most interesting ones which occur in the topological form of SYZ are. So let’s assume $f$ and $\check f$ are ${\mathbb{R}}$-simple. With this assumption, we obtain isomorphisms $$\label{dualityiso}
R^pf_*{\mathbb{R}}\cong R^{3-p}\check f_*{\mathbb{R}}.$$ We can now use this to study the Leray spectral sequence for $f$ and $\check f$.
Let’s make an additional assumption that $X$ and $\check X$ are simply connected. So in particular $B$ is simply connected. Let’s assume $B$ is a three-manifold. So we have the $E_2$ terms in the Leray spectral sequence for $f$: $$\begin{matrix}
{\mathbb{R}}&0&0&{\mathbb{R}}\\
H^0(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^1(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^2(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^3(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})\\
H^0(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^1(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^2(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^3(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})\\
{\mathbb{R}}&0&0&{\mathbb{R}}\end{matrix}$$ Since $X$ is simply connected, $H^1(X,{\mathbb{R}})=H^5(X,{\mathbb{R}})=0$, from which we conclude that $H^0(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})=H^3(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})=0$. The same argument works for $\check f$, and then (\[dualityiso\]) gives $H^0(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^0(B,R^1\check f_*{\mathbb{R}})=0$ and similarly $H^3(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})=0$. Finally, consider the possible non-zero maps for the spectral sequence: $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\mathbb{R}}\ar[rrd]^{d_1}&0&0&{\mathbb{R}}\\
0&H^1(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})&H^2(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})&0\\
0&H^1(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})\ar[rrd]^{d_2}&H^2(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})&0\\
{\mathbb{R}}&0&0&{\mathbb{R}}}$$ We need one further assumption, which is again natural given the duality relationship of $f_0$ and $\check f_0$: both $f$ and $\check f$ possess sections. (Actually, working over ${\mathbb{R}}$, we just need the existence of cohomology classes on $X$ and $\check X$ which evaluate to something non-zero on a fibre of $f$ or $\check f$.) A section intersects each fibre non-trivially, and hence gives a section of $R^3f_*{\mathbb{R}}$. Since such a section also represents a cohomology class on $X$, $d_1$ must be the zero map. Similarly, a fibre of $f$ cannot be homologically trivial because it intersects the section non-trivially, and thus the map $d_2$ must be zero. So the spectral sequence degenerates at $E_2$. In particular, we get ${\mathbb{R}}^{h^{1,1}}\cong
H^2(X,{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^1(B,R^1f_*{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^1(B,R^2\check f_*{\mathbb{R}})$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^{h^{2,2}}\cong H^4(X,{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^2(B,R^2f_*{\mathbb{R}})\cong H^2(B,R^1\check
f_*{\mathbb{R}})$, where $h^{p,q}$ are the Hodge numbers of $X$. Thus the third Betti number of $\check X$ is $2+h^{1,1}+h^{2,2}=2(1+h^{1,1})$, so we see $h^{1,1}(X)=h^{1,2}(\check X)$ and $h^{1,2}(X)
=h^{1,1}(\check X)$.
So modulo some assumptions which would of course eventually have to be justified, it is clear, at least in the three-dimensional case, why the Hodge numbers are interchanged by duality.
More generally, in any dimension, one might hope that ${\mathbb{R}}$-simplicity implies $\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}} H^p(B,R^qf_*{\mathbb{R}})=h^{p,q}$, and then a more general exchange of Hodge numbers becomes clear. See Theorem \[hodgedecomp\] for a related result.
This argument can be refined over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ to make new predictions about the behaviour of *integral* cohomology under mirror symmetry. In [@SlagII], Theorem 3.10, it was shown, again in the three-dimensional case, that if $f$ and $\check f$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}$-simple and ${\mathbb{Q}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$-simple, $f$ and $\check f$ have sections, and $H^1(X,{\mathbb{Z}})=0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
H^{even}(X,{\mathbb{Z}}[1/2])&\cong&H^{odd}(\check X,{\mathbb{Z}}[1/2])\\
H^{odd}(X,{\mathbb{Z}}[1/2])&\cong&H^{even}(\check X,{\mathbb{Z}}[1/2]).\end{aligned}$$ There are problems in the argument with two-torsion, but it is likely the above isomorphisms hold over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. See [@BS] for evidence for this latter conjecture.
Enough speculation. Now let’s get serious about the structure of special Lagrangian fibrations.
Moduli of special Lagrangian submanifolds
=========================================
The first step in really understanding the SYZ conjecture is to examine the structures which arise on the base of a special Lagrangian fibration. These structures arise from McLean’s theorem on the moduli space of special Lagrangian submanifolds [@McLean], and these structures and their relationships were explained by Hitchin in [@Hit]. We outline some of these ideas here. McLean’s theorem says that the moduli space of deformations of a compact special Lagrangian submanifold of a compact Calabi-Yau manifold $X$ is unobstructed, with tangent space at $M\subseteq
X$ special Lagrangian canonically isomorphic to the space of harmonic $1$-forms on $M$. This isomorphism is seen explicitly as follows. Let $\nu\in\Gamma(M,N_{M/X})$ be a normal vector field to $M$ in $X$. Then $(\iota(\nu)\omega)|_M$ and $(\iota(\nu){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega)|_M$ are both seen to be well-defined forms on $M$: one needs to lift $\nu$ to a vector field but the choice is irrelevant because $\omega$ and ${\operatorname{Im}}\Omega$ restrict to zero on $M$. McLean shows that if $M$ is special Lagrangian then $$\iota(\nu){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega=-*\iota(\nu)\omega,$$ where $*$ denotes the Hodge star operator on $M$, and furthermore, $\nu$ corresponds to an infinitesimal deformation preserving the special Lagrangian condition if and only if $d(\iota(\nu)\omega)
=d(\iota(\nu){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega)=0$. This gives the correspondence between harmonic $1$-forms and infinitesimal special Lagrangian deformations.
Let $f:X\rightarrow B$ be a special Lagrangian fibration with torus fibres, and assume for now that all fibres of $f$ are non-singular. Then we obtain three structures on $B$: two affine structures and a metric, as we shall now see.
\[affine\] Let $B$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold. An [*affine structure*]{} on $B$ is given by an atlas $\{(U_i,\psi_i)\}$ of coordinate charts $\psi_i:U_i\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$, whose transition functions $\psi_i\circ\psi_j^{-1}$ lie in ${\rm Aff}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We say the affine structure is *tropical* if the transition functions lie in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\rtimes GL({\mathbb{Z}}^n)$, i.e. have integral linear part. We say the affine structure is [*integral*]{} if the transition functions lie in ${\rm Aff}({\mathbb{Z}}^n)$.
If an affine manifold $B$ carries a Riemannian metric $g$, then we say the metric is *affine Kähler* or *Hessian* if $g$ is locally given by $g_{ij}=\partial^2K/\partial y_i\partial y_j$ for some convex function $K$ and $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ affine coordinates.
Then we obtain the three structures as follows:
*Affine structure 1.* For a normal vector field $\nu$ to a fibre $X_b$ of $f$, $(\iota(\nu)\omega)|_{X_b}$ is a well-defined $1$-form on $X_b$, and we can compute its periods as follows. Let $U\subseteq B$ be a small open set, and suppose we have submanifolds $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n\subseteq
f^{-1}(U)$ which are families of 1-cycles over $U$ and such that $\gamma_1\cap X_b,\ldots,\gamma_n\cap X_b$ form a basis for $H_1(X_b,{\mathbb{Z}})$ for each $b\in U$. Consider the $1$-forms $\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n$ on $U$ defined by fibrewise integration: $$\omega_i(\nu)=\int_{X_b\cap\gamma_i} \iota(\nu)\omega,$$ for $\nu$ a tangent vector on $B$ at $b$, which we can lift to a normal vector field of $X_b$. We have $\omega_i=f_*(\omega|_{\gamma_i})$, and since $\omega$ is closed, so is $\omega_i$. Thus there are locally defined functions $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ on $U$ with $dy_i=\omega_i$. Furthermore, these functions are well-defined up to the choice of basis of $H_1(X_b,{\mathbb{Z}})$ and constants. Finally, they give well-defined coordinates, as follows from the fact that $\nu\mapsto \iota(\nu)\omega$ yields an isomorphism of ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{B,b}$ with $H^1(X_b,{\mathbb{R}})$ by McLean’s theorem. Thus $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ define local coordinates of a tropical affine structure on $B$.
*Affine structure 2.* We can play the same trick with ${\operatorname{Im}}\Omega$: choose submanifolds $\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_n\subseteq f^{-1}(U)$ which are families of $n-1$-cycles over $U$ and such that $\Gamma_1\cap X_b,\ldots,\Gamma_n\cap X_b$ form a basis for $H^{n-1}(X_b,
{\mathbb{Z}})$. We define $\lambda_i$ by $\lambda_i=-f_*({\operatorname{Im}}\Omega|_{\Gamma_i})$, or equivalently, $$\lambda_i(\nu)=-\int_{X_b\cap\Gamma_i} \iota(\nu){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega.$$ Again $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$ are closed $1$-forms, with $\lambda_i=d\check y_i$ locally, and again $\check y_1,\ldots,\check
y_n$ are affine coordinates for a tropical affine structure on $B$.
*The McLean metric.* The Hodge metric on $H^1(X_b,{\mathbb{R}})$ is given by $$g(\alpha,\beta)=\int_{X_b} \alpha\wedge *\beta$$ for $\alpha$, $\beta$ harmonic $1$-forms, and hence induces a metric on $B$, which can be written as $$g(\nu_1,\nu_2)=-\int_{X_b}\iota(\nu_1)\omega\wedge \iota(\nu_2){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega.$$
A crucial observation of Hitchin [@Hit] is that these structures are related by the Legendre transform:
\[hessianmetric\] Let $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ be local affine coordinates on $B$ with respect to the affine structure induced by $\omega$. Then locally there is a function $K$ on $B$ such that $$g(\partial/\partial y_i,\partial/\partial y_j)=\partial^2 K/\partial y_i
\partial y_j.$$ Furthermore, $\cy_i=\partial K/\partial y_i$ form a system of affine coordinates with respect to the affine structure induced by ${\operatorname{Im}}\Omega$, and if $$\check K(\cy_1,\ldots,\cy_n)=\sum \cy_i y_i-K(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$$ is the Legendre transform of $K$, then $$y_i=\partial \check K/\partial\cy_i$$ and $$\partial^2\check K/\partial y_i\partial y_j=g(\partial/\partial\cy_i,
\partial/\partial\cy_j).$$
Take families $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n,\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_n$ as above over an open neighbourhood $U$ with the two bases being Poincaré dual, i.e. $(\gamma_i\cap X_b)\cdot(\Gamma_j\cap X_b)=
\delta_{ij}$ for $b\in U$. Let $\gamma_1^*,\ldots,\gamma_n^*$ and $\Gamma_1^*,\ldots,\Gamma_n^*$ be the dual bases for $\Gamma(U,R^1f_*{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\Gamma(U,R^{n-1}f_*{\mathbb{Z}})$ respectively. From the choice of $\gamma_i$’s, we get local coordinates $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ with $dy_i=\omega_i$, so in particular $$\delta_{ij}=\omega_i(\partial/\partial y_j)=\int_{\gamma_i\cap X_b}
\iota(\partial/\partial y_j)\omega,$$ so $\iota(\partial/\partial y_j)\omega$ defines the cohomology class $\gamma_j^*$ in $H^1(X_b,{\mathbb{R}})$. Similarly, let $$g_{ij}=-\int_{\Gamma_i\cap X_b}\iota(\partial/\partial y_j){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega;$$ then $-\iota(\partial/\partial y_j){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega$ defines the cohomology class $\sum_i g_{ij}\Gamma_i^*$ in $H^{n-1}(X_b,{\mathbb{R}})$, and $\lambda_i=\sum_j g_{ij}dy_j$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
g(\partial/\partial y_j,\partial/\partial y_k)&=&
-\int_{X_b}\iota(\partial/\partial y_j)\omega
\wedge \iota(\partial/\partial y_k){\operatorname{Im}}\Omega\\
&=&g_{jk}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, let $\cy_1,\ldots,\cy_n$ be coordinates with $d\cy_i=\lambda_i$. Then $${\partial\cy_i/\partial y_j}=g_{ij}=g_{ji}={\partial\cy_j/
\partial y_i},$$ so $\sum\cy_i dy_i$ is a closed 1-form. Thus there exists locally a function $K$ such that $\partial K/\partial y_i=\cy_i$ and $\partial^2 K/\partial y_i\partial y_j=g(\partial/\partial y_i,
\partial/\partial y_j)$. A simple calculation then confirms that $\partial\check K/\partial \cy_i
=y_i$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
g(\partial/\partial\cy_i,\partial/\partial\cy_j)&=&
g\left(\sum_k {\partial y_k\over\partial\cy_i}{\partial\over
\partial y_k},\sum_l {\partial y_l\over\partial\cy_j}
{\partial\over\partial y_l}\right)\\
&=&\sum_{k,l}{\partial y_k\over\partial\cy_i}{\partial y_l\over\partial
\cy_j} g(\partial/\partial y_k,\partial/\partial y_l)\\
&=&\sum_{k,l} {\partial y_k\over\partial\cy_i}{\partial y_l\over
\partial\cy_j}{\partial\cy_k\over\partial y_l}\\
&=&{\partial y_j\over\partial\cy_i}={\partial^2\check K\over
\partial\cy_i\partial\cy_j}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus we introduce the notion of *Legendre transform* of an affine manifold with a multi-valued convex function.
\[multivaluedconvex\] Let $B$ be an affine manifold. A *multi-valued* function $K$ on $B$ is a collection of functions on an open cover $\{(U_i,K_i)\}$ such that on $U_i\cap U_j$, $K_i-K_j$ is affine linear. We say $K$ is *convex* if the Hessian $(\partial^2 K_i/\partial y_j\partial y_k)$ is positive definite for all $i$, in any, or equivalently all, affine coordinate systems $y_1,
\ldots,y_n$.
Given a pair $(B,K)$ of affine manifold and convex multi-valued function, the *Legendre transform* of $(B,K)$ is a pair $(\check B,
\check K)$ where $\check B$ is an affine structure on the underlying manifold of $B$ with coordinates given locally by $\check y_i=\partial K/\partial y_i$, and $\check K$ is defined by $$\check K_i(\check y_1,\ldots,\check y_n)=\sum \check y_j y_j
-K_i(y_1,\ldots,y_n).$$
Check that $\check K$ is also convex, and that the Legendre transform of $(\check B,\check K)$ is $(B,K)$.
Semi-flat mirror symmetry
=========================
Now let’s forget about special Lagrangian fibrations for the moment. Instead, we see how the structures found on $B$ give a toy version of mirror symmetry.
Let $B$ be a tropical affine manifold.
1. Define $\Lambda\subseteq{{\mathcal{T}}}_B$ to be the local system of lattices generated locally by $\partial/\partial y_1,\ldots,\partial/\partial y_n$, where $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ are local affine coordinates. This is well-defined because transition maps are in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\rtimes GL_n({\mathbb{Z}})$. Set $$X(B):={{\mathcal{T}}}_B/\Lambda;$$ this is a torus bundle over $B$. In addition, $X(B)$ carries a complex structure defined locally as follows. Let $U\subseteq B$ be an open set with affine coordinates $y_1,\ldots,y_n$, so ${{\mathcal{T}}}_U$ has coordinate functions $y_1,\ldots,y_n$, $x_1=dy_1,\ldots,x_n=dy_n$. Then $$q_j=e^{2\pi i(x_j+iy_j)}$$ gives a system of holomorphic coordinates on $T_U/\Lambda|_U$, and the induced complex structure is independent of the choice of affine coordinates.
Later we will need a variant of this: for $\epsilon>0$, set $$X_{\epsilon}(B):={{\mathcal{T}}}_B/\epsilon\Lambda;$$ this has a complex structure with coordinates given by $$q_j=e^{2\pi i(x_j+iy_j)/\epsilon}.$$ (As we shall see later, the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ corresponds to a large complex structure limit.)
2. Define $\check\Lambda\subseteq{{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B$ to be the local system of lattices generated locally by $dy_1,\ldots,dy_n$, with $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ local affine coordinates. Set $$\check X(B):={{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B/\check\Lambda.$$ Of course ${{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B$ carries a canonical symplectic structure, and this symplectic structure descends to $\check X(B)$.
We write $f:X(B)\rightarrow B$ and $\check f:\check X(B)\rightarrow B$ for these torus fibrations; these are clearly dual.
Now suppose in addition we have a Hessian metric $g$ on $B$, with local potential function $K$. Then in fact both $X(B)$ and $\check X(B)$ become Kähler manifolds:
$K\circ f$ is a (local) Kähler potential on $X(B)$, defining a Kähler form $\omega=2i\partial\bar\partial(K\circ
f)$. This metric is Ricci-flat if and only if $K$ satisfies the real Monge-Ampère equation $$\det {\partial^2 K\over \partial y_i\partial y_j}=constant.$$
Working locally with affine coordinates $(y_i)$ and complex coordinates $z_j={1\over 2\pi i}\log q_j=x_j+i y_j$, we compute $\omega=2i\partial\bar\partial(K\circ f)={i\over 2}
\sum {\partial^2 K\over \partial y_j\partial y_k} dz_j\wedge
d\bar z_k$ which is clearly positive. Furthermore, if $\Omega=dz_1\wedge\cdots\wedge dz_n$, then $\omega^n$ is proportional to $\Omega\wedge\bar\Omega$ if and only if $\det (\partial^2 K/\partial y_j\partial y_k)$ is constant.
We write this Kähler manifold as $X(B,K)$.
Dually we have
In local canonical coordinates $y_i,\check x_i$ on ${{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B$, the functions $z_j=\check x_j+i\partial K/\partial y_j$ on ${{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B$ induce a well-defined complex structure on $\check X(B)$, with respect to which the canonical symplectic form $\omega$ is a Kähler form of a metric. Furthermore this metric is Ricci-flat if and only if $K$ satisfies the real Monge-Ampère equation $$\det {\partial^2 K\over \partial y_j\partial y_k}=constant.$$
It is easy to see that an affine linear change in the coordinates $y_j$ (and hence an appropriate change in the coordinates $\check x_j$) results in a linear change of the coordinates $z_j$, so they induce a well-defined complex structure invariant under $\check x_j\mapsto \check x_j+1$, and hence a complex structure on $\check X(B)$. Then one computes that $$\omega=\sum d\check x_j\wedge dy_j={i\over 2}\sum g^{jk} dz_j\wedge d\bar z_k$$ where $g_{ij}=\partial^2 K/\partial y_j\partial y_k$. Then the metric is Ricci-flat if and only if $\det(g^{jk})=constant$, if and only if $\det(g_{jk})=constant$.
As before, we call this Kähler manifold $\check X(B,K)$.
This motivates the definition
An affine manifold with metric of Hessian form is a *Monge-Ampère manifold* if the local potential function $K$ satisfies the Monge-Ampère equation $\det(\partial^2K/\partial y_i\partial
y_j)=constant$.
Monge-Ampère manifolds were first studied by Cheng and Yau in [@ChengYau].
\[caniso\] Show that the identification of ${{\mathcal{T}}}_B$ and ${{\mathcal{T}}}^*_B$ given by a Hessian metric induces a canonical isomorphism $X(B,K)\cong\check X(\check B,\check K)$ of Kähler manifolds, where $(\check B,\check K)$ is the Legendre transform of $(B,K)$.
Finally, we note that a $B$-field can be introduced into this picture. To keep life relatively simple (so as to avoid having to pass to generalized complex structures [@HitGen], [@Gual], [@Oren]), we view the $B$-field as an element ${\bf B}\in
H^1(B,\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)$, where $\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}=\Lambda\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}
{\mathbb{R}}$. Noting that a section of $\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$ over an open set $U$ can be viewed as a section of ${{\mathcal{T}}}_U/\Lambda|_U$, such a section acts on ${{\mathcal{T}}}_U/\Lambda|_U$ via translation, and this action is in fact holomorphic with respect to the standard semi-flat complex structure. Thus a Čech 1-cocycle $(U_{ij},\beta_{ij})$ representing ${\bf B}$ allows us to reglue $X(B)$ via translations over the intersections $U_{ij}$. This gives a new complex manifold $X(B,{\bf B})$. If in addition there is a multi-valued potential function $K$ defining a metric, these translations preserve the metric and yield a Kähler manifold $X(B,{\bf B},K)$.
Thus the full toy version of mirror symmetry is as follows. The data consists of an affine manifold $B$ with potential $K$ and $B$-fields ${\bf B}
\in H^1(B,\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)$, $\check {\bf B}\in H^1(B,
\check\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}/\check\Lambda)$. Now it is not difficult to see, and you will have seen this already if you’ve done Exercise \[caniso\], that the local system $\check\Lambda$ defined using the affine structure on $B$ is the same as the local system $\Lambda$ defined using the affine stucture on $\check B$. So we say the pair $$(X(B,{\bf B},K),\check{\bf B})$$ is mirror to $$(X(\check B,\check {\bf B},\check K),\bf B).$$
This provides a reasonably fulfilling picture of mirror symmetry in a simple context. Many more aspects of mirror symmetry can be worked out in this semi-flat context, see [@Leung]. However, ultimately this only sheds limited insight into the general case. The only compact Calabi-Yau manifolds with semi-flat Ricci-flat metric which arise in this way are complex tori (shown by Cheng and Yau in [@ChengYau]). To deal with more interesting cases, we need to allow singular fibres, and hence, singularities in the affine structure of $B$.
Affine manifolds with singularities
===================================
To deal with singular fibres, we define
A *(tropical, integral) affine manifold with singularities* is a $(C^0)$ manifold $B$ with an open subset $B_0\subseteq B$ which carries a (tropical, integral) affine structure, and such that $\Gamma:=B
\setminus B_0$ is a locally finite union of locally closed submanifolds of codimension $\ge 2$.
By way of example, let’s explain how the Batyrev construction gives rise to a wide class of such manifolds. This construction is taken from [@GBB], where a more combinatorially complicated version is given for complete intersections; see [@HZ] and [@HZ3] for an alternative construction.
Let $\Delta$ be a reflexive polytope in $M_{{\mathbb{R}}}=M\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{R}}$, where $M={\mathbb{Z}}^n$; let $N$ be the dual lattice, $\nabla\subseteq
N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ the dual polytope given by $$\nabla:=\{n\in N_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hbox{$\langle m,n\rangle\ge -1$ for all $m\in\Delta$}
\}.$$ We assume $0\in\Delta$ is the unique interior lattice point of $\Delta$. Let $\check\Sigma$ be the normal fan to $\nabla$, consisting of cones over the faces of $\Delta$. Suppose we are given a star subdivision of $\Delta$, with all vertices being integral points, inducing a subdivision $\check\Sigma'$ of the fan $\check\Sigma$. In addition suppose that $$\check h:M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$$ is an (upper) strictly convex piecewise linear function on the fan $\check\Sigma'$. Also, let $$\check\varphi:M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$$ be the piecewise linear function representing the anti-canonical class of the toric variety ${\mathbb{P}}_{\nabla}$; i.e. $\check\varphi$ takes the value $1$ on the primitive generator of each one-dimensional cone of $\check\Sigma$. Finally, assume that $\check h$ is chosen so that $\check h'=\check h-\check\varphi$ is a (not necessarily strictly) convex function.
Define, for any convex piecewise linear function $\check g$ on the fan $\check\Sigma'$, the Newton polytope of $\check g$, $$\nabla^{\check g}:=\{n\in N_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hbox{$\langle m,n\rangle\ge -\check g(m)$ for
all $m\in M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$}\}.$$ In particular, $$\nabla^{\check h}=\nabla^{\check h'}+\nabla^{\check\varphi}=
\nabla^{\check h'}+\nabla,$$ where $+$ denotes Minkowski sum. Our goal will be to put an affine structure with singularities on $B:=\partial\nabla^{\check h}$. Our first method of doing this requires no choices. Let ${\mathscr{P}}$ be the set of proper faces of $\nabla^{\check h}$. Furthermore, let ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$ denote the first barycentric subdivision of ${\mathscr{P}}$ and let $\Gamma\subseteq B$ be the union of all simplices of ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$ not containing a vertex of ${\mathscr{P}}$ (a zero-dimensional cell) or intersecting the interior of a maximal cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$. If we then set $B_0:=B\setminus\Gamma$, we can define an affine structure on $B_0$ as follows. $B_0$ has an open cover $$\{W_{\sigma}|\hbox{$\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ maximal}\}\cup
\{W_v|\hbox{$v\in{\mathscr{P}}$ a vertex}\}$$ where $W_{\sigma}={\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$, the interior of $\sigma$, and $$W_v=\bigcup_{\tau\in{\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})\atop v\in\tau}{\operatorname{Int}}(\tau)$$ is the (open) star of $v$ in ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$. We define an affine chart $$\psi_{\sigma}:W_{\sigma}\rightarrow{\mathbb{A}}^{n-1}\subseteq N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$$ given by the inclusion of $W_{\sigma}$ in ${\mathbb{A}}^{n-1}$, the affine hyperplane containing $\sigma$. Also, take $$\psi_v:W_v\rightarrow N_{{\mathbb{R}}}/{\mathbb{R}}v'$$ to be the projection, where $v$, being a vertex of $\nabla^{\check h}$, can be written uniquely as $v'+v''$ with $v'$ a vertex of $\nabla$ and $v''$ a vertex of $\nabla^{\check h'}$. One checks easily that for $v\in\sigma$, $\psi_{\sigma}\circ\psi_v^{-1}$ is affine linear with integral linear part (integrality follows from reflexivity of $\Delta$!) so $B$ is a tropical affine manifold with singularities. Furthermore, if $\check h$ was chosen to have integral slopes, then $B$ is integral.
We often would like to refine this construction, to get a finer polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ of $B$ and with it a somewhat more interesting discriminant locus $\Gamma$. One reason for doing so is that this construction is clearly not mirror symmetric, as it depends only on a star subdivision of $\Delta$ and not of $\nabla$. Furthermore, a maximal star subdivision of $\nabla$ corresponds to what Batyrev terms a MPCP (maximal projective crepant partial) resolution of ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$, and normally, we will wish to study hypersurfaces in a MPCP resolution of ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$ rather than in ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$ itself. To introduce this extra degree of flexibility, we need to make some choices, which is done as follows.
First, choose a star subdivision of $\nabla$, with all vertices being integral points, inducing a refinement $\Sigma'$ of the fan $\Sigma$ which is the normal fan to $\Delta$. This induces a polyhedral subdivision of $\partial\nabla$, and we write the collection of cells of this subdivision as ${\mathscr{P}}_{\partial\nabla}$. Note that because $0\in \nabla$, we have $$\nabla^{\check h'}\subseteq \nabla^{\check h'}+\nabla=\nabla^{\check h}.$$
A subdivision ${\mathscr{P}}$ of $\partial\nabla^{\check h}$ is *good* with respect to ${\mathscr{P}}_{\partial\nabla}$ if it is induced by a subdivision ${\mathscr{P}}_{\nabla^{\check h}}$ of $\nabla^{\check h}$ satisfying the following three properties:
1. $\nabla^{\check h'}$ is a union of cells in ${\mathscr{P}}_{\nabla^{\check h}}$.
2. All vertices of ${\mathscr{P}}_{\nabla^{\check h}}$ are contained either in $\partial\nabla^{\check h}$ or in $\nabla^{\check h'}$.
3. Every cell $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}_{\nabla^{\check h}}$ with $\sigma\cap\partial\nabla^{\check h}\not=\emptyset$ and $\tau:=\sigma\cap
\partial\nabla^{\check h'}\not=\emptyset$ can be written as $$\sigma=(C(\sigma')+\tau)\cap \nabla^{\check h},$$ with $\sigma'\in{\mathscr{P}}_{\partial\nabla}$ and $C(\sigma')$ the corresponding cone in $\Sigma'$.
If $\check h$ has integral slopes and all vertices of ${\mathscr{P}}_{\nabla^{\check h}}$ are integral, then we say ${\mathscr{P}}$ is integral.
The following picture shows what such a good subdivision may look like, in the case that $\nabla$ is the Newton polytope of ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2}(3)$:
Given a good decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ of $$B:=\partial\nabla^{\check h},$$ we once again obtain an affine structure with singularities on $B$, much as before, defining the discriminant locus $\Gamma\subseteq B$ in terms of the first barycentric subdivision ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$ of this new polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$. Then as before $B_0:=B\setminus\Gamma$ has an open cover $$\{W_{\sigma}|\hbox{$\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ maximal}\}\cup
\{W_v|\hbox{$v\in{\mathscr{P}}$ a vertex}\}$$ where $W_{\sigma}={\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$, the interior of $\sigma$, and $$W_v=\bigcup_{\tau\in{\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})\atop v\in\tau}{\operatorname{Int}}(\tau)$$ is the (open) star of $v$ in ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$. We define an affine chart $$\psi_{\sigma}:W_{\sigma}\rightarrow{\mathbb{A}}^{n-1}\subseteq N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$$ given by the inclusion of $W_{\sigma}$ in ${\mathbb{A}}^{n-1}$, the affine hyperplane containing $\sigma$. Also, take $\psi_v:W_v\rightarrow N_{{\mathbb{R}}}/{\mathbb{R}}v'$ to be the projection, where $v$ can be written uniquely as $v'+v''$ with $v'$ an integral point of $\nabla$ and $v''\in\nabla^{\check h'}$. As before, one checks easily that for $v\in\sigma$, $\psi_{\sigma}\circ\psi_v^{-1}$ is affine linear with integral linear part so $B$ is a tropical affine manifold with singularities. Furthermore, if $\check h$ has integral slopes, and ${\mathscr{P}}$ is integral, then the affine structure on $B$ is in fact integral.
\[quintic\] Let $\Delta\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^4$ be the convex hull of the points $$(-1,-1,-1,-1), (1,0,0,0), (0,1,0,0), (0,0,1,0), (0,0,0,1),$$ so $\nabla$ is the convex hull of the points $$(-1,-1,-1,-1), (4,-1,-1,-1), (-1,4,-1,-1), (-1,-1,4,-1),
(-1,-1,-1,4).$$ Take $\check h=\check\varphi$ and choose a star triangulation of $\nabla$. In this case $B=\partial\nabla$. It is easy to see the affine structure on $B_0$ in fact extends across the interior of all three-dimensional faces of $\nabla$. This gives a smaller discriminant locus $\Gamma$ which, given a nice regular triangulation of $\nabla$, looks like the following picture in a neighbourhood of a $2$-face of $\nabla$: the light lines giving the triangulation and the dark lines the discriminant locus $\Gamma$.
In this picture, $\Gamma$ is a trivalent graph, with two types of trivalent vertices. The ones along the edge are non-planar: the two additional legs of $\Gamma$ drawn in this picture are contained in other two-faces of $\nabla$. However $\Gamma$ is planar in the interior of this two-face.
In general, if the subdivisions $\Sigma'$ and $\check\Sigma'$ of $\Sigma$ and $\check\Sigma$ respectively represent maximal projective crepant partial resolutions of ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$ and ${\mathbb{P}}_{\nabla}$, and $\dim B=3$, then only these sorts of trivalent vertices occur. More specifically, one knows what the monodromy of the local systems $\Lambda$ and $\check\Lambda$ on $B_0$ look like at these vertices. If $v\in\Gamma$ is a vertex contained in the interior of a two-face, then it is clear that the tangent space to that two-face is invariant under parallel transport, in a neighbourhood of $v$, of $\Lambda$. A more careful analysis yields that the monodromy matrices for $\Lambda$ take the form, in a suitable basis, $$T_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0\\1&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix},
T_2=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0\\0&1&0\\1&0&1\end{pmatrix},
T_3=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0\\-1&1&0\\-1&0&1\end{pmatrix}.$$ Here $T_1,T_2,T_3$ are given by parallel transport about loops around the three edges of $\Gamma$ coming out of $v$. Of course, the monodromy of $\check\Lambda$ is the transpose inverse of these matrices. Similarly, if $v$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$ contained in an edge of $\nabla^{\check h}$, then the monodromy will take the form $$T_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1&-1&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix},
T_2=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&-1\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix},
T_3=\begin{pmatrix} 1&1&1\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}.$$ So we see that the monodromy of the two types of vertices are interchanged by looking at $\Lambda$ and $\check\Lambda$.
One main result of [@TMS] is
If $B$ is a three-dimensional tropical affine manifold with singularities such that $\Gamma$ is trivalent and the monodromy of $\Lambda$ at each vertex is one of the above two types, then $f_0:X(B_0)\rightarrow B_0$ can be compactified to a topological fibration $f:X(B)\rightarrow B$. Dually, $\check f_0:\check X(B_0)
\rightarrow B_0$ can be compactified to a topological fibration $\check f:\check X(B)\rightarrow B$.
We won’t give any details here of how this is carried out, but it is not particularly difficult, as long as one restricts to the category of topological (not $C^{\infty}$) manifolds. However, it is interesting to look at the singular fibres we need to add in this compactification.
If $b\in\Gamma$ is a point which is not a vertex of $\Gamma$, then $f^{-1}(b)$ is homeomorphic to $I_1\times S^1$, where $I_1$ denotes a Kodaira type $I_1$ elliptic curve, i.e. a pinched torus.
If $b$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$, with monodromy of the first type, then $f^{-1}(b)=S^1\times S^1\times S^1/\sim$, with $(a,b,c)\sim (a',b',c')$ if $(a,b,c)=(a',b',c')$ or $a=a'=1$, where $S^1$ is identified with the unit circle in ${\mathbb{C}}$. This is the three-dimensional analogue of a pinched torus, and $\chi(f^{-1}(b))=+1$. We call this a *positive* fibre.
If $b$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$, with monodromy of the second type, then $f^{-1}(b)$ can be described as $S^1\times S^1\times S^1/\sim$, with $(a,b,c)\sim (a',b',c')$ if $(a,b,c)=(a',b',c')$ or $a=a'=1$, $b=b'$, or $a=a',b=b'=1$. The singular locus of this fibre is a figure eight, and $\chi(f^{-1}(b))=-1$. We call this a *negative* fibre.
So we see a very concrete local consequence of SYZ duality: namely in the compactifications $X(B)$ and $\check X(B)$, the positive and negative fibres are interchanged. Of course, this results in the observation that Euler characteristic changes sign under mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau threefolds.
Continuing with Example \[quintic\], it was proved in [@TMS] that $\check X(B)$ is homeomorphic to the quintic and $X(B)$ is homeomorphic to the mirror quintic.
Haase and Zharkov in [@HZ] gave a different description of what is the same affine structure. Their construction has the advantage that it is manifestly dual. In other words, in our construction, we can interchange the role of $\Delta$ and $\nabla$ to get two different affine manifolds, with $B_{\Delta}$ the affine manifold with singularities structure on $\partial\Delta^{h}$ and $B_{\nabla}$ the affine manifold with singularities structure on $\partial\nabla^{\check h}$. It is not obvious that these are “dual” affine manifolds, at least in the sense that $X(B_{\nabla})$ is homeomorphic to $\check X(B_{\Delta})$ and $\check X(B_{\nabla})$ is homeomorphic to $X(B_{\Delta})$. In the construction given above, this follows from the discrete Legendre transform we will discuss in §7. On the other hand, the construction I give here will arise naturally from the degeneration construction discussed later in this paper.
Ruan in [@Ruan] gave a description of *Lagrangian* torus fibrations for hypersurfaces in toric varieties using a symplectic flow argument, and his construction should coincide with a *symplectic* compactification of the symplectic manifolds $\check X(B_0)$. In the three-dimensional case, such a symplectic compactification has now been constructed by Ricardo Castaño-Bernard and Diego Matessi [@CastMat]. If this compactification is applied to the affine manifolds with singularities described here, the resulting symplectic manifolds should be symplectomorphic to the corresponding toric hypersurface, but this has not yet been shown.
I should also point out that the explicit compactifications mentioned in three dimensions can be carried out in all dimensions, and will be done so in [@tori]. We will show there in a much more general context that these compactifications are then homeomorphic to the expected Calabi-Yau manifolds.
The problems with the SYZ conjecture, and how to get around them
================================================================
The previous section demonstrates that the SYZ conjecture gives a beautiful description of mirror symmetry at a purely topological level. This, by itself, can often be useful, but unfortunately is not strong enough to get at really interesting aspects of mirror symmetry, such as instanton corrections. For a while, though, many of us were hoping that the strong version of duality we have just seen would hold at the special Lagrangian level. This would mean that a mirror pair $X,\check X$ would possess special Lagrangian torus fibrations $f:X\rightarrow B$ and $\check f:\check X\rightarrow B$ with codimension two discriminant locus, and the discriminant loci of $f$ and $\check f$ would coincide. These fibrations would then be dual away from the discriminant locus.
There are examples of special Lagrangian fibrations on non-compact toric varieties $X$ with this behaviour. In particular, if $\dim X=n$ with a $T^{n-1}$ action on $X$ preserving the holomorphic $n$-form, and if $X$ in addition carries a Ricci-flat metric which is invariant under this action, then $X$ will have a very nice special Lagrangian fibration with codimension two discriminant locus. (See [@SLAGex] and [@Gold]). However, Dominic Joyce ([@Joyce] and other papers cited therein) began studying some three-dimensional $S^1$-invariant examples, and discovered quite different behaviour. There is an argument that if a special Lagrangian fibration is $C^{\infty}$, then the discriminant locus will be (Hausdorff) codimension two. However, Joyce discovered examples which were not differentiable, but only piecewise differentiable, and furthermore, had a codimension one discriminant locus:
Define $F:{\mathbb{C}}^3\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ by $F(z_1,z_2,z_3)=(a,c)$ with $2a=|z_1|^2-|z_2|^2$ and $$c=\begin{cases}
z_3&a=z_1=z_2=0\\
z_3-\bar z_1\bar z_2/|z_1|& a\ge 0, z_1\not=0\\
z_3-\bar z_1\bar z_2/|z_2|&a<0.
\end{cases}$$ It is easy to see that if $a\not=0$, then $F^{-1}(a,c)$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times S^1$, while if $a=0$, then $F^{-1}(a,c)$ is a cone over $T^2$: essentially, one copy of $S^1$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times S^1$ collapses to a point. In addition, all fibres of this map are special Lagrangian, and it is obviously only piecewise smooth. The discriminant locus is the entire plane given by $a=0$.
This example forces a reevaluation of the strong form of the SYZ conjecture. In further work Joyce found evidence for a more likely picture for general special Lagrangian fibrations in three dimensions. The discriminant locus, instead of being a codimension two graph, will be a codimension one blob. Typically the union of the singular points of singular fibres will be a Riemann surface, and it will map to an amoeba shaped set in $B$, i.e.the discriminant locus looks like the picture on the right rather than the left, and will be a fattening of the old picture of a codimension two discriminant.
Joyce made some additional arguments to suggest that this fattened discriminant locus must look fundamentally different in a neighbourhood of the two basic types of vertices we saw in the previous section, with the two types of vertices expected to appear pretty much as depicted in the above picture. Thus the strong form of duality mentioned above, where we expect the discriminant loci of the special Lagrangian fibrations on a mirror pair to be the same, cannot hold. If this is the case, one needs to replace this strong form of duality with a weaker form.
It seems likely that the best way to rephrase the SYZ conjecture is in a limiting form. Mirror symmetry as we currently understand it has to do with degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds. Given a flat family $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ over a disk $D$, with the fibre ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ over $0$ singular and all other fibres $n$-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, we say the family is *maximally unipotent* if the monodromy transformation $T:H^n({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,{\mathbb{Q}})\rightarrow H^n({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,{\mathbb{Q}})$ ($t\in D$ non-zero) satisfies $(T-I)^{n+1}=0$ but $(T-I)^n\not=0$. It is a standard fact of mirror symmetry that mirrors should be associated to maximally unipotent degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds. In particular, given two different maximally unipotent degenerations in a single complex moduli space for some Calabi-Yau manifold, one might obtain different mirror manifolds. Sometimes these different mirror manifolds are birationally equivalent, as studied in [@AGM], or are genuinely different, see [@Rodland].
We recall the definition of Gromov-Hausdorff convergence, a notion of convergence of a sequence of metric spaces.
Let $(X,d_X)$, $(Y,d_Y)$ be two compact metric spaces. Suppose there exists maps $f:X\rightarrow Y$ and $g:Y\rightarrow X$ (not necessarily continuous) such that for all $x_1,x_2\in X$, $$|d_X(x_1,x_2)-d_Y(f(x_1),f(x_2))|<\epsilon$$ and for all $x\in X$, $$d_X(x,g\circ f(x))<\epsilon,$$ and the two symmetric properties for $Y$ hold. Then we say the Gromov–Hausdorff distance between $X$ and $Y$ is at most $\epsilon$. The Gromov–Hausdorff distance $d_{GH}(X,Y)$ is the infimum of all such $\epsilon$.
It follows from results of Gromov (see for example [@Petersen], pg. 281, Cor. 1.11) that the space of compact Ricci-flat manifolds with diameter $\le C$ is precompact with respect to Gromov-Hausdorff distance, i.e. any sequence of such manifolds has a subsequence converging with respect to the Gromov-Hausdorff distance to a metric space. This metric space could be quite bad; this is quite outside the realm of algebraic geometry! Nevertheless, this raises the following natural question. Given a maximally unipotent degeneration of Calabi-Yau manifolds ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$, take a sequence $t_i\in D$ converging to $0$, and consider a sequence $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i},
g_{t_i})$, where $g_{t_i}$ is a choice of Ricci-flat metric chosen so that $Diam(g_{t_i})$ remains bounded. What is the Gromov-Hausdorff limit of $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i},g_{t_i})$, or the limit of some convergent subsequence?
Consider a degenerating family of elliptic curves, with periods $1$ and ${1\over 2\pi i}\log t$. If we take $t$ approaching $0$ along the positive real axis, then we can just view this as a family of elliptic curves ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\alpha}$ with period $1$ and $i\alpha$ with $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$. If we take the standard Euclidean metric $g$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\alpha}$, then the diameter of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\alpha}$ is unbounded. To obtain a bounded diameter, we replace $g$ by $g/\alpha^2$; equivalently, we can keep $g$ fixed on ${\mathbb{C}}$ but change the periods of the elliptic curve to $1/\alpha, i$. It then becomes clear that the Gromov-Hausdorff limit of such a sequence of elliptic curves is a circle ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$.
This simple example motivates the first conjecture about maximally unipotent degenerations, conjectured independently by myself and Wilson on the one hand [@GrWi] and Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS] on the other.
\[GWKSconj\] Let ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ be a maximally unipotent degeneration of simply-connected Calabi-Yau manifolds with full $SU(n)$ holonomy, $t_i\in D$ with $t_i\rightarrow 0$, and let $g_i$ be a Ricci-flat metric on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}$ normalized to have fixed diameter $C$. Then a convergent subsequence of $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i},g_i)$ converges to a metric space $(X_{\infty},d_{\infty})$, where $X_{\infty}$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$. Furthermore, $d_{\infty}$ is induced by a Riemannian metric on $X_{\infty}\setminus\Gamma$, where $\Gamma\subseteq
X_{\infty}$ is a set of codimension two.
Here the topology of the limit depends on the nature of the non-singular fibres ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$; for example, if instead ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ was hyperkähler, then we would expect the limit to be a projective space. Also, even in the case of full $SU(n)$ holonomy, if ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is not simply connected, we would expect limits such as ${\mathbb{Q}}$-homology spheres to arise.
Conjecture \[GWKSconj\] is directly inspired by the SYZ conjecture. Suppose we had special Lagrangian fibrations $f_i:{{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}\rightarrow B_i$. Then as the maximally unipotent degeneration is approached, it is possible to see that the volume of the fibres of these fibrations go to zero. This would suggest these fibres collapse, hopefully leaving the base as the limit.
This conjecture was proved by myself and Wilson for K3 surfaces in [@GrWi]. The proof relies on a detailed analysis of the behaviour of Ricci-flat metrics in the limit, and also on the existence of explicit local models for Ricci-flat metrics near singular fibres of special Lagrangian fibrations.
The motivation for this conjecture from SYZ also provides a limiting form of the conjecture. There are any number of problems with trying to prove the existence of special Lagrangian fibrations on Calabi-Yau manifolds. Even the existence of a single special Lagrangian torus near a maximally unipotent degeneration is unknown, but we expect it should be easier to find them as we approach the maximally unipotent point. Furthermore, even if we find a special Lagrangian torus, we know that it moves in an $n$-dimensional family, but we don’t know its deformations fill out the entire manifold. In addition, there is no guarantee that even if it does, we obtain a foliation of the manifold: nearby special Lagrangian submanifolds may intersect. (For an example, see [@Matessi].) So instead, we will just look at the moduli space of special Lagrangian tori.
Suppose, given $t_i\rightarrow 0$, that for $t_i$ sufficiently close to zero, there is a special Lagrangian $T^n$ whose homology class is invariant under monodromy, or more specifically, generates the space $W_0$ of the monodromy weight filtration (this is where we expect to find fibres of a special Lagrangian fibration associated to a maximally unipotent degeneration). Let $B_{0,i}$ be the moduli space of deformations of this torus; every point of $B_{0,i}$ corresponds to a smooth special Lagrangian torus in ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}$. This manifold then comes equipped with the McLean metric and affine structures defined in §2. One can then compactify $B_{0,i}\subseteq B_i$, (probably by taking the closure of $B_{0,i}$ in the space of special Lagrangian currents; the details aren’t important here). This gives a series of metric spaces $(B_i,d_i)$ with the metric $d_i$ induced by the McLean metric. If the McLean metric is normalized to keep the diameter of $B_i$ constant independent of $i$, then we can hope that $(B_i,d_i)$ converges to a compact metric space $(B_{\infty},d_{\infty})$. Here then is the limiting form of SYZ:
If $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i},g_i)$ converges to $(X_{\infty},g_{\infty})$ and $(B_i,d_i)$ is non-empty for large $i$ and converges to $(B_{\infty},d_{\infty})$, then $B_{\infty}$ and $X_{\infty}$ are isometric up to scaling. Furthermore, there is a subspace $B_{\infty,0}
\subseteq B_{\infty}$ with $\Gamma:=B_{\infty}\setminus B_{\infty,0}$ of Hausdorff codimension 2 in $B_{\infty}$ such that $B_{\infty,0}$ is a Monge-Ampère manifold, with the Monge-Ampère metric inducing $d_{\infty}$ on $B_{\infty,0}$.
Essentially what this is saying is that as we approach the maximally unipotent degeneration, we expect to have a special Lagrangian fibration on larger and larger subsets of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}$. Furthermore, in the limit, the codimension one discriminant locus suggested by Joyce converges to a codimension two discriminant locus, and (the not necessarily Monge-Ampère, see [@Matessi]) Hessian metrics on $B_{0,i}$ converge to a Monge-Ampère metric.
The main point I want to get at here is that it is likely the SYZ conjecture is only “approximately” correct, and one needs to look at the limit to have a hope of proving anything. On the other hand, the above conjecture seems likely to be accessible by currently understood techniques, though with a lot of additional work, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it proved in the next few years.
How do we do mirror symmetry using this modified version of the SYZ conjecture? Essentially, we would follow these steps:
1. We begin with a maximally unipotent degeneration of Calabi-Yau manifolds ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$, along with a choice of polarization. This gives us a Kähler class $[\omega_t]\in H^2({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,{\mathbb{R}})$ for each $t\in D\setminus
0$, represented by $\omega_t$ the Kähler form of a Ricci-flat metric $g_t$.
2. Identify the Gromov-Hausdorff limit of a sequence $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}, r_ig_{t_i})$ with $t_i\rightarrow 0$, and $r_i$ a scale factor which keeps the diameter of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i}$ constant. The limit will be, if the above conjectures work, an affine manifold with singularities $B$ along with a Monge-Ampère metric.
3. Perform a Legendre transform to obtain a new affine manifold with singularities $\check B$, though with the same metric.
4. Try to construct a compactification of $X_{\epsilon}(\check B_0)$ for small $\epsilon>0$ to obtain a complex manifold $X_{\epsilon}(\check B)$. This will be the mirror manifold.
Actually, we need to elaborate on this last step a bit more. The problem is that while we expect that it should be possible in general to construct symplectic compactifications of the symplectic manifold $\check X(B_0)$ (and hence get the mirror as a symplectic manifold), we don’t expect to be able to compactify $X_{\epsilon}(\check B_0)$ as a complex manifold. Instead, the expectation is that a small deformation of $X_{\epsilon}(\check B_0)$ is necessary before it can be compactified. Furthermore, this small deformation is critically important in mirror symmetry: *it is this small deformation which provides the $B$-model instanton corrections*.
Because of the importance of this last issue, it has already been studied by several authors: Fukaya in [@Fukaya] has studied the problem directly using heuristic ideas, while Kontsevich and Soibelmann [@KS2] have modified the problem of passing from an affine manifold to a complex manifold by instead producing a non-Archimedean space. We will return to these issues later in this paper, when I discuss my own work with Siebert which has been partly motivated by the same problem. Because this last item is so important, let’s give it a name:
\[reconstruct1\] Given a tropical affine manifold with singularities $B$, construct a complex manifold $X_{\epsilon}(B)$ which is a compactification of a small deformation of $X_{\epsilon}(B_0)$.
I do not wish to dwell further on this version of the SYZ conjecture here, because it lies mostly in the realm of analysis and differential geometry and the behaviour of Ricci-flat metrics, and will give us little insight into what makes subtler aspects of traditional mirror symmetry work: for example, how exactly do instanton corrections arise? So we move on to explain how the limiting form of SYZ inspired a more algebro-geometric form of SYZ, which in turn avoids all analytic problems and holds out great promise for understanding the fundamental mysteries of mirror symmetry.
Gromov-Hausdorff limits, algebraic degenerations, and mirror symmetry
=====================================================================
We now have two notions of limit: the familiar algebro-geometric notion of a flat degenerating family ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ over a disk on the one hand, and the Gromov-Hausdorff limit on the other. Kontsevich had an important insight (see [@KS]) into the connection between these two. In this section I will give a rough idea of how and why this works.
Very roughly speaking, the Gromov-Hausdorff limit $({{\mathcal{X}}}_{t_i},g_{t_i})$ as $t_i\rightarrow 0$ should coincide, topologically, with the dual intersection complex of the singular fibre ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. More precisely, in a relatively simple situation, suppose $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is relatively minimal (in the sense of Mori) and normal crossings, with ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ having irreducible components $X_1,\ldots,X_m$. The dual intersection complex of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is the simplicial complex with vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_m$, and which contains a simplex $\langle v_{i_0},\ldots,
v_{i_p}\rangle$ if $X_{i_0}\cap\cdots\cap X_{i_p}\not=\emptyset$.
Let us explain roughly why this should be, first by looking at a standard family of degenerating elliptic curves with periods $1$ and ${n\over 2\pi i}
\log t$ for $n$ a positive integer. Such a family over the punctured disk is extended to a family over the disk by adding an $I_n$ (a cycle of $n$ rational curves) fibre over the origin.
Taking a sequence $t_i\rightarrow 0$ with $t_i$ real and positive gives a sequence of elliptic curves of the form $X_{\epsilon_i}(B)$ where: $B={\mathbb{R}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\epsilon_i=-{2\pi\over\ln t_i}$. In addition, the metric on $X_{\epsilon_i}(B)$, properly scaled, comes from the constant Hessian metric on $B$. So we wish to explain how $B$ is related to the geometry near the singular fibre. To this end, let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ be the irreducible components of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$; these are all ${\mathbb{P}}^1$’s. Let $P_1,\ldots,P_n$ be the singular points of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$.
We’ll consider two sorts of open sets in ${{\mathcal{X}}}$. For the first type, choose a coordinate $z$ on $X_i$, with $P_i$ given by $z=0$ and $P_{i+1}$ given by $z=\infty$. Let $U_i\subseteq D_i$ be the open set $\{z|\delta\le |z| \le 1/\delta\}$ for some small fixed $\delta$. Then one can find a neighbourhood $\tilde U_i$ of $U_i$ in ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ such that $\tilde U_i$ is biholomorphic to $U_i\times D_{\rho}$ for $\rho>0$ sufficiently small, $D_{\rho}$ a disk of radius $\rho$ in ${\mathbb{C}}$, and $f|_{\tilde U_i}$ is the projection onto $D_{\rho}$.
On the other hand, each $P_i$ has a neighbourhood $\tilde V_i$ in ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ biholomorphic to a polydisk $\{(z_1,z_2)\in{\mathbb{C}}^2||z_1|\le \delta', |z_2|\le\delta'\}$ on which $f$ takes the form $z_1z_2$.
If $\delta$ and $\delta'$ are chosen correctly, then for $t$ sufficiently close to zero, $$\{\tilde V_i\cap{{\mathcal{X}}}_t|1\le i\le n\}\cup \{\tilde U_i\cap{{\mathcal{X}}}_t|1\le i\le n\}$$ form an open cover of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$. Now each of the sets in this open cover can be written as $X_{\epsilon}(U)$ for some $U$ a one-dimensional (non-compact) affine manifold and $\epsilon=-2\pi/\ln|t|$. If $U$ is an open interval $(a,b)\subseteq
{\mathbb{R}}$, then $X_{\epsilon}(U)$ is biholomorphic to the annulus $$\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}| e^{-2\pi b/\epsilon}\le |z|\le e^{-2\pi a/\epsilon}\}$$ as $q=e^{2\pi i(x+i y)/\epsilon}$ is a holomorphic coordinate on $X_{\epsilon}((a,b))$. Thus $$\tilde U_i\cap {{\mathcal{X}}}_t\cong X_{\epsilon}\left(\left({\epsilon\ln\delta\over 2\pi},
-{\epsilon\ln\delta\over 2\pi}\right)\right)$$ with $\epsilon=-2\pi/\ln|t|$. As $t\rightarrow 0$, the interval $(\epsilon\ln\delta/2\pi,
-\epsilon\ln\delta/2\pi)$ shrinks to a point. So $\tilde U_i\cap
{{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is a smaller and smaller open subset of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ as $t\rightarrow 0$ when we view things in this way. This argument suggests that every irreducible component should be associated to a point on $B$.
Now look at $\tilde V_i\cap{{\mathcal{X}}}_t$. This is $$\begin{aligned}
\{(z_1,z_2)\in{\mathbb{C}}^2||z_1|,|z_2|<\delta', z_1z_2=t\}
&\cong&\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}||t|/\delta'\le |z|\le \delta'\}\\
&\cong& X_{\epsilon}\left({-\epsilon\over 2\pi}\ln\delta',
{\epsilon\over 2\pi} (\ln\delta'-\ln |t|)\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $\epsilon=-2\pi/\ln|t|$. This interval approaches the unit interval $(0,1)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$. So the open set $\tilde V_i\cap {{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ ends up being a large portion of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$. We end up with ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$, for small $t$, being a union of open sets of the form $X_{\epsilon}((i+\epsilon',i+1-\epsilon'))$ (i.e. $\tilde V_i\cap{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\epsilon}$) and $X_{\epsilon}((i-\epsilon'',i+\epsilon''))$ (i.e. $\tilde U_i\cap
{{\mathcal{X}}}_t$) for $\epsilon'$, $\epsilon''$ sufficiently small. These should glue, at least approximately, to give $X_{\epsilon}(B)$. So we see that irreducible components of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ seem to coincide with points on $B$, but intersections of components coincide with lines. In this way we see the dual intersection complex emerge.
Let us make one more observation before beginning with rigorous results in the next section. Suppose more generally we had a *Gorenstein toroidal crossings* degeneration of Calabi-Yau manifolds $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$. This means that every point $x\in{{\mathcal{X}}}$ has a neighbourhood isomorphic to an open set in an affine Gorenstein (i.e. the canonical class is a Cartier divisor) toric variety, with $f$ given locally by a monomial which vanishes exactly to order $1$ on each codimension one toric stratum. This is a generalization of the notion of normal crossings, see [@ss]. Very roughly, the above argument suggests that each irreducible component of the central fibre will correspond to a point of the Gromov-Hausdorff limit. The following exercise shows what kind of contribution to $B$ to expect from a point $x\in{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ which is a zero-dimensional stratum in ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$.
\[gorensteinlimit\] Suppose there is a point $x\in{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ which has a neighbourhood isomorphic to a neighbourhood of a dimension zero torus orbit of an affine Gorenstein toric variety $Y_x$. Such an affine variety is specified as follows. Set $M={\mathbb{Z}}^n$, $M_{{\mathbb{R}}}=M\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{R}}$, $N={\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(M,{\mathbb{Z}})$, $N_{{\mathbb{R}}}=N\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{R}}$ as in §4. Then there is a lattice polytope $\sigma\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$, $n=\dim{{\mathcal{X}}}_t$, $C(\sigma):=\{(rm,r)| m\in\sigma,r\ge 0\}\subseteq
M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$, $P:={\vee}{C(\sigma)}\cap (N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}})$ the monoid determined by the dual of the cone $C(\sigma)$, and finally, $Y_x
={\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[P]$, and $f$ coincides with the monomial $z^{(0,1)}$.
Let us now take a small neighbourhood of $x$ of the form $$\tilde
U_{\delta}=\{y\in {\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[P]\,|\,\hbox{$|z^p|<\delta$ for all $p\in P$}\}.$$ This is an open set as the condition $|z^p|<\delta$ can be tested on a finite generating set for $P$, provided that $\delta<1$. Then show that for a given $t$, $|t|<1$ and $\epsilon=-2\pi/\log|t|$, if $$\sigma_t:=\{m\in M_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hbox{$\langle p,(m,1)\rangle>{\log\delta\over
\log |t|}$ for all $p\in P$}\},$$ then $$f^{-1}(t)\cap \tilde U_{\delta}\cong X_{\epsilon}(\sigma_t).$$ Note that $$\sigma:=\{m\in M_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hbox{$\langle p,(m,1)\rangle\ge 0$ for all $p\in P$}\},$$ so $\sigma_t$ is an open subset of $\sigma$, and as $t\rightarrow 0$, $\sigma_t$ converges to the interior of $\sigma$.
This observation will hopefully motivate the basic construction of the next section.
Toric degenerations, the intersection complex and its dual
==========================================================
We now return to rigorous statements. I would like to explain the basic ideas behind the program launched in [@PartI]. While I will use the previous sections as motivation, this work actually got its start when Siebert began a program of studying mirror symmetry via degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds. Work of Schröer and Siebert [@ssKod], [@ss] led Siebert to the idea that log structures on degenerations of Calabi-Yau manifolds would allow one to view mirror symmetry as an operation performed on degenerate Calabi-Yau varieties. Siebert observed that at a combinatorial level, mirror symmetry exchanged data pertaining to the log structure and a polarization. This will be explained more clearly in the following section, where we introduce log structures. Together, Siebert and I realised that the combinatorial data he was considering could be encoded naturally in the dual intersection complex of the degeneration, and that mirror symmetry then corresponded to a discrete Legendre transform on the dual intersection complex. It then became apparent that this approach provided an algebro-geometrization of the SYZ conjecture.
Here I will explain this program from the opposite direction, starting with the motivation of the previous section for introducing the dual intersection complex, and then work backwards until we arrive naturally at log structures. Much of the material in this section comes from [@PartI], §4.
\[toricdegen\] Let $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ be a proper flat family of relative dimension $n$, where $D$ is a disk and ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ is a complex analytic space (not necessarily non-singular). We say $f$ is a [*toric degeneration*]{} of Calabi-Yau varieties if
1. ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is an irreducible normal Calabi-Yau variety with only canonical singularities for $t\not=0$. (The reader may like to assume ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is smooth for $t\not=0$).
2. If $\nu:\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\to{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is the normalization, then $\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is a disjoint union of toric varieties, the conductor locus $C\subseteq\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is reduced, and the map $C\to\nu(C)$ is unramified and generically two-to-one. (The conductor locus is a naturally defined scheme structure on the set where $\nu$ is not an isomorphism.) The square $$\begin{CD}
C@>>> \tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\\
@VVV @VV{\nu}V\\
\nu(C)@>>> {{\mathcal{X}}}_0
\end{CD}$$ is cartesian and cocartesian.
3. ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is a reduced Gorenstein space and the conductor locus $C$ restricted to each irreducible component of $\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is the union of all toric Weil divisors of that component.
4. There exists a closed subset $Z\subseteq{{\mathcal{X}}}$ of relative codimension $\ge 2$ such that $Z$ satisfies the following properties: $Z$ does not contain the image under $\nu$ of any toric stratum of $\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, and for any point $x\in {{\mathcal{X}}}\setminus Z$, there is a neighbourhood $\tilde U_x$ (in the analytic topology) of $x$, an $n+1$-dimensional affine toric variety $Y_x$, a regular function $f_x$ on $Y_x$ given by a monomial, and a commutative diagram $$\begin{matrix}
\tilde U_x&\mapright{\psi_x}&Y_x\cr
\mapdown{f|_{\tilde U_{x}}}&&\mapdown{f_x}\cr
D'&\mapright{\varphi_x}&{\mathbb{C}}\cr
\end{matrix}$$ where $\psi_x$ and $\varphi_x$ are open embeddings and $D'\subseteq D$. Furthermore, $f_x$ vanishes precisely once on each toric divisor of $Y_x$.
Take ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ to be defined by the equation $tf_4+z_0z_1z_2z_3=0$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^3\times D$, where $D$ is a disk with coordinate $t$ and $f_4$ is a general homogeneous quartic polynomial on ${\mathbb{P}}^3$. It is easy to see that ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ is singular at the locus $$\{t=f_4=0\}\cap Sing({{\mathcal{X}}}_0).$$ As ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is the coordinate tetrahedron, the singular locus of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ consists of the six coordinate lines of ${\mathbb{P}}^3$, and ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ has four singular points along each such line, for a total of 24 singular points. Take $Z=Sing({{\mathcal{X}}})$. Then away from $Z$, the projection ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is normal crossings, which yields condition (4) of the definition of toric degeneration. It is easy to see all other conditions are satisfied.
\[toricdegenexample2\] Let $\Delta\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ be a reflexive polytope with dual $\nabla
\subseteq N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Choose an *integral* strictly convex piecewise linear function $\check h:M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ as in §4. Consider the family in ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}\times D$ defined by $$\label{toricdegenexam}
z^0+t\sum_{m\in\Delta\cap M} a_m t^{\check h'(m)}z^m=0.$$ Here $z^m$ denotes the section of ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}}(1)$ determined by the lattice point $m\in\Delta\cap M$ and $a_m\in k$ is a general choice of coefficient. So $z^0$ is the section which vanishes once on each toric boundary component of ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$.
Now for most choices of $\check h$, this does not define a toric degeneration: the singularities are too bad. However, there is a natural toric variety in which to describe this degeneration. Set $$\tilde\Delta:=\{(m,l)|m\in\Delta,\quad l\ge\check h'(m)\}\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}
\oplus{\mathbb{R}}.$$ The assumption that $\check h'$ is convex implies $\tilde\Delta$ is convex, but of course is non-compact. Let $\tilde\Sigma$ be the normal fan to $\tilde\Delta$ in $N_{{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus
{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $X(\tilde\Sigma)$ denote the toric variety defined by the fan $\tilde\Sigma$. Then $\tilde\Delta$ is the Newton polytope of a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ on $X(\tilde\Sigma)$, and terms of the form $t^{\check h'(m)}z^m$ can be interpreted as sections of this line bundle, corresponding to $(m,\check h'(m))\in \tilde\Delta\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$. In addition, there is a natural map $X(\tilde\Sigma)\rightarrow{\mathbb{A}}^1$ defined by projection onto ${\mathbb{R}}$, and this map defines the regular function $t$. Thus (\[toricdegenexam\]) defines a hypersurface ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Delta}\subseteq
X(\tilde\Sigma)$ and $t$ defines a map ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Delta}\rightarrow{\mathbb{A}}^1$. This is a toric degeneration.
Without going into much detail, choosing a star decomposition of $\nabla$ as in §4 and a good polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ of $\partial\nabla^{\check h}$ is essentially the same as choosing a refinement $\tilde\Sigma'$ of $\Sigma'$ with particularly nice properties. This yields a partial resolution $X(\tilde\Sigma')
\rightarrow X(\tilde\Sigma)$. Then the proper transform of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Delta}$ in $X(\tilde\Sigma')$, ${{\mathcal{X}}}'_{\Delta}$, yields another toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}'_{\Delta}\rightarrow
{\mathbb{A}}^1$. This is necessary to get a toric degeneration whose general fibre is a MPCP resolution of a hypersurface in a toric variety. For proofs, see [@GBB], where the construction is generalized to complete intersections in toric varieties.
Given a toric degeneration $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$, we can build the *dual intersection complex* $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ of $f$, as follows. Here $B$ is an integral affine manifold with singularities, and ${\mathscr{P}}$ is a *polyhedral decomposition* of $B$, a decomposition of $B$ into lattice polytopes. In fact, we will construct $B$ as a union of lattice polytopes. Specifically, let the normalisation of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, $\tilde {{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, be written as a disjoint union $\coprod X_i$ of toric varieties $X_i$, $\nu:\tilde{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\rightarrow{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ the normalisation. The [*strata*]{} of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ are the elements of the set $$Strata({{\mathcal{X}}}_0)=\{\nu(S)\,|\,\hbox{$S$ is a toric stratum of $X_i$ for some $i$}\}.$$ Here by toric stratum we mean the closure of a $({\mathbb{C}}^*)^n$ orbit.
Let $\{x\}\in Strata({{\mathcal{X}}}_0)$ be a zero-dimensional stratum. Applying Definition \[toricdegen\] (4) to a neighbourhood of $x$, there is a toric variety $Y_x$ such that in a neighbourhood of $x$, $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is locally isomorphic to $f_x:Y_x\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$, where $f_x$ is given by a monomial. Now the condition that $f_x$ vanishes precisely once along each toric divisor of $Y_x$ is the statement that $Y_x$ is Gorenstein, and as such, it arises as in Exercise \[gorensteinlimit\]. Indeed, let $M,N$ be as usual, with ${\operatorname{rank}}M=\dim{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. Then there is a lattice polytope $\sigma_x\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $C(\sigma_x)
=\{(rm,r)|m\in\sigma, r\ge0\}$ is the cone defining the toric variety $Y_x$. As we saw in Exercise \[gorensteinlimit\], a small neighbourhood of $x$ in ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ should contribute a copy of $\sigma_x$ to $B$, which provides the motivation for our construction. We can now describe how to construct $B$ by gluing together the polytopes $$\{\sigma_x\,|\, \{x\}\in Strata({{\mathcal{X}}}_0)\}.$$ We will do this in the case that every irreducible component of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is in fact itself normal so that $\nu:X_i\rightarrow \nu(X_i)$ is an isomorphism. The reader may be able to imagine the more general construction. With this normality assumption, there is a one-to-one inclusion reversing correspondence between faces of $\sigma_x$ and elements of $Strata({{\mathcal{X}}}_0)$ containing $x$. We can then identify faces of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_{x'}$ if they correspond to the same strata of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. Some argument is necessary to show that this identification can be done via an integral affine transformation, but again this is not difficult.
Making these identifications, one obtains $B$. One can then prove
If ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is complex $n$ dimensional, then $B$ is an real $n$ dimensional manifold.
See [@PartI], Proposition 4.10 for a proof.
Now so far $B$ is just a topological manifold, constructed by gluing together lattice polytopes. Let $${\mathscr{P}}=\{\sigma\subseteq B| \hbox{$\sigma$ is a face of $\sigma_x$
for some zero-dimensional stratum $x$}\}.$$ There is a one-to-one inclusion reversing correspondence between strata of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ and elements of ${\mathscr{P}}$.
It only remains to give $B$ an affine structure with singularities. Let ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$ be the first barycentric subdivision of ${\mathscr{P}}$, and let $\Gamma$ be the union of simplices in ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$ not containing a vertex of ${\mathscr{P}}$ or intersecting the interior of a maximal cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$. If we then set $B_0:=B\setminus\Gamma$, we can define an affine structure on $B_0$ as follows. $B_0$ has an open cover $$\{W_{\sigma}|\hbox{$\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ maximal}\}\cup
\{W_v|\hbox{$v\in{\mathscr{P}}$ a vertex}\}$$ where $W_{\sigma}={\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$, the interior of $\sigma$, and $$W_v=\bigcup_{\tau\in{\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})\atop v\in\tau}{\operatorname{Int}}(\tau)$$ is the (open) star of $v$ in ${\operatorname{Bar}}({\mathscr{P}})$, just as in §4.
We now define charts. As a maximal cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is of the form $\sigma_x\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$, this inclusion induces a natural affine chart $\psi_{\sigma}:{\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)\rightarrow
M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. On the other hand, a vertex $v$ of ${\mathscr{P}}$ corresponds to a codimension $0$ stratum of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, i.e. to an irreducible component $X_i$ for some $i$. Because this is a compact toric variety, it is defined by a complete fan $\Sigma_i$ in $M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Furthermore, there is a one-to-one correspondence between $p$-dimensional cones of $\Sigma_i$ and $p$-dimensional cells of ${\mathscr{P}}$ containing $v$ as a vertex, as they both correspond to strata of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ contained in $X_i$. There is then a continuous map $$\psi_v:W_v\rightarrow M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$$ which takes $W_v\cap\sigma$, for any $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ containing $v$ as a vertex, into the corresponding cone of $\Sigma_i$ *integral affine linearly*. Such a map is uniquely determined by the combinatorial correspondence and the requirement that it be integral affine linear on each cell. It is then obvious these charts define an integral affine structure on $B_0$. Thus we have constructed $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$.
Let $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ be a degeneration of elliptic curves to an $I_n$ fibre. Then $B$ is the circle ${\mathbb{R}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$, decomposed by ${\mathscr{P}}$ into $n$ line segments of length one.
Continuing with Example \[toricdegenexample2\], the dual intersection complex constructed from the toric degenerations ${{\mathcal{X}}}'_{\Delta}\rightarrow
{\mathbb{A}}^1$ is the affine manifold with singularities structure with polyhedral decomposition $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ constructed on $B=\partial\nabla^{\check h}$ in §4. This is not particularly difficult to show. Again, for the proof and more general complete intersection case, see [@GBB].
Is the dual intersection complex the right affine manifold with singularities? The following theorem provides evidence for this, and gives the connection between this construction and the SYZ conjecture.
\[complextheorem\] Let ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ be a toric degeneration, with dual intersection complex $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$. Then there is an open set $U\subseteq B$ such that $B\setminus U$ retracts onto the discriminant locus $\Gamma$ of $B$, such that ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ contains an open subset ${\mathscr{U}}_t$ which is isomorphic as complex manifolds to a small deformation of a twist of $X_{\epsilon}(U)$, where $\epsilon=O(-1/\ln|t|)$.
We will not be precise here about what we mean by small deformation; by twist, we mean a twist of the complex structure of $X_{\epsilon}(U)$ by a $B$-field. See [@Announce] for a much more precise statement; the above statement is meant to give a feel for what is true. The proof, along with much more precise statements, will eventually appear in [@tori].
If ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is a *polarized* toric degeneration, i.e. if there is a relatively ample line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}$, then we can construct another affine manifold with singularities and polyhedral decomposition $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}})$, which we call the *intersection complex*, as follows.
For each irreducible component $X_i$ of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, ${\mathcal{L}}|_{X_i}$ is an ample line bundle on a toric variety. Let $\sigma_i\subseteq N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ denote the Newton polytope of this line bundle. There is then a one-to-one inclusion preserving correspondence between strata of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ contained in $X_i$ and faces of $\sigma_i$. We can then glue together the $\sigma_i$’s in the obvious way: if $Y$ is a codimension one stratum of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, it is contained in two irreducible components $X_i$ and $X_j$, and defines faces of $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_j$. These faces are affine isomorphic because they are both the Newton polytope of ${\mathcal{L}}|_Y$, and we can then identify them in the canonical way. Thus we obtain a topological space $\check B$ with a polyhedral decomposition $\check{\mathscr{P}}$. We give it an affine structure with singularities in a similar manner as before. Again, let $\Gamma$ be the union of simplices in ${\operatorname{Bar}}(\check{\mathscr{P}})$ not containing a vertex of $\check{\mathscr{P}}$ or intersecting the interior of a maximal cell of $\check{\mathscr{P}}$. Setting $\check B_0:=\check B\setminus\Gamma$, this again has an open cover $$\{W_{\sigma}|\hbox{$\sigma\in\check{\mathscr{P}}$ maximal}\}\cup\{W_v|\hbox{$v\in\check{\mathscr{P}}$
a vertex}\}.$$ As usual, as $W_{\sigma}$ is the interior of $\sigma$, it comes along with a canonical affine structure. On the other hand, a vertex $v$ of $\check{\mathscr{P}}$ corresponds to a dimension zero stratum $x$ of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, and associated to $x$ is the polytope $\sigma_x\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let $\check\Sigma_x$ be the normal fan to $\sigma_x$ in $N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Then there is a one-to-one inclusion preserving correspondence between cones in $\check\Sigma_x$ and strata of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ containing $x$. This correspondence allows us to define a chart $$\check\psi_v:W_v\rightarrow N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$$ which takes $W_v\cap\check\sigma$, for any $\check\sigma\in\check{\mathscr{P}}$ containing $v$ as a vertex, into the corresponding cone of $\check\Sigma_x$ in an integral affine linear way. This gives the manifestly integral affine structure on $\check B_0$, and hence defines the intersection complex $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}})$.
Analogously to Theorem \[complextheorem\], we expect
Let ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ be a polarized toric degeneration, with intersection complex $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}})$. Let $\omega_t$ be a Kähler form on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ representing the first Chern class of the polarization. Then there is an open set $\check U\subseteq \check B$ such that $\check B\setminus \check U$ retracts onto the discriminant locus $\Gamma$ of $\check B$, such that ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is a symplectic compactification of $\check X(\check U)$ for any $t$.
I don’t expect this to be particularly difficult: it should be amenable to the techniques of Ruan [@RuanJSG], but has not been carried out.
The relationship between the intersection complex and the dual intersection complex can be made more precise by introducing multi-valued piecewise linear functions, in analogy with the multi-valued convex functions of Definition \[multivaluedconvex\]:
Let $B$ be an affine manifold with singularities with polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$. Then a multi-valued piecewise linear function $\varphi$ on $B$ is a collection of continuous functions on an open cover $\{(U_i,\varphi_i)\}$ such that $\varphi_i$ is affine linear on each cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$ intersecting $U_i$, and on $U_i\cap U_j$, $\varphi_i-\varphi_j$ is affine linear. Furthermore, for any $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$, in a neighbourhood of each point $x\in U_i\cap
Int(\sigma)$, there is an affine linear function $\psi$ such that $\varphi_i-\psi$ is zero on $\sigma$.
To explain this last condition, and to clarify additional structure on $B$, let us examine a property of the polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ of $B$ when $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ is a dual intersection complex.
Consider any $p$-dimensional cell $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$. This corresponds to an $n-p$-dimensional stratum $X_{\sigma}\subseteq{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, and as such, it is a toric variety defined by a fan $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-p}$. Now for any vertex $v$ of $\sigma$, $X_{\sigma}$ is a toric stratum of the irreducible component $X_v$ of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. Thus $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ can be obtained as a *quotient fan* of $\Sigma_v$. In other words, there is a $p$-dimensional cone $K_{\sigma}$ of $\Sigma_v$ corresponding to $\sigma$ such that $$\Sigma_{\sigma}=\Sigma_v(K_{\sigma}):=\{(K+{\mathbb{R}}K_{\sigma})/{\mathbb{R}}K_{\sigma}|
K\in\Sigma_v,K\supseteq K_{\sigma}\}.$$ In particular, there is an open neighbourhood $U_{v,\sigma}$ of ${\operatorname{Int}}(K_{\sigma})$ and an integral linear map $S_{v,\sigma}:U_{v,\sigma}
\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{n-p}$ such that $$\{S_{v,\sigma}^{-1}(K)| K\in \Sigma_{\sigma}\}=
\{U_{v,\sigma}\cap K| K\in\Sigma_v, K\supseteq K_{\sigma}\}.$$ Let $U_{\sigma}$ be a small open neighbourhood of ${\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$ in $B$; if taken sufficiently small the maps $S_{v,\sigma}$ can be viewed as being defined on open subsets of $U_{\sigma}$ and patch to give an integral affine submersion $S_{\sigma}:U_{\sigma}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{n-p}$, where $U_{\sigma}=\bigcup_{v\in\sigma} U_{v,\sigma}$ is an open neighbourhood of ${\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$. This map has the property that $$\{S_{\sigma}^{-1}(K)|K\in\Sigma_{\sigma}\}=\{U_{\sigma}\cap\tau|
\tau\supseteq\sigma,\tau\in{\mathscr{P}}\}.$$ In general we call a polyhedral decomposition *toric* if for all $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ there is always such an integral affine linear map $S_{\sigma}:U_{\sigma}\rightarrow
{\mathbb{R}}^{n-p}$ from a neighbourhood $U_{\sigma}$ of ${\operatorname{Int}}(\sigma)$ and a fan $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^p$ with the above property. (See [@PartI], Definition 1.22 for a perhaps too precise definition of toric polyhedral decompositions. The definition there is complicated by allowing cells to be self-intersecting, or equivalently, allowing irreducible components of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ to be non-normal.) We can think of the fan $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ as being the fan structure of ${\mathscr{P}}$ transverse to $\sigma$ at a point in the interior of $\sigma$. The main point for a dual intersection complex is that this fan structure is determined by $X_{\sigma}$, and this is independent of the choice of the point in the interior of $\sigma$.
Now let us return to piecewise linear functions. Suppose we are given a polarized toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$. We in fact obtain a piecewise linear function $\varphi$ on the dual intersection complex $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ as follows. Restricting to any toric stratum $X_{\sigma}$, ${\mathcal{L}}|_{X_{\sigma}}$ is determined completely by an integral piecewise linear function $\bar\varphi_{\sigma}$ on $\Sigma_{\sigma}$, well-defined up to a choice of linear function. Pulling back this piecewise linear function via $S_{\sigma}$ to $U_{\sigma}$, we obtain a collection of piecewise linear functions $\{(U_{\sigma},\varphi_{\sigma})|\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}\}$. The fact that $({\mathcal{L}}|_{X_{\tau}})|_{X_{\sigma}}={\mathcal{L}}|_{X_{\sigma}}$ for $\tau\subseteq\sigma$ implies that on overlaps $\varphi_{\sigma}$ and $\varphi_{\tau}$ differ by at most a linear function. So $\{(U_{\sigma},
\varphi_{\sigma})\}$ defines a multi-valued piecewise linear function. The last condition in the definition of multi-valued piecewise linear function then reflects the need for the function to be locally a pull-back of a function via $S_{\sigma}$ in a neighbourhood of $\sigma$. In fact, given any multi-valued piecewise linear function $\varphi$ on $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ with ${\mathscr{P}}$ a toric polyhedral decomposition of $B$, $\varphi$ is determined by functions $\bar\varphi_{\sigma}$ on $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ for $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$, via pull-back by $S_{\sigma}$.
If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is ample, then the piecewise linear function determined by ${\mathcal{L}}|_{X_{\sigma}}$ is strictly convex. So we say a multi-valued piecewise linear function is *strictly convex* if $\bar\varphi_{\sigma}$ is strictly convex for each $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$.
Now suppose we are given abstractly a triple $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$ with $B$ an integral affine manifold with singularities with a toric polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$, and $\varphi$ a strictly convex multi-valued piecewise linear function on $B$. Then we construct the *discrete Legendre transform* $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$ of $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$ as follows.
$\check B$ will be constructed by gluing together Newton polytopes. If we view, for $v$ a vertex of ${\mathscr{P}}$, the fan $\Sigma_v$ as living in $M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$, then the Newton polytope of $\bar\varphi_v$ is $$\check v=\{x\in N_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\langle x,y\rangle\ge-\bar\varphi_v(y)
\quad\forall y\in M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\}.$$ There is a one-to-one order reversing correspondence between faces of $\check v$ and cells of ${\mathscr{P}}$ containing $v$. Furthermore, if $\sigma$ is the smallest cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$ containing two vertices $v$ and $v'$, then the corresponding faces of $\check v$ and $\check v'$ are integral affine isomorphic, as they are both isomorphic to the Newton polytope of $\bar\varphi_{\sigma}$. Thus we can glue $\check v$ and $\check v'$ along this common face. After making all these identifications, we obtain a cell complex $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}})$, which is really just the dual cell complex of $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$. Of course, we have some additional information, namely an affine structure on the interior of each maximal cell of $\check{\mathscr{P}}$. To give $\check B$ an integral affine structure with singularities, one proceeds as usual, using this affine structure along with an identification of a neighbourhood of each vertex of $\check{\mathscr{P}}$ with the normal fan of the corresponding maximal cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$.
Finally, the function $\varphi$ has a discrete Legendre transform $\check\varphi$ on $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}})$. We have no choice but to define $\check\varphi$ in a neighbourhood of a vertex $\check\sigma\in
\check{\mathscr{P}}$ dual to a maximal cell $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ to be a piecewise linear function whose Newton polytope is $\sigma$, i.e.$$\overline{\check\varphi}_{\check\sigma}(y)
=-\inf\{\langle y,x\rangle| x\in\sigma\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\}.$$ This gives $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$, the discrete Legendre transform of $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$. If $B$ is ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then this coincides with the classical notion of a discrete Legendre transform. The discrete Legendre transform has several relevant properties:
- The discrete Legendre transform of $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$ is $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$.
- If we view the underlying topological spaces $B$ and $\check B$ as being identified by being the underlying space of dual cell complexes, then $\Lambda_{B_0}\cong \check\Lambda_{\check B_0}$ and $\check\Lambda_{B_0}\cong\Lambda_{\check B_0}$, where the subscript denotes which affine structure is being used to define $\Lambda$ or $\check\Lambda$.
This hopefully makes it clear that the discrete Legendre transform is a suitable replacement for the duality provided to us by the Legendre transform of §2.
Finally, it leads to what we may think of as an *algebro-geometric SYZ procedure*. In analogy with the procedure suggested in §5, we follow these steps:
1. We begin with a toric degeneration of Calabi-Yau manifolds ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ with an ample polarization.
2. Construct $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$ from this data, as explained above.
3. Perform the discrete Legendre transform to obtain $(\check B,
\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$.
4. Try to construct a polarized degeneration of Calabi-Yau manifolds $\check{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ whose dual intersection complex is $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$.
The discrete Legendre transform enables us to reproduce Batyrev duality. Returning to the construction of §4 and Example \[toricdegenexample2\], choosing a strictly convex piecewise linear function on $\tilde\Sigma'$ corresponding to a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ induces a polarization of ${{\mathcal{X}}}'_{\Delta}$. This then gives us a strictly convex multi-valued piecewise linear function $\varphi_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ on $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, hence a discrete Legendre transform $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi_{{\mathcal{L}}})$. In [@GBB] I showed that this is the dual intersection complex associated to some choice of subdivision $\widetilde{\check\Sigma'}$ of $\widetilde
{\check\Sigma}$ obtained by interchanging the roles of $\nabla$ and $\Delta$ in the construction of §4. As an exercise, you can check the following for yourself. If we take $\check h=\check\varphi$, and in addition define $$h=\varphi:N_{{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ to take the value $1$ on the primitive generator of each one-dimensional cone on $\Sigma$, the normal fan to $\Delta$, then from §4 we obtain an affine structure with singularities on $B=\partial\nabla$, and completely symetrically using $h$ we also obtain such a structure on $\check B=\partial\Delta$. These manifolds come with polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ and $\check{\mathscr{P}}$ consisting of all proper faces of $\nabla$ and $\Delta$ respectively. The anti-canonical polarizations on ${\mathbb{P}}_{\Delta}$ and ${\mathbb{P}}_{\nabla}$ induce multi-valued piecewise linear functions $\psi,\check\psi$ on $B$ and $\check B$ respectively. Then show $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\psi)$ and $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\psi)$ are discrete Legendre transforms of each other.
Thus Batyrev (and Batyrev-Borisov) duality is a special case of this construction.
The only step missing in this mirror symmetry algorithm is the last:
\[reconstruct2\] Given $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$, is it possible to construct a polarized toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ whose dual intersection complex is $(B,{\mathscr{P}},\varphi)$?
It is fairly obvious how to reconstruct the central fibre ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ of a degeneration from the data $(\check B,\check{\mathscr{P}},\check\varphi)$, and we will see this explicitly in §8. One could naively hope that this reducible variety has good deformation theory and it can be smoothed. However, in general its deformation theory is ill-behaved.
As initially observed in the normal crossings case by Kawamata and Namikawa in [@KN], one needs to put some additional structure on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ before it has good deformation theory. This structure is a *log structure*, and introducing log structures allows us to study many aspects of mirror symmetry directly on the degenerate fibre itself.
We shall do this in the next section, but first, let me address the question of how general this mirror symmetry construction might be:
If $f:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is a large complex structure limit degeneration, then $f$ is birationally equivalent to a toric degeneration $f':{{\mathcal{X}}}'\rightarrow D$.
The condition of being a large complex structure limit, as defined by Morrison in [@Morr], is a stronger one than maximally unipotent. Why should I imagine something like this to be true? Well, fantasizing freely, we would expect that after choosing a polarization and Ricci-flat metric on fibres ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$, we have a sequence $({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,g_t)$ converging to $B$ an affine manifold with singularities. Now in general an affine manifold with singularities need not arise as the dual intersection complex of a toric degeneration, first of all because it need not have a toric polyhedral decomposition. For example, even in two dimensions there are orbifold singularities (corresponding to singular elliptic fibres which are not semi-stable) which do not arise in dual intersection complexes of toric degenerations, yet can occur as the base of a special Lagrangian fibration on a K3 surface. However, the *general* base does arise as the dual intersection complex of a toric degeneration in the K3 case. The hope is that the condition of large complex structure limit forces the singularities of $B$ to be “sufficiently general” so that one can construct a nice toric polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$ on $B$, and from this construct a toric degeneration. Presumably, this toric degeneration will be, if picked correctly, birational to the original one.
This argument of course is rather hand-wavy, but I believe it provides some moral expectation that there might be a large class of degenerations for which our method applies. I note that one can prove the conjecture in the case of K3 surfaces.
We now come to the technical heart of the program laid out in [@PartI]. Some aspects of this program are quite technical, so the goal here is to explain the highlights of [@PartI] as simply possible.
Log structures
==============
We first introduce the log structures of Fontaine-Illusie and Kato ([@Illu], [@K.Kato]).
A log structure on a scheme (or analytic space) $X$ is a (unital) homomorphism $$\alpha_X:{\mathcal{M}}_X\rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_X$$ of sheaves of (multiplicative and commutative) monoids inducing an isomorphism $\alpha_X^{-1}({\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times})\rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times}$. The triple $(X,{\mathcal{M}}_X,\alpha_X)$ is then called a [*log space*]{}. We often write the whole package as $X^{\dagger}$.
A morphism of log spaces $F:X^{\dagger}\rightarrow Y^{\dagger}$ consists of a morphism $\underline{F}:X\rightarrow Y$ of underlying spaces together with a homomorphism $F^{\#}:\underline{F}^{-1}({\mathcal{M}}_Y)
\rightarrow{\mathcal{M}}_X$ commuting with the structure homomorphisms: $$\alpha_X\circ F^{\#}=\underline{F}^*\circ\alpha_Y.$$
The key examples:
\[logexamples\] (1) Let $X$ be a scheme and $Y\subseteq X$ a closed subset of codimension one. Denote by $j:X\setminus Y\rightarrow X$ the inclusion. Then the inclusion $$\alpha_X:{\mathcal{M}}_X=j_*({\mathcal{O}}_{X\setminus Y}^{\times})\cap{\mathcal{O}}_X\rightarrow
{\mathcal{O}}_X$$ of the sheaf of regular functions with zeroes contained in $Y$ is a log structure on $X$. This is called a *divisorial log structure* on $X$.
\(2) A [*prelog structure*]{}, i.e. an arbitrary homomorphism of sheaves of monoids $\varphi:{\mathcal{P}}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_X$, defines an associated log structure ${\mathcal{M}}_X$ by $${\mathcal{M}}_X=({\mathcal{P}}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times})/\{(p,\varphi(p)^{-1})|p\in
\varphi^{-1}({\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times})\}$$ and $\alpha_X(p,h)=h\cdot\varphi(p)$.
\(3) If $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a morphism of schemes and $\alpha_Y:{\mathcal{M}}_Y
\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_Y$ is a log structure on $Y$, then the prelog structure $f^{-1}({\mathcal{M}}_Y)\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_X$ defines an associated log structure on $X$, the [*pull-back log structure*]{}.
\(4) In (1) we can pull back the log structure on $X$ to $Y$ using (3). Thus in particular, if ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is a toric degeneration, the inclusion ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0\subseteq{{\mathcal{X}}}$ gives a log structure on ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ and an induced log structure on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. Similarly the inclusion $0\in D$ gives a log structure on $D$ and an induced one on $0$. Here ${\mathcal{M}}_0={\mathbb{C}}^{\times}\oplus{\mathbb{N}}$, where ${\mathbb{N}}$ is the (additive) monoid of natural (non-negative) numbers, and $$\alpha_0(h,n)=\begin{cases}h& n=0\\ 0&n\not=0.\end{cases}$$ $0^{\dagger}$ is usually called the standard log point.
We then have log morphisms ${{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}\rightarrow D^{\dagger}$ and ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$.
\(5) If $\sigma\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}={\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a convex rational polyhedral cone, ${\vee}{\sigma}\subseteq
N_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ the dual cone, let $P={\vee}{\sigma}\cap N$: this is a monoid. The affine toric variety defined by $\sigma$ can be written as $X={\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[P]$. We then have a pre-log structure induced by the homomorphism of monoids $$P\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}[P]$$ given by $p\mapsto z^p$. There is then an associated log structure on $X$. This is in fact the same as the log structure induced by $\partial X\subseteq X$, where $\partial X$ is the toric boundary of $X$, i.e. the union of toric divisors of $X$.
If $p\in P$, then the monomial $z^p$ defines a map $f:X\rightarrow {\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[{\mathbb{N}}]\quad (={\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[t])$ which is a log morphism with the log structure on ${\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[{\mathbb{N}}]$ induced similarly by ${\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}[{\mathbb{N}}]$. The fibre $X_0={\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[P]/(z^p)$ is a subscheme of $X$, and there is an induced log structure on $X_0$, and a map $X_0^{\dagger}
\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ as in (4). $f$ is an example of a *log smooth* morphism. Essentially all log smooth morphisms are étale locally of this form (if ${\mathbb{N}}$ is replaced by a more general monoid). See [@F.Kato] for details.
Condition (4) of Definition \[toricdegen\] in fact implies that locally, away from $Z$, ${{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}$ and ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}$ are of the above form. So we should view ${{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}\rightarrow D^{\dagger}$ as log smooth away from $Z$, and from the log point of view, ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}$ can be treated much like a non-singular scheme away from $X$. We will see this explicitly below when we talk about differentials.
On a log scheme $X^{\dagger}$ there is always an exact sequence $$1\mapright{} {\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times}\mapright{\alpha^{-1}}{\mathcal{M}}_X\mapright{}
\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X\mapright{}0,$$ where we write the quotient sheaf of monoids $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$ additively. We call $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$ the *ghost sheaf* of the log structure. I like to view $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$ as specifying the combinatorial information associated to the log structure. For example, if $X^{\dagger}$ is induced by the Cartier divisor $Y\subseteq
X$ with $X$ normal, then the stalk $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X,x}$ at $x\in X$ is the monoid of effective Cartier divisors on a neighbourhood of $x$ supported on $Y$.
\[ghostexercise\] Show that in Example \[logexamples\], (5), $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X,x}=
P$ if $\dim\sigma=n$ and $x$ is the unique zero-dimensional torus orbit of $X$. More generally, $$\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X,x}={{\vee}{\tau}\cap N\over \tau^{\perp}\cap N}
={\operatorname{Hom}}_{monoid}(\tau\cap M,{\mathbb{N}}),$$ when $x\in X$ is in the torus orbit corresponding to a face $\tau$ of $\sigma$. In particular, $\tau$ can be recovered as ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{monoid}(\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X,x},{\mathbb{R}}_{\ge 0}^+)$, where ${\mathbb{R}}_{\ge 0}^+$ is the additive monoid of non-negative real numbers.
Another important fact for us is that if $f:Y\rightarrow X$ is a morphism with $X$ carrying a log structure, and $Y$ is given the pull-back log structure, then $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_Y=f^{-1}\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$. In the case that ${\mathcal{M}}_X$ is induced by an inclusion of $Y\subseteq X$, $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$ is supported on $Y$, so we can equate $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_X$ and $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_Y$, the ghost sheaves for the divisorial log structure on $X$ and its restriction to $Y$. Putting this together with Exercise \[ghostexercise\] and the definition of dual intersection complex, we see that given a toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ the dual intersection complex *completely determines* the ghost sheaf $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}}=
\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}$ off of $Z$. We in fact take the view that anyway the log structure on $Z$ is not particularly well-behaved, and we always ignore it on $Z$. In fact, given a log structure ${\mathcal{M}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus
Z}$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z$, this defines a push-forward log structure ${\mathcal{M}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}:=j_*{\mathcal{M}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z}$. There is an induced map $\alpha:{\mathcal{M}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}$, as $j_*{\mathcal{O}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z}
={\mathcal{O}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}$ because ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is Cohen-Macaulay. Thus in what follows, if we have determined a log structure on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z$, we just as well get a log structure on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ and will not concern ourselves with the behaviour of this log structure along $Z$.
All this gives the necessary hint for working backwards, to go from $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ to ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}$. Suppose we are given an integral affine manifold with singularities $B$ with *toric* polyhedral decomposition ${\mathscr{P}}$. At each vertex $v$ of ${\mathscr{P}}$, ${\mathscr{P}}$ locally looks like a fan $\Sigma_v$, defining a toric variety $X_v$. For every edge $\omega
\in{\mathscr{P}}$ with endpoints $v$ and $w$, $\omega$ defines a ray in both fans $\Sigma_v$ and $\Sigma_w$, hence toric divisors $D^v_{\omega}
\subseteq X_v$, $D^w_{\omega}\subseteq X_w$. The condition that ${\mathscr{P}}$ is a toric polyhedral decomposition tells us that $D^v_{\omega}$ and $D^w_{\omega}$ are isomorphic toric varieties, and we can choose a torus equivariant isomorphism $s_{\omega}:D^v_{\omega}\rightarrow D^w_{\omega}$ for each edge $\omega$. If we choose these gluing maps to satisfy a certain compatibility condition on codimension two strata (we leave it to the reader to write down this simple compatibility condition), then we can glue together the $X_v$’s to obtain, in general, an algebraic space we write as $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, where $s=(s_{\omega})$ is the collection of gluing maps. (In [@PartI], we describe the gluing data in a slightly different, but equivalent, way). We call $s$ *closed gluing data*. This is how we construct a potential central fibre of a toric degeneration.
Now $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ cannot be a central fibre of a toric degeneration unless it carries a log structure of the correct sort. There are many reasons this may not happen. First, if $s$ is poorly chosen, there may be zero-dimensional strata of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ which do not have neighbourhoods locally étale isomorphic to the toric boundary of an affine toric variety; this is a minimum prerequisite. As a result, we have to restrict attention to closed gluing data induced by what we call *open gluing data*. Explicitly, each maximal cell $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}$ defines an affine toric variety $U(\sigma)$ given by the cone $C(\sigma)\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus
{\mathbb{R}}$, assuming we view $\sigma\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ as a lattice polytope. Let $V(\sigma)\subseteq U(\sigma)$ be the toric boundary. It turns out, as we show in [@PartI], that a necessary condition for $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ to be the central fibre of a toric degeneration is that it is obtained by dividing out $\coprod_{\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}_{\max}} V(\sigma)$ by an étale equivalence relation. In other words, we are gluing together the $V(\sigma)$’s to obtain an algebraic space, and those étale equivalence relations which produce algebraic spaces of the form $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ are easily determined. This is carried out in detail in [@PartI], §2. The construction there appears technically difficult because of the necessity of dealing with algebraic spaces, but is basically straightforward. The basic point is that if $\sigma_1,\sigma_2\in{\mathscr{P}}$ are two maximal cells, with $\sigma_1\cap\sigma_2=\tau$, then $\tau$ determines faces of the cones $C(\sigma_1)$ and $C(\sigma_2)$, hence open subsets $U_i(\tau)\subseteq U(\sigma_i)$, with toric boundaries $V_i(\tau)\subseteq V(\sigma_i)$. Now in general there is no *natural* isomorphism between $U_1(\tau)$ and $U_2(\tau)$: this is a problem when $\sigma_1\cap\sigma_2\cap\Gamma\not=\emptyset$, where $\Gamma$ is as usual the singular locus of $B$. However, crucially $V_1(\tau)$ and $V_2(\tau)$ are naturally isomorphic, and we can choose compatible equivariant isomorphisms to obtain *open gluing data*. Choosing open gluing data allows us to define the étale equivalence relation: we are just gluing any two sets $V(\sigma_1),V(\sigma_2)$ via the chosen isomorphism between $V_1(\tau)$ and $V_2(\tau)$. Any choice of open gluing data $s$ gives rise in this way to an algebraic space $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, and to any choice of open gluing data there is associated closed gluing data $s'$ such that $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)\cong X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s')$.
The advantage of using open gluing data is that each $V(\sigma)$ for $\sigma\in{\mathscr{P}}_{\max}$ carries a log structure induced by the divisorial log structure $V(\sigma)\subseteq U(\sigma)$. Unfortunately, these log structures are not identified under the open gluing maps, precisely because of a lack of a natural isomorphism between the $U_i(\tau)$’s cited above. However, the ghost sheaves of the log structures are isomorphic. So the ghost sheaves $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{V(\sigma)}$ glue to give a ghost sheaf of monoids $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. Summarizing what we have said so far: (this is a combination of results of [@PartI], §§2,4)
Given $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, if $s$ is closed gluing data, and ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0=X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ is the central fibre of a toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ with dual intersection complex $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, then $s$ is induced by open gluing data and $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}|_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z}
\cong\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}|_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0\setminus Z}$.
This is as far as we can get with the combinatorics. The next point is to attempt to construct ${\mathcal{M}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. The idea is that ${\mathcal{M}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ is an extension of $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ by ${\mathcal{O}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{\times}$, so we are looking for some subsheaf of the sheaf $${\mathcal{E} \!\text{\textit{xt}}}^1(\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}},{\mathcal{O}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{\times}).$$ Here the superscript ${{\operatorname{gp}}}$ denotes the Grothendieck group of the monoid. Any extension of $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}$ by ${\mathcal{O}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{\times}$ gives rise to a sheaf of groups ${\mathcal{M}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}$ surjecting onto $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}$, and the inverse image of $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}\subseteq\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}$ is a sheaf of monoids ${\mathcal{M}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. Of course, one also needs a map $\alpha:{\mathcal{M}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$, and this complicates things a bit. To make a long story short, we can identify a subsheaf of extensions which yield genuine log structures. A section of this subsheaf determines a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ with the correct ghost sheaf. However, this is not precisely what we want. What we really want is a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ along with a log morphism $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}
\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ which is log smooth. (We will address the question of the bad set $Z\subseteq{{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ shortly.) We call such a structure a *log smooth structure* on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$. It turns out these structures are given by certain sections of ${\mathcal{E} \!\text{\textit{xt}}}^1(\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}/
\bar\rho,{\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times})$, where $\bar\rho$ is the canonical section of $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ whose germ at ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),\eta}=
{\mathbb{N}}$ is $1$ for $\eta$ a generic point of an irreducible component of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$. So in fact, we can identify a subsheaf of ${\mathcal{E} \!\text{\textit{xt}}}^1(\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}/\bar\rho,{\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times})$, which we call ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$, whose sections determine a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ *and* a log smooth morphism $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$, i.e. a log smooth structure.
The technical heart of [@PartI] is an explicit calculation of the sheaf ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. This is carried out locally in [@PartI], Theorem 3.22, where the sheaf is calculated on the (étale) open subsets $V(\sigma)$ of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, and globally in [@PartI], Theorem 3.24. I will not state the precise results, but go into detail in a special case, which illustrates the most important features of the theory.
Suppose $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ is normal crossings, i.e. every cell of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is affine isomorphic to a standard simplex. Then we have the local ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1$ sheaf, $${{\mathcal{T}}}^1={\mathcal{E} \!\text{\textit{xt}}}^1_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}(
\Omega^1_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)/k},{\mathcal{O}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}).$$ This is a line bundle on $S=Sing(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s))$. Then one can show ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ is the ${\mathcal{O}}_S^{\times}$-torsor associated to ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1$.
This brings us back to Friedman’s condition of $d$-semistability [@Friedman]. A variety with normal crossings is *$d$-semistable* if ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1\cong{\mathcal{O}}_S$. Thus we recover Kawamata and Namikawa’s result [@KN] showing that $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ carries a normal crossings log structure over $0^{\dagger}$ if and only if $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ is $d$-semistable. This is because, of course, the ${\mathcal{O}}_S^{\times}$-torsor associated to ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1$ has a section if and only if ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1\cong{\mathcal{O}}_S$.
Now Theorem 3.24 of [@PartI] tells us that in general ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ is not a trivial ${\mathcal{O}}_S^{\times}$-torsor. The sheaf depends continuously on $s$, but discretely on monodromy of the singularities of $B$.
Let’s explain the latter point explicitly if $\dim B=2$. The irreducible components of $S$ are in one-to-one correspondence with one-dimensional cells of ${\mathscr{P}}$. If $\omega\in{\mathscr{P}}$ is such an edge, suppose it contains one singularity of $B$ such that $\Lambda$ has monodromy $\begin{pmatrix}1&n\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$ in a suitable basis around a loop around the singularity. Then ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1$ restricted to the one-dimensional stratum $X_{\omega}\cong{\mathbb{P}}^1$ of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ is ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^1}(n)$.
To make this statement completely accurate, one needs to define $n$ so that it is independent of the choice of basis and loop. To do this, one chooses a loop which is counterclockwise with respect to the orientation determined by the chosen basis of $\Lambda_b={{\mathcal{T}}}_{B,b}$, where $b\in B$ is the base-point of the loop.
If all the $n$’s appearing are positive, then for some choices of gluing data $s$, we may hope to have a section $t$ of ${{\mathcal{T}}}^1$ which vanishes only at a finite set of points $Z$. If $Z$ does not contain a toric stratum (i.e. a triple point) then we obtain a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)\setminus Z$ of the desired sort, hence a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ (log smooth off of $Z$) by push-forward. We then have
In the situation of this example, with $\dim B=2$ and $$t\in\Gamma(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),{{\mathcal{T}}}^1)$$ a section vanishing on a finite set $Z$ not containing a triple point, there exists a smoothing ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ such that the singular locus of ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ is $Z\subseteq
{{\mathcal{X}}}_0=X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, and the induced log morphism ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}
\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ coincides with $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ determined by $t$.
The proof of this is a rather simple application of Friedman’s or Kawamata and Namikawa’s results. To apply these results, however, we need to deal with the singular set $Z$. This is done by normalizing $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, choosing to blow up one point in the inverse image of each point of $Z$, and then regluing along the proper transform of the conductor locus. This produces a $d$-semistable variety, in the language of Friedman, or a log smooth scheme, which can then be smoothed. (Such an approach seems difficult in higher dimensions.)
On the other hand, if $n<0$ for some singular point of $B$, we run into problems, and there is in fact no smoothing of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$. This should not be surprising for the following reason. If $n=-1$, it turns out we would have to compactify the torus fibration $X(B_0)$ by adding a strange sort of $I_1$ fibre over such a singular point. An $I_1$ fibre is an immersed sphere, and the intersection multiplicity of the two sheets at the singular point of the fibre is $+1$ for an ordinary $I_1$ fibre. However, when the monodromy is given by $n=-1$, the intersection multiplicity is $-1$. This does not occur for a special Lagrangian $T^2$-fibration, so it is not surprising we can’t construct a smoothing in this case.
If $\dim B=2$ and $n>0$ for all singularities on $B$, then we say $B$ is *positive*. One can generalize this notion of positive to higher dimensional $B$ with polyhedral decompositions, see [@PartI], Definition 1.54. Positivity of $B$ is a necessary condition for $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ to appear as the central fibre of a toric degeneration. All the examples of §4 are positive; this in fact follows from the convexity of reflexive polytopes, and the positivity condition can be viewed as a type of convexity statement.
Passing back to the general case now, with no restriction on the dimension of $B$ or the shape of the cells of ${\mathscr{P}}$, it follows from [@PartI], Theorem 3.24, that ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ is a subsheaf of *sets* of a coherent sheaf we call ${\mathcal{LS}}^+_{{\mathrm{pre}},X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. This sheaf is a direct sum $\bigoplus_{\omega\in{\mathscr{P}}\atop\dim\omega=1}
{\mathcal{N}}_{\omega}$, where ${\mathcal{N}}_{\omega}$ is a line bundle on the toric stratum of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ corresponding to $\omega$. Furthermore, as in the two-dimensional normal crossings case, ${\mathcal{N}}_{\omega}$ is a semi-ample line bundle if $B$ is positive.
A section $t\in\Gamma(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),{\mathcal{LS}}^+_{{\mathrm{pre}},X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)})$ which is a section of ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ outside of the zero set $Z$ of $t$ determines a log smooth structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)\setminus Z$. In particular, if $Z$ does not contain any toric stratum, we are in good shape. We then obtain a log morphism $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ which is log smooth away from $Z$. We call such a structure a *log Calabi-Yau space*.
Let’s review: given data
- $s$ open gluing data;
- $t\in\Gamma(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),{\mathcal{LS}}^+_{{\mathrm{pre}},X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)})$, with $t$ a section of ${\mathcal{LS}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$ over $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)\setminus
Z$ for some set $Z$ which does not contain any toric stratum of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$;
we obtain $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$.
Conversely, we show in [@PartI] that if ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$ is a toric degeneration, then ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ is obtained in this way from the dual intersection complex $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ from some choice of data $s$ and $t$. To complete this picture, it remains to answer
\[smoothingconjecture\] Suppose $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ is positive.
1. What are the possible choices of $s$ and $t$ which yield log Calabi-Yau spaces?
2. Given $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$, when does it arise as the central fibre of a toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow
D$?
As we have sketched it, this question is now the refined version of our basic reconstruction problem Question \[reconstruct2\].
The choice of the data $s$ and $t$ determine the moduli of log Calabi-Yau spaces arising from a given dual intersection complex. So far we haven’t even made the claim that this moduli space is non-empty, and for general choice of $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, I do not know if this is the case or not, though it is non-empty if $\dim B=2$ or $3$. However, one would like a more explicit description of this moduli space in any event. In general the moduli space is a scheme, but it may be singular (an example is given in [@PartI], Example 4.28). Some additional hypotheses are necessary to solve this problem. To motivate the necessary hypothesis, let’s go back to §1, where we introduced the notion of simplicity. We saw that the basic topology of mirror symmetry works only when the fibration is simple. So maybe we should expect the current construction to work better when we have simplicity.
There is one technical problem with this: the definition of simplicity assumes the existence of a torus fibration $f:X\rightarrow B$. Instead, we want to define simplicity entirely in terms of $B$ itself. Unfortunately, the solution to this is rather technical, and produces a definition which is very difficult to absorb (Definition 1.60 of [@PartI]). Let us just say here that if $B$ is simple in this new sense and $X(B_0)\rightarrow B_0$ was compactified in a sensible manner to a topological torus fibration $f:X(B)\rightarrow B$, then $f$ would be simple in the sense of §1, provided that $\dim B\le 3$. In higher dimensions, this new simplicity does not necessarily imply the old simplicity; see the forthcoming Ph.D. thesis of Helge Ruddat. This arises in situations where orbifold singularities arise in $X(B)$; as is well-known, such singularities cannot be avoided in higher dimension.
Once we accept this definition, life simplifies a great deal. Extraordinarily, the a priori very complicated moduli space of log Calabi-Yau spaces with a given dual intersection complex has a very simple description when $B$ is simple! One very difficult main result of [@PartI], (Theorem 5.4) is
Given $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ positive and simple, the set of log Calabi-Yau spaces with dual intersection complex $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, modulo isomorphism preserving $B$, is $H^1(B,i_*\Lambda\otimes k^{\times})$. An isomorphism is said to preserve $B$ if it induces the identity on the dual intersection complex.
So the moduli space is an algebraic torus (or a disjoint union of algebraic tori) of dimension equal to $\dim_k H^1(B,i_*\Lambda\otimes k)$.
Note that this is the expected dimension predicted by the SYZ conjecture. Indeed, if a smoothing of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}$ exists and it was a topological compactification $X(B)$ of $X_0(B)$, with a simple torus fibration $f:X(B)\rightarrow B$ extending $f_0:X(B_0)\rightarrow B_0$, then $R^{n-1}f_{0*}{\mathbb{R}}\cong\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}$, so by simplicity, $R^{n-1}f_*{\mathbb{R}}\cong i_*\Lambda_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. The discussion of §1 suggests that $\dim H^1(B,R^{n-1}f_*{\mathbb{R}})$ is $h^{1,n-1}$ of the smoothing, which is of course the dimension of the complex moduli space of the smoothing.
This argument can be made rigorous by introducing *log differentials*.
Let $\pi:X^{\dagger}\rightarrow S^{\dagger}$ be a morphism of logarithmic spaces. A *log derivation* on $X^{\dagger}$ over $S^{\dagger}$ with values in an ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a pair $({{\rm D}},{\operatorname{Dlog}})$, where ${{\rm D}}: {\mathcal{O}}_X\to
{\mathcal{E}}$ is an ordinary derivation of $X/S$ and ${\operatorname{Dlog}}: {\mathcal{M}}^{{\operatorname{gp}}}_X\to
{\mathcal{E}}$ is a homomorphism of abelian sheaves with ${\operatorname{Dlog}}\circ\pi^\#=0$; these fulfill the following compatibility condition $${{\rm D}}\big(\alpha_X(m)\big)=\alpha_X(m)\cdot {\operatorname{Dlog}}(m),$$ for all $m\in{\mathcal{M}}_X$.
We denote by $\Theta_{X^{\dagger}/S^{\dagger}}$ the sheaf of log derivations of $X^{\dagger}$ over $S^{\dagger}$ with values in ${\mathcal{O}}_X$. We set $\Omega^1_{X^{\dagger}/S^{\dagger}}={\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(\Theta_{X^{\dagger}/
S^{\dagger}},{\mathcal{O}}_X)$.
This generalizes the more familiar notion of differentials with logarithmic poles along a normal crossings divisor. If $Y\subseteq X$ is a normal crossings divisor inducing a log structure on $X$, then $\Omega^1_{X^{\dagger}/k}$ is the sheaf of differentials with logarithmic poles along $Y$, and $\Omega^1_{Y^{\dagger}/k}$ is the restriction of this sheaf to $Y$. In general, $\Omega^1_{X^{\dagger}/S^{\dagger}}$ is locally free if $\pi$ is log smooth. As a result, one can do deformation theory in the log category for log smooth morphisms (see [@F.Kato]). This is one of the principal reasons for introducing log geometry into our picture.
If $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ is a log Calabi-Yau space, then the morphism is log smooth off of $Z$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta^p_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}&:=&j_*{\bigwedge}^p\Theta_{(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}
\setminus Z)/0^{\dagger}}\\
\Omega^p_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}&:=&j_*{\bigwedge}^p\Omega^1_{(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}
\setminus Z)/0^{\dagger}}\end{aligned}$$ where $j:X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)\setminus Z\rightarrow X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ is the inclusion.
Then one has
\[hodgedecomp\] Suppose $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ is positive and simple, and suppose we are given a log Calabi-Yau space $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}\rightarrow 0^{\dagger}$ which occurs as the central fibre of a toric degeneration ${{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow
D$ whose general fibre ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is non-singular. Then for $q=0,1,n-1$ and $n$ with $n=\dim B$, we have isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
H^p(B,i_*{\bigwedge}^q\Lambda\otimes k)&\cong&H^p(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),\Theta^q_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)})
\cong H^p({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,\Theta^q_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_t})\\
H^p(B,i_*{\bigwedge}^q\check\Lambda\otimes k)&\cong&H^p(X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s),\Omega^q_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)})
\cong H^p({{\mathcal{X}}}_t,\Omega^q_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_t})\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta^q_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_t}$ and $\Omega^q_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_t}$ are the ordinary sheaves of holomorphic poly-vector fields and holomorphic differentials on a smooth fibre ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$.
The proof of this result, along with a number of other results, appears in [@PartII]. The result holds for all $q$ when additional hypotheses are assumed, essentially saying the mirror to ${{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ is non-singular. Note in particular, since $\Lambda$ and $\check\Lambda$ are interchanged under discrete Legendre transform, we get the interchange of ordinary Hodge numbers from this result. In the more general situation where the Calabi-Yaus arising are singular, one might speculate about the relationship between these groups, the actual Hodge numbers and stringy Hodge numbers. These issues are addressed in the forthcoming Ph.D. thesis of Helge Ruddat.
The cone picture and the fan picture
====================================
This section is purely philosophical. In most of our discussion in §§7 and 8, we focused on the dual intersection complex, and in particular, focused on the question of constructing a degeneration from its dual intersection complex. Since our primary goal was to solve the reconstruction problem Question \[reconstruct1\], and as the dual intersection complex is related to the complex structure (Theorem \[complextheorem\]) it seems natural to focus on the dual intersection complex. We will see in the next section that this intuition may not always be correct. So far, the intersection complex only seemed to arise when talking about mirror symmetry. However, mirror symmetry instructs us to view both sides of the picture on the same footing. When we construct a degenerate Calabi-Yau space from a dual intersection complex, we say we are in the *fan picture*, while if we construct a degenerate Calabi-Yau space from an intersection complex, we say we are in the *cone picture*.
More precisely, we have seen how given an integral affine manifold with singularities with toric polyhedral decomposition $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$, then an additional choice of open gluing data $s$ specifies a space $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$, along with a sheaf of monoids ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$. Some additional data may specify a log structure on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ with this ghost sheaf. The irreducible components of $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)$ are defined using fans, given by the fan structure of ${\mathscr{P}}$ at each vertex of ${\mathscr{P}}$. This is why we call this side the fan picture.
On the other hand, given $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ we can also construct a *projective* scheme $\check X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},\check s)$ given suitable gluing data $\check s$. The irreducible components of this scheme are in one-to-one correspondence with the maximal cells of ${\mathscr{P}}$; given such a maximal cell $\sigma$, viewing it as a lattice polytope in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ determines a projective toric variety, and $\check X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},
\check s)$ is obtained by gluing together these projective toric varieties using the data $\check s$. This is not quite the same data as occurred in the fan picture, because we also need to glue the line bundles, and this is additional data. The reason for calling this side the cone picture is that each irreducible component can be described as follows. Given $\sigma\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$, let $P_{\sigma}=C(\sigma)\cap
(M\oplus{\mathbb{Z}})$. Then the corresponding projective toric variety is ${\operatorname{Proj}}{\mathbb{C}}[P_{\sigma}]$, where ${\mathbb{C}}[P_{\sigma}]$ is graded using the projection of $P_{\sigma}$ onto ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence the irreducible components and strata arise from cones over elements of ${\mathscr{P}}$.
We summarize the duality between the cone and fan pictures:
(Some restrictions may apply to gluing data on both sides in order for $\varphi$ to yield the desired data.)
In particular, mirror symmetry interchanges discrete information about the log structure (i.e. ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)}$) and discrete information about the polarization (i.e the class of the line bundle on each irreducible component).
Tropical curves
===============
So far we have seen only the most elementary aspects of mirror symmetry emerge from this algebro-geometric version of SYZ, e.g. the interchange of Hodge numbers. However, the real interest in this approach lies in hints that it will provide a natural explanation for rational curve counting in mirror symmetry. If we follow the philosophy of the previous section, we need to identify structures on affine manifolds with singularities which in one of the two pictures has to do with rational curves and in the other picture has to do with periods. I believe the correct structure to study is that of tropical curves on affine manifolds with singularities $B$. See [@Mik],[@Sturm] for an introduction to tropical curves in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Here, we can take $B$ to be tropical, rather than integral; hence the name.
Let $B$ be a tropical affine manifold with singularities with discriminant locus $\Delta$. Let $G$ be a weighted, connected finite graph, with its set of vertices and edges denoted by $G^{[0]}$ and $G^{[1]}$ respectively, with weight function $w_{G}:G^{[1]}
\rightarrow{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\}$. A parametrized tropical curve in $B$ is a continuous map $h:G\rightarrow B$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. For every edge $E\subseteq G$, $h|_{{\operatorname{Int}}(E)}$ is an embedding, $h^{-1}(B_0)$ is dense in ${\operatorname{Int}}(E)$, and there is a section $u\in \Gamma({\operatorname{Int}}(E),h^*(i_*\Lambda))$ which is tangent to $h({\operatorname{Int}}(E))$ at every point of $h({\operatorname{Int}}(E))\cap B_0$. We choose this section to be primitive, i.e. not an integral multiple of another section of $h^*(i_*\Lambda)$.
2. For every vertex $v\in G^{[0]}$, let $E_1,\ldots,E_m\in G^{[1]}$ be the edges adjacent to $v$. Let $u_i$ be the section of $h^*(i_*\Lambda)|_{{\operatorname{Int}}(E_i)}$ promised by (1), chosen to point away from $v$. This defines germs $u_i\in h^*(i_*\Lambda)_v=(i_*\Lambda)_{h(v)}$.
1. If $h(v)\in B_0$, the following *balancing condition* holds in $\Lambda_{h(v)}$: $$\sum_{j=1}^m w_{G}(E_j)u_j=0.$$
2. If $h(v)\not\in B_0$, then the following balancing condition is satisfied in $(i_*\Lambda)_{h(v)}$: $$\sum_{j=1}^m w_{G}(E_j)u_j=0
\mod (i_*\check\Lambda)_{h(v)}^{\perp}\cap (i_*\Lambda)_{h(v)}.$$ The latter group is interpreted as follows. Let $b\in B_0$ be a point near $h(v)$, and identify, via parallel transport along a path between $h(v)$ and $b$, the groups $(i_*\Lambda)_{h(v)}$ and $(i_*\check\Lambda)_{h(v)}$ with local monodromy invariant subgroups of $\Lambda_b$ and $\check\Lambda_b$ respectively. Then $(i_*\check\Lambda)^{\perp}_{h(v)}$ is a subgroup of $\Lambda_b$, and the intersection makes sense. It is independent of the choice of $b$ and path.
So tropical curves behave away from the discriminant locus of $B$ much as the tropical curves of [@Mik],[@Sturm] do, but they may have legs terminating on the discriminant locus. As we are interested in the case that $B$ is compact, we do not want legs which go off to $\infty$. I warn the reader, however, that this definition is provisional, and the behaviour in (2) (b) may not be exactly what we want.
Here we see a tropical elliptic curve, the solid dots being points of the discriminant locus. The legs terminating at these points must be in a monodromy invariant direction.
Now let us connect this to the question of counting curves. In the situation of a degeneration, $\varphi:{{\mathcal{X}}}\rightarrow D$, it is natural to consider families of maps of curves: $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\mathcal{C}}\ar[r]^f\ar[d]_{\pi}&{{\mathcal{X}}}\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\
D\ar[r]_g&D}$$ Here $g$ may be a ramified covering, and $\pi$ is a flat morphism with reduced one-dimensional fibres. In the case of interest, $f|_{{\mathcal{C}}_t}:{\mathcal{C}}_t\rightarrow{{\mathcal{X}}}_t$ should be a stable map of curves for $t\not=0$. Let us assume that ${\mathcal{C}}_t$ is a non-singular curve for $t\not=0$. In the logarithmic context, it is then natural to put the log structure induced by the divisor ${\mathcal{C}}_0\subseteq{\mathcal{C}}$ on ${\mathcal{C}}$, and so get a diagram $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\mathcal{C}}^{\dagger}\ar[r]^f\ar[d]_{\pi}&{{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\
D^{\dagger}\ar[r]_g&D^{\dagger}}$$ of log morphisms. Restricting to the central fibre, we obtain a diagram $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\mathcal{C}}^{\dagger}_0\ar[r]^f\ar[d]_{\pi}&{{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}_0\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\
0^{\dagger}\ar[r]_g&0^{\dagger}}$$ This suggests that we should build up a theory of stable log maps and log Gromov-Witten invariants. This theory should generalize the theories developed by Li and Ruan [@LR] and Jun Li [@Li]. I will say little about this here, as this rapidly gets quite technical. There is work in progress of Siebert on this subject. This point of view has already been used in [@NS] for counting curves in toric varieties, so some more hints of this approach can be found there. Instead, I wish to sketch how such a diagram yields a tropical curve.
To do so, consider a situation where $\pi$ is normal crossings, and the induced map ${\mathcal{C}}^{\dagger}_0\rightarrow{{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}$ has no infinitesimal log automorphisms over $0^{\dagger}$. (This is the log equivalent of the notion of stable map). Let $(B,{\mathscr{P}})$ be the dual intersection complex of the log Calabi-Yau space ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0^{\dagger}$. We can define the *dual intersection graph* of $f:
{\mathcal{C}}_0^{\dagger}\rightarrow{{\mathcal{X}}}^{\dagger}$, which will be a parameterized tropical curve on $B$. I will only do the case here when the image of $f$ is disjoint from the set $Z\subseteq{{\mathcal{X}}}$ of Definition \[toricdegen\], (4); otherwise there are some technicalities to worry about.
First we build $G$. Let $C_1,\ldots,C_m$ be the irreducible components of ${\mathcal{C}}_0$. Assume these components are normal for ease of describing this construction. Set $G^{[0]}=\{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$. On the other hand, $G^{[1]}$ will contain an edge $\overline{v_iv_j}$ joining $v_i$ and $v_j$ whenever $C_i\cap C_j\not=\emptyset$.
To define $h:G\rightarrow B$, we first describe the image of each vertex. Let $X_{\sigma_i}$ be the minimal stratum of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ containing $f(C_i)$, where $\sigma_i\in{\mathscr{P}}$. Let $\eta_i$ be the generic point of $C_i$, $\xi_i=f(\eta_i)$. Then we have an induced map $f^{\#}:{\mathcal{M}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0,\xi_i}\rightarrow{\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathcal{C}}_0,\eta_i}$, as $f$ is a log morphism. This induces a diagram on stalks of ghost sheaves $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{{\mathcal{C}}_0,\eta_i}&
{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0,\xi_i}
\ar[l]_{\bar f^{\#}}
\\
{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{0}
\ar[u]^{\bar\pi^{\#}}
&{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{0}\ar[l]^{\bar g^{\#}}
\ar[u]_{\bar\varphi^{\#}}}$$ Now ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_0={\mathbb{N}}$ (see Example \[logexamples\], (4)) and ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{{\mathcal{C}}_0,\eta_i}={\mathbb{N}}$ since $\pi$ is normal crossings. On the other hand, $\bar\pi^{\#}$ is the identity and if $g$ is a branched cover of degree $d$, then $g^{\#}$ is multiplication by $d$. By Exercise \[ghostexercise\], $${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0,\xi_i}={\operatorname{Hom}}_{monoid}(C(\sigma_i)\cap (M\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}),{\mathbb{N}}).$$ But $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{monoid}({\operatorname{Hom}}_{monoid}(C(\sigma_i)\cap(M\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}),{\mathbb{N}}),{\mathbb{N}})=C(\sigma_i)
\cap(M\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}),$$ so $\bar f^{\#}$ is determined by an element $(m,r)$ of $C(\sigma_i)
\cap (M\oplus{\mathbb{Z}})$. Now $$\bar f^{\#}(\bar\varphi^{\#}(1))=\bar f^{\#}(0,1)=\langle (m,r),(0,1)\rangle =r$$ while $$\bar\pi^{\#}(\bar g^{\#}(1))=\bar\pi^{\#}(d)=d.$$ Thus $r=d$, and $m/d\in\sigma_i$. We define $h(v_i)=m/d$. This is a point of $\sigma_i$ which is contained in $B$.
If $C_i\cap C_j\not=\emptyset$, there is a minimal stratum $X_{\sigma_{i,j}}$ containing $C_i\cap C_j$. Of course $X_{\sigma_{i,j}}\subseteq X_{\sigma_i}
\cap X_{\sigma_j}$. In particular, $\sigma_{i,j}$ contains $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_j$. We take $h(\overline{v_i
v_j})$ to be the straight line joining $h(v_i)$ and $h(v_j)$ inside $\sigma_{i,j}$. Furthermore, if $\sigma_{i,j}\subseteq M_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ is embedded as a lattice polytope, let $m_{ij}$ be a primitive lattice element parallel to $m_i-m_j$, and we take $w_{G}(\overline{v_iv_j})$ to be defined by the equation $$w_{G}(\overline{v_iv_j})m_{ij}=\#(C_i\cap C_j)(m_i-m_j).$$
$h$ is a parametrized tropical curve.
We do not give a proof here. The case where $X_{\sigma_i}$ is always an irreducible component of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ is essentially covered in [@NS]. Instead, we’ll do another extremal case, which exhibits some interesting features of log geometry.
Suppose a component $C_1$ of ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ and all components $C_2,\ldots,C_t$ intersecting $C_1$ are mapped by $f$ to a zero dimensional stratum $X_{\sigma}$ of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$. Without loss of generality we can assume $${{\mathcal{X}}}_0=V(\sigma)={\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[{\vee}{C(\sigma)}\cap(N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}})]/(z^{(0,1)})$$ as defined in §8. Thus $h$ maps $v_1,\ldots,v_t$ into points $m_1/d,\ldots,m_t/d\in\sigma$. Let us understand why the balancing condition holds at $m_1/d$. Let $U\subseteq{\mathcal{C}}_0$ be an open neighbourhood of $C_1$ which only intersects $C_1,\ldots,C_t$, so $h$ is constant on $U$ as an ordinary morphism (but not as a log morphism). Restrict the log structure on ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ to $U$. We have an exact sequence $$1\mapright{}{\mathcal{O}}_U^{\times}\mapright{}{\mathcal{M}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}\mapright{p}{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_U
\mapright{} 0.$$ Taking global sections, we get $$1\mapright{}\Gamma(U,{\mathcal{O}}_U^{\times})\mapright{}\Gamma(U,{\mathcal{M}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}})
\mapright{p}\Gamma(U,{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}})=
{\mathbb{Z}}^t\mapright{q}{\operatorname{Pic}}U.$$ A section $s\in\Gamma(U,{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}})$ defines an ${\mathcal{O}}_U^{\times}$-torsor $p^{-1}(s)$, whose class in the Picard group of $U$ is $q(s)$. It is an easy exercise in log geometry to show that if $s$ is the $i$th standard basis vector for ${\mathbb{Z}}^t$, then $q(s)={\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(-C_i)|_U$. Note $\deg {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(-C_i)|_{C_1}=-\# C_1\cap C_i$ for $i=2,\ldots,t$ and $\deg {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(-C_1)|_{C_1}=\sum_{i=2}^t\# C_1\cap C_i$ as $C_1.{\mathcal{C}}_0=0$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Now observe that $f^{\#}$ acting on the sheaves of monoids induces a diagram $$\xymatrix@C=30pt
{{\mathcal{O}}_{V(\sigma),x}^{\times}\oplus{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_{V(\sigma),x}\ar[r]^{\cong}&
{\mathcal{M}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_{V(\sigma),x}\ar[r]^{f^{\#}}\ar[d]&\Gamma(U,{\mathcal{M}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}})\ar[d]^p&\\
N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}\ar[r]_{\cong}&{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}}_{V(\sigma),x}\ar[r]_{\bar f^{\#}}&\Gamma(U,
{\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}_U^{{{\operatorname{gp}}}})\ar[r]_{\cong}&{\mathbb{Z}}^t.}$$ The map $\bar f^{\#}$, by construction, is given by $$(n,r)\in N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}\mapsto (\langle (n,r),(m_i,d)\rangle)_{i=1,\ldots,t}.$$ On the other hand, in order for $\bar f^{\#}$ to lift to $f^{\#}$, the ${\mathcal{O}}_U^{\times}$ torseur $p^{-1}(\bar f^{\#}(n,r))$ must have a section for every $(n,r)\in N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}$, i.e. must be trivial in the Picard group. This implies $$\deg\bigotimes_{i=1}^t ({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(-C_i)|_{C_1})^{\otimes \langle (n,r),
(m_i,d)\rangle}=0,$$ or $$\sum_{i=2}^t(\# C_1\cap C_i)(\langle (n,r),(m_i,d)-(m_1,d)\rangle)=0$$ for all $(n,r)\in N\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}$. But this is equivalent to $$\sum_{i=2}^t (\# C_1\cap C_i) (m_i-m_1)=0,$$ which is the balancing condition.
Following the logic of mirror symmetry, this suggests that tropical curves on the cone side should have to do with periods. It is only recently that an understanding of this has begun to emerge, and unfortunately, I do not have space or time to elaborate on this. Let me say that in [@BigPaper], Siebert and I have given a solution to Question \[smoothingconjecture\], (2), given some hypotheses on $X_0(B,{\mathscr{P}},s)^{\dagger}$, which are implied by simplicity of $B$. In this solution, we construct explicit deformations of a log Calabi-Yau space, order by order. Formally, our construction looks somewhat similar to that of Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS2] for constructing non-Archimedean K3 surfaces from affine manifolds, and we apply a key lemma of [@KS2]. However, Kontsevich and Soibelman work on what we would call the fan side, while we work on the cone side. This may be surprising given that all of our discussions involving the strategy of building log Calabi-Yau spaces was done on the fan side. However, if we take the mirror philosophy seriously, and we want to see tropical curves appear in a description of a smoothing, we need to work on the cone side. It turns out to be extremely natural. In fact, all tropical rational curves play a role in our construction. Ultimately, all periods can be calculated in terms of the data involved in our construction, and in particular, there is a clear relationship between the period calculation and the existence of tropical rational curves on $B$. Once this is fully understood, this will finally give a firm understanding of a geometric explanation of mirror symmetry.
[cccccc]{}
P. Aspinwall, B. Greene and D. Morrison: *Calabi-Yau moduli space, mirror manifolds and spacetime topology change in string theory*, Nuclear Phys. [**B416**]{} (1994), 414–480.
V. Batyrev: *Dual polyhedra and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in toric varieties.* J. Algebraic Geom. [**3**]{} (1994), 493–535.
V. Batyrev, and L. Borisov: *On Calabi-Yau complete intersections in toric varieties,* in [*Higher-dimensional complex varieties (Trento, 1994)*]{}, 39–65, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996.
V. Batyrev, and M. Kreuzer: *Integral cohomology and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau 3-folds*, preprint, 2005, [math.AG/0505432]{}.
O. Ben-Bassat, *Mirror symmetry and generalized complex manifolds*, preprint, 2004, [math.AG/0405303]{}.
A. Bertram, *Another way to enumerate rational curves with torus actions,* Invent. Math. [**142**]{} (2000), 487–512.
R. Castaño-Bernard and D. Matessi, *Lagrangian 3-torus fibration*, preprint, 2006, [arXiv:math/0611139]{}.
P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, P. Green, and L. Parkes, *A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,* Nuclear Phys. B [**359**]{} (1991), 21–74.
S.-Y. Cheng and S.-T. Yau, *The real Monge-Ampère equation and affine flat structures*, in *Proceedings of the 1980 Beijing Symposium on Differential Geometry and Differential Equations*, Vol. 1, 2, 3 (Beijing, 1980), 339–370, Science Press, Beijing, 1982.
R. Friedman: *Global smoothings of varieties with normal crossings*, Ann. Math. [**118**]{}, (1983) 75–114.
K. Fukaya, *Multivalued Morse theory, asymptotic analysis and mirror symmetry,* in *Graphs and patterns in mathematics and theoretical physics*, 205–278, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., [**73**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
A. Gathmann, *Relative Gromov-Witten invariants and the mirror formula,* Math. Ann. [**325**]{} (2003), 393–412.
A. Givental, *Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants,* Internat. Math. Res. Notices [**13**]{}, (1996), 613–663.
E. Goldstein: *A construction of new families of minimal Lagrangian submanifolds via torus actions,* J. Differential Geom. [**58**]{} (2001), 233–261.
M. Gross: *Special Lagrangian Fibrations I: Topology,* in: [*Integrable Systems and Algebraic Geometry*]{}, (M.-H. Saito, Y. Shimizu and K. Ueno eds.), World Scientific 1998, 156–193.
M. Gross: *Special Lagrangian Fibrations II: Geometry,* in: [*Surveys in Differential Geometry*]{}, Somerville: MA, International Press 1999, 341–403.
M. Gross: *Topological Mirror Symmetry*, Invent. Math. [**144**]{} (2001), 75–137.
M. Gross: *Examples of special Lagrangian fibrations,* in *Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry (Seoul, 2000)*, 81–109, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2001.
M. Gross: *Toric Degenerations and Batyrev-Borisov Duality*, Math. Ann. [**333**]{}, (2005) 645-688.
M. Gross, and B. Siebert: *Affine manifolds, log structures, and mirror symmetry*, Turkish J. Math. [**27**]{} (2003), 33-60.
M. Gross, and B. Siebert: *Torus fibrations and toric degenerations,* in preparation.
M. Gross, and B. Siebert: *Mirror symmetry via logarithmic degeneration data I*, J. Diff. Geom. [**72**]{}, (2006).
M. Gross, and B. Siebert: *From real affine geometry to complex geometry*, preprint, (2007), [arXiv:math/073822]{}.
M. Gross, and B. Siebert: *Mirror symmetry via logarithmic degeneration data II*, preprint, (2007), [arXiv:0709.2290]{}.
M. Gross, and P.M.H. Wilson: *Mirror symmetry via $3$-tori for a class of Calabi-Yau threefolds,* Math. Ann. [**309**]{} (1997), 505–531.
M. Gross, and P.M.H. Wilson: *Large complex structure limits of $K3$ surfaces,* J. Differential Geom. [**55**]{} (2000), 475–546.
M. Gualtieri, *Generalized complex geometry*, Oxford University DPhil thesis, [math.DG/0401221]{}.
C. Haase, and I. Zharkov: *Integral affine structures on spheres and torus fibrations of Calabi-Yau toric hypersurfaces I*, preprint 2002, [math.AG/0205321]{}.
C. Haase, and I. Zharkov: *Integral affine structures on spheres III: complete intersections*, preprint, [math.AG/0504181]{}.
N. Hitchin: *The Moduli Space of Special Lagrangian Submanifolds*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) [**25**]{} (1997), 503–515.
N. Hitchin: *Generalized Calabi-Yau manifolds*, Q. J. Math. [**54**]{} (2003), 281–308.
L. Illusie: *Logarithmic spaces (according to K. Kato)*, in [*Barsotti Symposium in Algebraic Geometry*]{} (Abano Terme 1991), 183–203, Perspect. Math. 15, Academic Press 1994.
D. Joyce, *Singularities of special Lagrangian fibrations and the SYZ conjecture,* Comm. Anal. Geom. [**11**]{} (2003), 859–907.
F. Kato: *Log smooth deformation theory*, Tohoku Math. J. [**48**]{} (1996), 317–354.
K. Kato: *Logarithmic structures of Fontaine–Illusie*, in: [*Algebraic analysis, geometry, and number theory*]{} (J.-I. Igusa et. al. eds.), 191–224, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1989.
Y. Kawamata, Y. Namikawa: *Logarithmic deformations of normal crossing varieties and smooothing of degenerate Calabi-Yau varieties*, Invent. Math. [**118**]{} (1994), 395–409.
M. Kontsevich, *Enumeration of rational curves via torus actions*, in *The moduli space of curves (Texel Island, 1994)*, 335–368, Progr. Math., 129, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1995.
M. Kontsevich, and Y. Soibelman: *Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations*, in: [*Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry*]{} (Seoul, 2000), 203–263, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2001.
M. Kontsevich, and Y. Soibelman: *Affine structures and non-archimedean analytic spaces*, preprint, [math.AG/0406564]{}.
N.C. Leung: *Mirror symmetry without corrections*, preprint 2000, math.DG/0009235
J. Li, *Stable morphisms to singular schemes and relative stable morphisms*, J. Differential Geom. [**57**]{} (2001), 509–578.
A-M. Li, and Y. Ruan: *Symplectic surgery and Gromov-Witten invariants of Calabi-Yau 3-folds*, Invent. Math. [**145**]{} (2001), 151–218.
B. Lian, K. Liu, S-T. Yau, *Mirror principle. I,* Asian J. Math. [**1**]{} (1997), 729–763.
D. Matessi, *Some families of special Lagrangian tori,* Math. Ann. [**325**]{} (2003), 211–228.
R. McLean, *Deformations of calibrated submanifolds,* Comm. Anal. Geom. [**6**]{} (1998), 705–747.
G. Mikhalkin, *Enumerative tropical algebraic geometry in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$,* J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**18**]{} (2005), 313–377.
D. Morrison, *Compactifications of moduli spaces inspired by mirror symmetry,* in *Journées de Géométrie Algébrique d’Orsay (Orsay, 1992)*, Astérisque [**218**]{} (1993), 243–271.
T. Nishinou, B. Siebert, *Toric degenerations of toric varieties and tropical curves*, preprint, [math.AG/0409060]{}, to appear in Duke Math. Journal.
P. Petersen: *Riemannian geometry,* Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 171. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
J. Richter-Gebert, B. Sturmfels, and T. Theobald, *First steps in tropical geometry,* in *Idempotent mathematics and mathematical physics*, 289–317, Contemp. Math., [**377**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
E. Rødland: *The Pfaffian Calabi-Yau, its mirror, and their link to the Grassmannian $G(2,7)$,* Compositio Math. [**122**]{}, (2000) 135–149.
W.-D. Ruan: *Lagrangian torus fibration and mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau hypersurface in toric variety*, preprint 2000, math.DG/0007028.
W.-D. Ruan: *Lagrangian torus fibration of quintic Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces. II. Technical results on gradient flow construction,* J. Symplectic Geom. [**1**]{} (2002), no. 3, 435–521.
S. Schröer, B. Siebert: *Irreducible degenerations of primary Kodaira surfaces,* in Complex geometry (Göttingen, 2000), 193–222, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
S. Schröer, B. Siebert: *Toroidal crossings and logarithmic structures*, preprint 2002, [math.AG/0211088]{}, to appear in Adv. Math.
A. Strominger, S.-T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, *Mirror Symmetry is $T$-duality,* Nucl. Phys. [**B479**]{}, (1996) 243–259.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by NSF grant 0505325
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We find the capacity attained by the Kennedy receiver for coherent-state BPSK when the symbol prior $p$ and pre-detection displacement $\beta$ are optimized. The optimal $\beta$ is different than what minimizes error probability for single-shot BPSK state discrimination.'
address: |
Electrical & Computer Engineering, College of Optical Sciences,\
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
author:
- 'Rahul Bhadani, Michael Grace, Ivan B. Djordjevic, Jonathan Sprinkle, Saikat Guha'
bibliography:
- 'references2.bib'
title: |
Programming the Kennedy Receiver for Capacity\
Maximization versus Minimizing One-shot Error Probability
---
Optical communication capacity with coherent-state BPSK signaling
=================================================================
Let us consider coherent-state binary phase shift keying (BPSK) symbols $|\alpha\rangle, |-\alpha\rangle$, with priors $(p, 1-p)$ and mean photon number per mode, $|\alpha|^2 = N$, at the receiver. Sam Dolinar found the design of an optical receiver that uses a coherent-state local oscillator (LO), linear optics, switches, and quantum-noise-limited photon detection, which achieves the minimum average probability of error of discriminating the two states, $P_{e,{\text{min}}}(p) = \frac12[1-\sqrt{1-4p(1-p)e^{-4N}}]$ [@dolinar1976class]. For communicating with a BPSK alphabet, if a receiver must detect one BPSK symbol at a time, setting $p=1/2$, and using the Dolinar receiver achieves the maximum capacity, $C_1(N) = 1 - h_2(P_{e,{\rm min}}(1/2))$ bits per BPSK symbol, which is the capacity of a binary symmetric channel of crossover probability $P_{e,{\rm min}}(1/2)$. If the receiver is allowed to make joint (quantum, collective) measurements over long codeword blocks, not describable by any symbol by symbol measurement and post-processing, the maximum attainable capacity, $C_\infty(N) = h_2([1-e^{-2N}]/2)$ bits/symbol, is given by the Holevo limit [@HSW]. In this article, we will restrict our attention to a specific (symbol-by-symbol) receiver design [@Takeoka2008-jh] which is an extension of a receiver proposed by Robert Kennedy [@kennedy1973near]. Hence our attained capacity will stay strictly below $C_1$. This generalized Kennedy (GK) receiver first applies a coherent displacement to shift the received BPSK symbols to $|\beta\rangle, |\alpha + \beta \rangle$, and then detects the shifted states with a shot-noise limited photon detector. If the detector clicks, the receiver guesses the “$|\alpha\rangle$" hypothesis, and if it generates no clicks, it guesses the “$|-\alpha\rangle$" hypothesis. The pre-detection optical displacement can be realized by interfering the BPSK symbol on a beamsplitter of transmissivity $\kappa \approx 1$, with a strong coherent state LO $|\beta/\sqrt{1-\kappa}\rangle$. In Fig. \[fig:capacity\], left, we show the $2$-by-$2$ transition probability matrix $p_{Y|X}(y|x)$ induced by the GK receiver. We calculate the capacity attained by the Kennedy receiver (by optimizing over the priors $p$ and the displacement $\beta$), i.e., $C_{\rm Kennedy}(N) = \textsf{max}_{p, \beta} I(X;Y)$. The plots in Fig. \[fig:capacity\] (right) show that the Capacity attained by the Kennedy receiver with optimized prior and displacement is higher than that achieved by Kennedy’s original (exact displacement) receiver ($\beta = 0$), with $p$ optimized. The improvement is more pronounced when $N$ is small, the same regime where $C_\infty(N)/C_1(N) \to \infty$, of interest, e.g., for deep-space communications.
[0.4]{} \[fig:txmatrix\_optim\_nulling\]
[0.58]{} \[fig:Channel\_capacity\_N10\]
Discussion of results: optimizing capacity versus minimizing the one-shot probability of error
==============================================================================================
We now discuss our results in the context of important conceptual points regarding designing a receiver for maximizing (communication) rate, versus minimizing one-shot probability of error (e.g., in a target-detection radar).
[**(a) Error probabilities for one-shot state discrimination.**]{} Figure \[fig:Error\_probabilityAndBeta\_N10\_1\] shows average error probability for one-shot BPSK state discrimination, assuming equal priors, $p = 1/2$. The quantum (Helstrom) limit is attained by the Dolinar receiver. The Kennedy receiver’s performance is shown, with optimized $\beta$. In Fig. \[fig:Error\_probabilityAndBeta\_N10\], we see that the optimal $\beta$ is quite different than what minimizes error probability for single-shot BPSK state discrimination. Next, we note that Homodyne receiver’s probability of error performance is strictly worse than the Kennedy receiver with optimized $\beta$, whereas there is a crossover between Homodyne and Kennedy receivers’ performance when $\beta = 0$ is set. For channel capacity (see Fig. \[fig:capacity\]), both for $\beta = 0$ and $\beta$ optimized for capacity, homodyne receiver does inferior to the Kennedy receiver. This shows that an optical receiver may need to be “programmed" differently based on the information-processing task at hand and that optimizing a receiver to minimize symbol error probability may not result in a capacity-maximizing setting for that same receiver, and vice versa.
[**(b) Finite blocklength communications rate.**]{} Bondurant generalized Kennedy’s receiver to the $M$-ary phase-shift keying (PSK), later generalized to any $M$-ary constellation. Experiments have been conducted as well [@Chen2012-fw; @Becerra2015-uh]. This generalized receiver, known as sequential waveform nulling (SWN), does not meet the quantum limit of minimum error state discrimination. But it achieves the optimal error exponent, which is a factor of four higher than that achievable with ideal heterodyne detection [@Nair2014-dr]. The symbol demodulation error probability $P_{e,{\rm Het}} \sim e^{-\xi N}$, $P_{e,{\rm SWN}} \sim e^{-4 \xi N}$, and $P_{e,{\rm opt}} \sim e^{-4 \xi N}$, as $N \to \infty$. Here $N$ is the average photon-number of the states in the constellation. In the high $N$ regime, there is not much capacity improvement by using SWN (over ideal heterodyne). But SWN’s superior error exponent for symbol demodulation translates to a higher reliability function, i.e., a higher number of bits being transmissible over $n$ channel uses for a given target codeword error probability [@Tan2015-iz]. This could translate to a higher data volume being transmissible over a dynamic optical link that is only available for a short time duration. In ongoing work, we are optimizing displacement and nulling-order for $M$-ary constellations to maximize the finite-length rate, by optimizing the channel dispersion attained by the SWN receiver [@polyanskiy2010channel].
[0.46]{}
[0.48]{}
Acknowledgment
==============
This was an [*advanced problem*]{} in the University of Arizona course OPTI 595B “Information in a Photon", Spring $2019$. The research for Rahul Bhadani was supported by the National Science Foundation, award $1521617$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Bound state problem in the relativistic QED is investigated by the functional integral methods. The ortho- para- positron mass difference is calculated. Contribution of the “nonphysical”$~$ time variable turned out to be important and leads to the nonanalytic dependence of the bound state mass of the order $\alpha^{{2\over3}}$. It is shown that the relativistic and non-relativistic QED gives different results for this mass shift. In addition so-called abnormal states as “time excitations” arise. Sequential application of relativistic QED to bound state problem is in contradiction with real ortho- and para- positronium bound states.
The conclusion: the relativistic QED is not suited to describe real bound states correctly.
author:
- |
G.V.Efimov [^1]\
*Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,\
*Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,\
[*141980 Dubna, Russia*]{}**
title: |
QED\
and ortho-para- positronium\
mass difference
---
Pacs Numbers: 13.20.-v, 13.20.Fc, 13.20.He, 24.85.+p
Introduction.
=============
We believe that the relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a uniquely correct universal theory giving an exhaustive description of all interactions between electrons and photons including possible bound states like positronium. Only our inability to calculate something out of perturbation method does not permit us to obtain all the desired details. Earlier, some scientists considered that QED should have its own applicability region. A short review of the history and the development of quantum field theory is done in [@Wein]. Supporting these doubts we will show in this paper that the sequential use of the standard QED does not give a correct description of the positronium spectra, namely, the ortho- para- positronium mass difference.
First of all let us realize what is the status of bound states in non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) and relativistic quantum field theory (QFT). In what follows, we restrict ourselves to the discussion of positronium in QED. The difference between QM and QFT is shown in Table I. Let us give some comments.
The total Hamiltonian $H=H_0+gH_I$ can be constructed in QM and QFT. However, in QM $H$ is a well defined operator, so that the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation is mathematically correct and time development of a quantum system can be described. Solutions of the Schrödinger equation contain both free and bound states. One can remark that in QM a bound state (positronium) is created by real particles (electron-positron), i.e. constituent particles are on mass shell but are no virtual particles.
In QFT the Fock space ${\cal F}$ is defined by the noninteracting free Hamiltonian $H_0$ and contains the free particles only. However, $H_I$ is not defined on ${\cal F}$. As a result, the bound state as an eigenvalue problem of the relativistic Schrödinger equation on the Fock space cannot be formulated mathematically in a correct way (see [@Wight]). Besides, the time development of quantum field system cannot be obtained. The only way to overcome these problems is to construct the $S$-matrix which contains all elastic and inelastic scattering amplitudes of free particles from the time $t\to-\infty$ to the time $t\to\infty$. It is important that the $S$-matrix is a unitary operator on the Fock space. It means that the bound states like positronium, which is a unstable particle, cannot belong to any Fock space in principle. In addition, our computing abilities are restricted to the perturbation theory.
Nevertheless, we believe that the $S$-matrix amplitudes should contain some correct information on possible bound states. The simplest way to realize this idea is to postulate that a bound state is a simple pole of an elastic scattering amplitude of constituent particles with appropriate quantum numbers. It means, that the amplitudes out of mass shell and out of perturbation approach should be calculated. Standard methods to go out of perturbation calculations are reduced to sum appropriate classes of Feynman diagrams and this summation can be formulated in a form of integral equations. The best known approaches are the Bethe-Salpeter and Schwinger-Dyson equations. There is numerous literature devoted these equations (see, for example, [@Wick; @Nak; @Ef-bos; @Ef-ferm; @Dor; @Ef-scal; @Ef-gauge]). The important difference comparable with the nonrelativistic case is that bound states in these equations are created by particles which are out of mass shell so that the role of time becomes important.
One remark on these equations. We know that the perturbation series are asymptotic series so that the problem is how to sum them? The exact amplitudes should have some singularity at the point $\alpha=0$ in QED (see [@Dyson]). What is a precise character of this singularity is not known up to now. Standard perturbation expansions are connected with Feynman diagrams. Usual methods are reduced to summation of an appropriate class of Feynman diagrams. Result of a summation of any definite class of Feynman diagrams is a kind of geometrical progression, i.e. it is an analytic function at the point $\alpha=0$. However, it should be stressed that the generally accepted point of view - non-perturbed behavior is a sum of a definite class of Feynman diagrams - is not true.
One of probably successful proposals to calculate the relativistic corrections to bound state problem is the so-called non-relativistic QED (NRQED) (see [@Lepage]). The basic idea is that the QM is correct, only non-relativistic momenta are responsible for bound state properties. In other words, the Hamiltonian should not depend on time and the problem is to find somehow relativistically small corrections to the non-relativistic Coulomb potential. The basic idea is that for small coupling constants the Born approximation is a good approximation which is directly defined by the Fourier transform of the potential. The aim is to extract from the relativistic $S$-matrix some relativistic corrections to non-relativistic Hamiltonian. The hypothesis is that the scattering amplitudes in the non-relativistic Schrödinger theory and the relativistic $S$-matrix theory should coincide in the low energy limit. The procedure is to write down the non-relativistic Lagrangian with a set of all possible terms, and coefficients in front of them are calculated by identification with appropriate amplitudes of relativistic $S$-matrix. This prescription allows one to remove effectively time out of the relativistic equations, in other words, to place all intermediate particles on their mass shell. It seems NRQED is supported by experimental data.
Another quantum field idea is that a bound state is defined by an asymptotic behavior of the vacuum mean value of the corresponding relativistic currents (see, for example, [@Alfaro]) with desired quantum numbers: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{current}
&&\left\langle0|{\bf J}(x){\bf J}(0)|0\right\rangle=\sum\limits_n
\left\langle0|{\bf J}(x)|n\right\rangle\left\langle n|{\bf
J}(0)|0\right\rangle=\sum\limits_n e^{-E_n|x|} |\left\langle0|{\bf
J}(0)|n\right\rangle|^2\nonumber\\
&&\sim e^{-M_{min}|x|} |\left\langle0|{\bf J}(0)|min\right\rangle|^2
~~~~{\rm for}~~~|x|\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ This formula gives a possibility to calculate the mass of the lowest bound state $|min\rangle$ if $M_{min}<2m$. Essentially, the space of states $\{|n\rangle\}$ is supposed to contain possible bound states although we saw that the Fock space cannot contain unstable bound states. These vacuum mean values (\[current\]) can be represented in closed forms by functional methods. The functional methods permit one to get formally the exact representations for Green functions which are not connected directly with Feynman diagrams, so that it is possible to go out of standard perturbation expansions using asymptotic methods. Development of functional methods permits one to get the exact character of non-analyticity at the point $\alpha=0$ and to clarify the role of “time” in bound state formation. Exactly this approach will be used in this paper.
The practically unique experimental object to investigate the bound state problems is the positronium which is the result of pure QED interaction. On the one hand, the positronium is not a stable state. It cannot belong to the asymptotic Fock space. Nevertheless, it exists. The binding energy of positronium itself is not measured with great accuracy but the mass difference of two possible states, ortho-positronium $(1^3S_1)$ and para-positronium $(1^1S_0)$, is known with very large accuracy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bindingOP}
&&\Delta \epsilon=\epsilon_{ortho}-\epsilon_{para}
=203.38910~GHz=8.4115\cdot10^{-4}~eV\\
&&=0.580487~\alpha^4m_e={7\over12}\alpha^4m_e\cdot0.99512...\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The main contribution can be explained by the non-relativistic Breit potential approach (see, for example, [@Ahiezer; @Ber; @Sap; @Eid]) taking into account scattering and annihilation channels $$\Delta \epsilon=\epsilon_{ortho}-\epsilon_{para}={7\over12}~\alpha^4m_e,~~~~~~
{7\over12}=\left({1\over3}\right)_{scatt}+\left({1\over4}\right)_{annih}.$$
If we apply the relativistic current formula (\[current\]) to the positronium problem, we can write $$\left\langle0|{\bf J}(x){\bf J}(0)|0\right\rangle=
\sum\limits_{particles} e^{-iE_n|x|} |\left\langle0|{\bf
J}(0)|n\right\rangle|^2+\sum\limits_{photons} e^{-iE_n|x|}
|\left\langle0|{\bf J}(0)|n\right\rangle|^2$$ where $$\sum\limits_{particles} e^{-iE_n|x|} |\left\langle0|{\bf
J}(0)|n\right\rangle|^2\sim e^{-M_{lowest}|x|}$$ and annihilation channel looks like $$\sum\limits_{photons} e^{-iE_n|x|} |\left\langle0|{\bf
J}(0)|n\right\rangle|^2\sim{1\over|x|^2}$$ It means that the annihilation channel does not take part in the bound state formation in contradiction with the non-relativistic potential approach.
Another point: we want to understand what is the role of TIME in formation of bound states.
In this paper we apply functional methods to calculate the asymptotic behavior of vacuum mean value (\[current\]) of relativistic currents for positronium and clarify the role of time in the formation of bound states.
Lagrangian and bound states
===========================
All our calculations will be performed in the Euclidean space. The Lagrangian of the electron field $\psi$ and the electromagnetic photon field $A_\mu$ looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L}
&& L=-{1\over4}F_{\mu\nu}^2(x)+
(\overline{\psi}(x)[i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A}(x))-m]\psi(x)),\\
&& F_{\mu\nu}(x)=\partial_\mu A_\nu(x)-\partial_\nu
A_\mu(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The electron propagator has the standard form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S}
&& S(x-x')=\left\langle{\rm T}\left[
\psi(x)\overline{\psi}(x')\right]\right\rangle =
\int{dp\over(2\pi)^4}{e^{ip(x-x')}\over m-i\hat{p}}\end{aligned}$$ The propagator of the photon vector field is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D} && D_{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\langle
A_\mu(x)A_\nu(y)\rangle=\delta_{\mu\nu}D(x-y)+{\partial^2\over\partial
x_\mu\partial
x_\nu}D_d(x-y),\\
&& D(x)=\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot{e^{ikx}\over
k^2}={1\over(2\pi)^2x^2},~~~~~D_d(x)=\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot{e^{ikx)}\over
k^2}{d(k^2)\over k^2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Two-point Green function
------------------------
The object of our interest is the gauge invariant two-point Green function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G} {\bf G}_\Gamma(x-y)&=&\int\!\!\int {D\overline{\psi}D\psi
DA\over C}e^{-{1\over2}(A_\mu
D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}A_\nu)+(\overline{\psi}[i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A})-m]\psi)
}\nonumber\\
&\cdot&
(\overline{\psi}(x)\Gamma\psi(x))(\overline{\psi}(y)\Gamma\psi(y))\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Gamma$ is a Dirac matrix which defines the local vertex with quantum numbers of the state $J_\Gamma=(\overline{\psi}\Gamma\psi)$. We have for para-positronium $\Gamma=i\gamma_5$ and for ortho-positronium $\Gamma=\gamma_\mu$.
After integration over the electron fields $\psi$ and $\overline{\psi}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G0} && {\bf G}_\Gamma(x-y)={\bf B}_\Gamma(x-y)+{\bf
H}_\Gamma(x-y),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B}
&&{\bf B}_\Gamma(x-y)=\int {DA\over C} e^{-{1\over2} (A_\mu
D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}A_\nu)+{\rm T}[A]}\cdot {\rm Tr}[\Gamma
S(x,y|A)\Gamma S(y,x|A)],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\bf H}_\Gamma(x-y)=\int {DA\over C} e^{-{1\over2} (A_\mu
D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}A_\nu)+{\rm T}[A]}\cdot {\rm Tr}[\Gamma
S(x,x|A)]\cdot{\rm Tr}[\Gamma S(y,y|A)].\end{aligned}$$
Here $S(x,y|A)$ is the electron propagator in the external field $A_\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pr-el} && S(x,y|A)={1\over
i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A}(x))-m}\delta(x-y)\end{aligned}$$
The functional $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\rm T}[A]={\rm Tr}\ln{i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A})-m\over i\hat{p}-m}={\rm
Tr}\ln\left[1+ie\hat{A}{1\over
i\hat{p}-m}\right]\\
&&={e^2\over2}{\rm Tr}\left[\hat{A}{1\over
i\hat{p}-m}\hat{A}{1\over i\hat{p}-m}\right]+O(e^4A^4)\\
&&={e^2\over2}\int\!\!\!\int dxdy~A_\mu(x)\Pi_{\mu\nu}(x-y)A_\nu(y)+O(e^4A^4),\\
&&S_0(x-y)={1\over i\hat{p}-m}\delta(x-y)=\int
{dp\over(2\pi)^4}{e^{-ip(x-y)}\over i\hat{p}-m},\\
&&\Pi_{\mu\nu}(x-y)={\rm Tr}\left[\gamma_\mu S_0(x-y)\gamma_\nu
S_0(y-x)\right],\end{aligned}$$ describes radiation corrections to the photon propagator and to the photon-photon interaction. In this paper, we neglect this term because it does not contain spin-spin interaction and, therefore, does not contribute to ortho- para- positronium mass difference in the lowest corrections.
The loop ${\bf B}_\Gamma$ contains all possible $(\overline{\psi}\Gamma\psi)$-bound states. If the mass of the lowest state $M_\Gamma<2m$, then the asymptotic behavior of this loop for large $|x-y|$ looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PiM} && {\bf B}_\Gamma(x-y)\sim e^{-M_\Gamma|x-y|}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_\Gamma$ is the mass of the lowest state in the current $(\overline{\psi}\Gamma\psi)$, i.e. the mass of a possible bound state. This mass can be calculated by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M0} && M_\Gamma=-\lim\limits_{|x|\to\infty}{1\over|x|}\ln{\bf
B}_\Gamma(x)= 2m-\epsilon_\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\epsilon_\Gamma$ defines the binding energy of the lowest bound state. Our aim is to calculate the functional integral (\[B\]) in the limit $|x-y|\to\infty$ and to find $M_\Gamma$, according to (\[M0\]).
The loop ${\bf H}$ describes so the called annihilation channel and contains long-range contributions of photons: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bf H}_\Gamma(x-y)\sim {1\over|x-y|^2}\end{aligned}$$ This term does not contain any bound state.
Graphic representations of the loops ${\bf B}_\Gamma$ and ${\bf
H}_\Gamma$ are shown on Fig.1.
The electron propagator
=======================
The propagator of the electron fermion field satisfies the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pr}&& [i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A}(x))-m]S(x,y|A)=\delta(x-y),\end{aligned}$$ For the gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned}
&& A_\mu(x)~\longrightarrow~A_\mu(x)+\partial_\mu f(x)\end{aligned}$$ it is transformed as $$\begin{aligned}
&& S(x,y|A+\partial f)= e^{ief(x)}S(x,y|A)e^{-ief(y)},\end{aligned}$$ so that the loop (\[B\]) is gauge invariant.
The solution of the equation (\[Pr\]) can be represented by the functional integral (see, for example, [@Diney]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PrS}
&& S(x,y|A)={1\over i(\hat{p}+e\hat{A}(x))-m}\delta(x-y)\nonumber\\
&& =[i(\hat{p}_x+e\hat{A}(x))+m]\cdot{1\over(p+eA(x))^2+
{e\over2}\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}(x)+m^2}\delta(x-y),
\nonumber\\
&&=[i(\hat{p}_x+e\hat{A}(x))+m]\int\limits_0^\infty
{ds\over8\pi^2s^2}e^{- {1\over2}\left[m^2 s +{(x-y)^2\over s}\right]}\nonumber\\
&& \cdot \int{D\eta\over C}e^{-\int\limits_0^s
dt{\dot{\eta}^2(t)\over2}+ie \int\limits_0^s
dt\dot{z}_\mu(t)A_\mu(z(t))} {\rm T}_t\left\{ e^{{e\over4}
\int\limits_0^s dt\sigma_{\mu\nu}(t)F_{\mu\nu}(z(t))}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$z(t)=x{t\over s}+y\left(1-{t\over s}\right)+\eta(t).$$ The boundary conditions are $\eta(0)=\eta(\alpha)=0$ and the normalization is $$\int {D\eta\over C}\exp\left\{-\int\limits_0^s
dt{\dot{\eta}^2(t)\over2} \right\}=1.$$ The symbol ${\rm T}_t$ means the time-ordering of the matrix $\sigma_{\mu\nu}(\tau)$ to the time variable $t$.
The representation (\[PrS\]) is quite close to functional representation of the propagator for a scalar charged particle (see [@Ef-scal]). The main functional structure is the same.
The representation (\[PrS\]) is obviously gauge covariant because $$\delta\int\limits_0^s dt~\dot{z}_\mu(t)A_\mu(z(t))=
\int\limits_0^s dt~\dot{z}_\mu(t){\partial\over \partial
z_\mu}f(z(t))$$ $$=\int\limits_0^s dt{d\over dt}f(z(t))=f(z(s))-f(z(0))=f(x)-f(y).$$
As it was said above, our aim is to calculate the functional integral (\[B\]) in the limit $|x|\to\infty$ (we put $y=0$). We want to calculate the main contributions to the binding energy assuming the coupling constant $\alpha$ to be small. In this case, for large $x\to\infty$ and small $\alpha$ the saddle-point in the integral over $s$ is realized for $s={X\over m}$. Putting $$x=({\bf x},x_4)\Rightarrow({\bf 0},x_4),~~~~~~~~
\sqrt{x^2}\Rightarrow x_4=X>0,~~~~~t={X\over m}\tau,$$ one can get for $X\to\infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PropAs} && S(x,0|A)
\Rightarrow{{\rm const}\over X^{{1\over2}}}(1+\gamma_0)e^{- mX}\cdot{\cal S}(x)\nonumber\\
&& S(0,x|A)
\Rightarrow{{\rm const}\over X^{{1\over2}}}(1-\gamma_0)e^{- mX}\cdot{\cal S}(x)\\
&&{\cal S}(x)=\int{D\eta\over C}e^{-\int\limits_0^X
d\tau~{m\dot{\eta}^2(\tau)\over2}+ie \int\limits_0^X
d\tau~\dot{z}_\mu(\tau)A_\mu(z(\tau))}R[z],\nonumber\\
&&R[z]={\rm T}_\tau\left\{ e^{{e\over4m} \int\limits_0^X
d\tau~\sigma_{\mu\nu}(\tau)F_{\mu\nu}(z(\tau))}\right\}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{z}
&&z(\tau)=n\tau+\eta(\tau)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}(\tau),\\
\tau+\eta_4(\tau).\\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ We shall use this representation in what follows.
Mass of the bound state
-----------------------
The next step is to substitute electron propagators $S(x,0|A)$ and $S(0,x|A)$ in the form (\[PropAs\]) into the representation (\[B\]) for the Green function ${\bf B}_\Gamma(x)$ and then to integrate over the photon field $A$. We have for large $X\to\infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B0} && {\bf B}_\Gamma(X)\sim
e^{-2mX}\int\!\!\!\int{D\eta_1D\eta_2\over
C}e^{-{m\over2}\int\limits_0^X d\tau[\dot{\eta_1}^2(\tau)+
\dot{\eta}_2^2(\tau)]}{\cal F}_\Gamma[X,\eta_1,\eta_2],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FX}
&&{\cal F}_\Gamma[X,\eta_1,\eta_2]\\
&&=\int {DA\over C} e^{-{1\over2} (A_\mu D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}A_\nu)+ie
\int\limits_0^X d\tau\dot{z}^{(1)}_\mu(\tau)A_\mu(z^{(1)}(\tau))+ie
\int\limits_0^X d\tau\dot{z}^{(2)}_\mu(\tau)A_\mu(z^{(2)}(\tau))}\nonumber\\
&&\cdot{1\over4}{\rm Tr}\left[\Gamma~
\left(1+\gamma_0\right)R[z^{(1)}]~\Gamma~\left(1-\gamma_0\right)
R[z^{(2)}]\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The mass $M_\Gamma$ of the bound state with quantum number $\Gamma$ is defined by the formula (\[M0\]).
The integral (\[FX\]) over the photon field $A$ can be calculated explicitly. The result of the calculations is shown in Fig.2. We will not write down this simple long formula. Our aim is to find the ortho-para mass difference in the lowest approximation of the functional method. Therefore, we omit all terms connected with contributions to the electron propagator in the loop and take into account the dominant terms responsible for positronium formation and desired ortho-para mass difference (see Fig.3). We get in the lowest approximation over spin-spin interaction
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal F}_\Gamma[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]\\
&&=\int {DA\over C} e^{-{1\over2} (A_\mu D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}A_\nu)}\cdot
e^{ie\int\limits_0^Xd\tau~\dot{z}^{(1)}_\mu(\tau)A_\mu(z^{(1)}(\tau))
+ie\int\limits_0^X d\tau~\dot{z}^{(2)}_\mu(\tau)A_\mu(z^{(2)}(\tau))}\\
&&\cdot{1\over4}{\rm Tr}\Biggl\{\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\Gamma(1-\gamma_0)\\
&&+{e^2\over16m^2} \int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^Xd\tau_1d\tau_2\cdot
\Gamma(\gamma_0+1)\sigma_{\mu\nu}\Gamma(-\gamma_0+1)\sigma_{\rho\sigma}\cdot
F_{\mu\nu}(z^{(1)}(\tau_1))F_{\rho\sigma}(z^{(2)}(\tau_2)) \Biggr\}\\
&&=e^{W[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]}\cdot\left\{\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}+K_\Gamma[s;\eta_1,\eta_2]+O(e^4)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $$\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}={1\over4}{\rm Tr}~\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\Gamma(1-\gamma_0).$$ The main functional responsible for the bound state formation looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WX}
&&W[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]=e^2 \int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^Xd\tau_1 d\tau_2~
\dot{z}^{(1)}_\mu(\tau_1)\dot{z}^{(2)}_\nu(\tau_2)D_{\mu\nu}(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))\nonumber\\
&&=e^2 \int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^Xd\tau_1 d\tau_2~
\dot{z}^{(1)}_\mu(\tau_1)\dot{z}^{(2)}_\mu(\tau_2)D(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))\\
&&=e^2\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^Xd\tau_1
d\tau_2~\dot{z}_\mu^{(1)}(\tau_1)\dot{z}_\mu^{(2)}(\tau_2)
\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot {e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)- z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\over k^2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The functional responsible for the ortho- para- mass difference is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K}
&&K_\Gamma[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]={e^2\over4m^2}
\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^Xd\tau_1 d\tau_2\cdot{1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\sigma_{\mu\rho}\Gamma(1-\gamma_0)\sigma_{\nu\rho}\nonumber\\
&&\cdot{\partial^2\over\partial
z^{(1)}_\mu\partial z^{(2)}_\nu}D(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))\\
&&={e^2\over4m^2} \int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^X d\tau_1
d\tau_2\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-
z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\Sigma_\Gamma(k),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sigma}
&& \Sigma_\Gamma(k)={k_\mu k_\rho\over k^2}\cdot {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\sigma_{\mu\nu}\Gamma(1-\gamma_0)\sigma_{\rho\nu}=
\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}\cdot\Delta_\Gamma(k).\end{aligned}$$
The term $W$ is responsible for positronium bound states. The term $K_\Gamma$ describes the spin-spin interaction and it is responsible for the ortho- and para- mass difference. All neglected terms give the next to $\alpha={e^2\over4\pi}$ perturbation contributions.
Let us introduce the notation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dsigma}
&& d\sigma_{\eta_1\eta_2}^W={D\eta_1D\eta_2\over
C}e^{-{m\over2}\int\limits_0^Xdt[\dot{\eta_1}^2(t)+
\dot{\eta}_2^2(t)]+W[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J0X}
&& J_0(X)=\int d\sigma_{\eta_1\eta_2}^W=J e^{\epsilon_0 X}\end{aligned}$$ then one can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BX}
&&{\bf B}_\Gamma(X)=e^{-2mX}\int\!\!\!\int d\sigma_{\eta_1\eta_2}^W
\cdot\left\{\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}+K_\Gamma[X;\eta_1,\eta_2]+O(e^4)\right\}\nonumber\\
&&=J~\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}e^{-(2m-\epsilon_0-\epsilon_\Gamma) X}\end{aligned}$$ The binding energy $\epsilon_0$ does not depend on the spin of electron-positron system and it is defined mainly by the Coulomb interaction. The binding energy $\epsilon_\Gamma$ depends on the spin of constituents and defines the ortho-para mass difference. It looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{egamma}
&&\epsilon_\Gamma=\lim\limits_{X\to\infty}{e^2\over4m^2} {1\over
X}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^{X} d\tau_1
d\tau_2\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot \left\langle
e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_{\eta_1\eta_2}\Delta_\Gamma(k),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where the average is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{brek}
&&\left\langle
e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_{\eta_1\eta_2}=
{1\over J_0(X)}\int\!\!\!\int d\sigma_{\eta_1\eta_2}^W
e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\end{aligned}$$ The functional $W$ in (\[dsigma\]) contains terms defining the Coulomb and “time” interactions. The measure $d\sigma_{\eta_1\eta_2}^W$ contains the space ${\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}$ and “time” $\eta_4$ functional variables. Our aim is to evaluate the contribution of “time” interaction to the bound state formation. Thus our direct problem is to calculate the integral (\[brek\]).
Para- and ortho-positronium mass difference
===========================================
In the quantum field theory there is the problems how to define the bound state. The point is that the relativistic currents of the type $(\overline{\psi}\Gamma\psi)$ are classified by the relativistic group in the space ${\bf R}^4$ while the physical bound states are classified by the non-relativistic group in the space ${\rm R}^3$. As a result the physical states are described by an appropriate mixture of different components of different relativistic currents. In addition, the angles of mixture are not known a priori. In Table 2 the non-relativistic quantum numbers of different components of relativistic currents are listed.
One can see that each current $(\overline{\psi}\Gamma\psi)$ with quantum number $J^P$ is determined by a mixture of two relativistic currents $$\begin{aligned}
\label{currents}
&& S(0^+):~~~\Gamma_S=I \cos\theta_S+\gamma_0\sin\theta_S,\nonumber\\
&& {\bf
A}(1^+):~~~\Gamma_A=\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\cos\theta_A+
i[\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\times\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}]\sin\theta_A,\nonumber\\
&& {\bf V}(1^-):~~~\Gamma_V=\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\cos\theta_V+
i\gamma_0\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\sin\theta_V,\nonumber\\
&&
P(0^-):~~~\Gamma_P=i\gamma_5\cos\theta_P+\gamma_5\gamma_0\sin\theta_P.\end{aligned}$$ Generally speaking,in order to define the angles $\theta_S,~\theta_A,~\theta_V,~\theta_P$, some additional argumentation should be used. However, we shall see that the desired masses do not depend on these angles at least in the lowest approximation.
Let us come to formula (\[Sigma\]). The results for $\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}$ and $\Sigma_\Gamma(k)$ with currents (\[currents\]) are listed in Table 3. One can see that the states $S(0^+)$ and $A(1^+)$ do not exist at all. The masses of bound states $P(0^-)$ and $V(1^-)$ do not depend on the mixing angles $\theta_P$ and $\theta_V$.
According to (\[egamma\]), the desired mass difference is defined by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MassDif}
&&\delta M=\epsilon_V-\epsilon_P\nonumber\\
&&={e^2\over4}\lim\limits_{X\to\infty} {1\over X}
\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^X d\tau_1 d\tau_2\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot
\left\langle e^{ik(z^{(1)}(\tau_1)-
z^{(2)}(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_\eta(\Delta_V(k)-\Delta_P(k))\nonumber\\
&&= {8\over3}\cdot{e^2\over4}\lim\limits_{X\to\infty} {1\over
X}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^X d\tau_1 d\tau_2\int\!\!\!\int{d{\bf
k}dk_4\over(2\pi)^4}\cdot e^{ik_4(\tau_1-\tau_2)}{{\bf k}^2\over {\bf k}^2+k_4^2}\\
&&\cdot\left\langle
e^{ik_4(\eta_1(\tau_1)-\eta_2(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_{\eta_4}
\cdot\left\langle e^{i{\bf
k}({\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}_1(\tau_2)-{\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}_2(\tau_2)
)}\right\rangle_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The lowest contribution
=======================
The lowest main contribution to positronium bound state is defined by the integrals (\[J0X\]) and (\[brek\]). It is convenient to extract the $\alpha^2$ dependence in order to extract the non-relativistic Coulomb potential (see [@Ef-scal]). For this aim in the representation (\[dsigma\]) let us introduce the new variables: $$Y=\alpha^2m X,~~\tau={v\over \alpha^2m},~~k_4=\alpha^2m q,~~{\bf k}=\alpha m{\bf q}.$$ $${\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}(t)={1\over\alpha
m}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}(v), ~~ \eta(t)={1\over \alpha m}\xi(v).$$ The parameters $X$ and $Y$ are infinitely large quantities.
We get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J0Y1} && J_0(Y)=\int\!\!\!\int {D{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1
D{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2 D\xi_1D\xi_2\over C}
e^{-{1\over2}\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv
\left[\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}_1^2(v)+
\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}_2^2(v)+\dot{\xi}_1^2(\tau)+
\dot{\xi}_2^2(v)\right]+
W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2,\xi_1,\xi_2;\alpha\right]},\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WW}
&&W[{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2,\xi_1,\xi_2;\alpha]\nonumber\\
&&=\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^Ydv_1 dv_2
\left[\left(1+\alpha\dot{\xi}_1(v_1)\right)\left(1+\alpha\dot{\xi}_2(v_2)\right)+
\alpha^2\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}_1(v_1)\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}_2(v_2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\cdot\int\!\!\!\int {d{\bf q}dq\over4\pi^3}
{e^{iq(v_1-v_2)+\alpha(\xi_1(v_1)-\xi_2(v_2)) +i{\bf
q}({\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1(v_1) -{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2(v_2))}
\over {\bf q}^2+\alpha^2q^2}\end{aligned}$$
It is important to stress that the functional $W[{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2,\xi_1,\xi_2;\alpha]$ is not analytic at the point $\alpha=0$, so that the relativistic corrections cannot be obtained by a regular method. Calculation of the integral (\[J0Y1\]) is not a simple problem. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to calculation of the next relativistic correction to $\alpha$, so that we neglect terms with $\alpha$ in square brackets in (\[WW\]) and introduce the variables $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1(\tau)={\bf
R}(\tau)+{1\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau),~~~~~{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2(\tau)={\bf
R}(\tau)-{1\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau),\\
&&\xi_1(\tau)=R(\tau)+{1\over2}\rho(\tau),~~~~~\xi_2(\tau)=R(\tau)-{1\over2}\rho(\tau),\end{aligned}$$ The variables ${\bf R}$, ${\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}$ and $R$, $\rho$ describe the center of mass and relative coordinates in configuration and “time”$~$ spaces, respectively. We shall see that the “time”$~$ variables give the important contribution to the desired mass correction. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J0Y2}
&& J_0(Y)=\int\!\!\!\int {D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}} D{\bf R} D\rho
DR\over C} e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv
\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(v)+ \dot{{\bf
R}}^2(v)+{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(v)+ \dot{R}^2(v)\right]+{\bf
W}\left[{\bf
R},{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},R,\rho;\alpha\right]}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WWW}
&&{\bf W}[{\bf R},{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},R,\rho;\alpha]
=\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^{Y} dv_1 dv_2\\
&&\cdot\int\!\!\!\int{d{\bf q}dq\over4\pi^3}{e^{iq\left(v_1-v_2+
\alpha\left(R(v_1)-R(v_2)+{1\over2}(\rho(v_1)+\rho(v_2)\right)\right)+
i{\bf q}\left({\bf R}(v_1)-{\bf
R}(v_2)+{1\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_2)\right)}\over
{\bf q}^2+\alpha^2q^2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The variables ${\bf R}$ and $R$ are connected with the continuous spectrum so that in the lowest perturbation order over the interaction functional $W[{\bf
R},{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},R,\rho;\alpha]$ we can integrate over variables ${\bf R}$ and $R$. We get for large $X$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J0Y3}
&& J_0(Y)=\int{D\rho D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over
C}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(v)+
{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(v)\right]+
W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{We}
&& W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]=
\int\!\!\!\int {D{\bf R}DR\over C} e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv
\left[\dot{{\bf R}}^2(v)+ \dot{R}^2(v)\right]} W\left[{\bf
R},{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},R,\rho;\alpha\right]\\
&&=\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv_1dv_2 \int\!\!\!\int{d{\bf
q}dq\over4\pi^3} {e^{iq(v_1-v_2)-{1\over4}[\alpha^2q^2+{\bf
q}^2]|v_1-v_2|}\over {\bf q}^2+\alpha^2q^2}\cdot e^{-{i\alpha
q\over2}(\rho(v_1)+\rho(v_2))- {i{\bf
q}\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_2))}.\end{aligned}$$ The functional $W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]$ is not analytic at the point $\alpha=0$. Nevertheless, one can extract the lowest terms to $\alpha$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W}
&& W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]\Rightarrow
W_0\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]\nonumber\\
&&=\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv_1dv_2 \int\!\!\!\int{d{\bf
q}dq\over4\pi^3{\bf q}^2} e^{iq(v_1-v_2)-{1\over4}{\bf
q}^2|v_1-v_2|}\cdot e^{-{i\alpha q\over2}(\rho(v_1)+\rho(v_2))-
{i{\bf
q}\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_2))}\\
&&=\int{d{\bf q}\over2\pi^2{\bf
q}^2}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv_1dv_2
\delta\left(v_1-v_2-{\alpha\over2}(\rho(v_1)+\rho(v_2))\right)
e^{-{1\over4}{\bf q}^2|v_1-v_2|- {i{\bf
q}\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_2))}\\
&&=\int{d{\bf q}\over2\pi^2{\bf q}^2}\int\limits_{0}^{Y}{dv
\over\left|1-{\alpha\over2}\rho'(v)\right|}
e^{-{\alpha\over4}{\bf q}^2|\rho(v)|- i{\bf q}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)}\\
&&=\int{d{\bf q}\over2\pi^2}\left[\int\limits_{0}^{Y}{d\tau
\over{\bf q}^2} e^{i{\bf
q}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)}-{\alpha\over4}\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv
|\rho(v)|e^{- i{\bf
q}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)}+O(\alpha^{1+\delta})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the correlations (see Appendix III) one can get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J10} && \delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))=
\left\langle\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))\right\rangle_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}
+\left[\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))-
\left\langle\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))\right\rangle_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\right]\\
&&={1\over8\pi}+\left[\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))-{1\over8\pi}\right]\end{aligned}$$ because $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J11} &&
\left\langle\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v))\right\rangle_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}
=\Psi^2_{0}(0)={1\over8\pi}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W0} && W_0\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]=
\int\limits_{0}^{Y}{dv\over|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)|}
-{\alpha\over8}\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv |\rho(v)|+O(\alpha^{1+\delta})\end{aligned}$$
The measure in (\[J0Y3\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
&& d\sigma^W={D\rho D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over
C}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(v)+
{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(v)\right]+
W\left[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}},\rho;\alpha\right]}\\
&&\to d\sigma=d\sigma_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}d\sigma_\rho,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
&& d\sigma_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}={D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over
C_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(v)
-{1\over|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)|}\right]},\nonumber\\
&& d\sigma_\rho={D\rho \over C_\rho}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[
{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(v)+{\alpha\over8} |\rho(v)|\right]}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This measure consists of two components - the standard non-relativistic Coulomb potential term and the “time” term which is not taken into account in any usual calculations. This term corresponds to one-dimension linear potential with coupling constant $\alpha$ and leads to non-analytical behavior of energy on $\alpha$.
One can calculate (see Appendix III) $$\begin{aligned}
&&
J_{Coulomb}=\int
d\sigma_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}=\int{D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over
C_{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(v)
-{1\over|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v)|}\right]}\nonumber\\
&&= \sum\limits_{n\ell}(2\ell+1) e^{-X{\alpha^2\over
n^2m}}|\Psi_{n\ell}(0)|^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{time}=\int d\sigma_\rho=\int{D\rho \over
C_\rho}e^{-\int\limits_{0}^{Y}dv\left[
{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(v)+{\alpha\over8} |\rho(v)|\right]}=
\sum\limits_\kappa
e^{-X\alpha^{2+{2\over3}}\epsilon_\kappa}m|\Phi_\kappa(0)|^2\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus the general spectrum of the Coulomb and “time” potentials is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eepsilon}
&& E_{n\kappa}=\left[-{\alpha^2\over n^2}+
\alpha^{2+{2\over3}}\epsilon_\kappa\right]m\end{aligned}$$
As a result we have the “time excitations”, or abnormal states, connected with the fourth component of 4-dimensional space. These states appear in solutions of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Up to now it is not known exactly these states does or does not exist in reality. It is the second reason why relativistic QED does not describe correctly the real bound states.
Mass difference
===============
The desired mass difference is defined by the formula (\[MassDif\]) which can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta M={1\over3}\cdot\alpha^4m\cdot \Delta(\alpha),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta(\alpha)=\lim\limits_{Y\to\infty} {1\over
Y}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^Y dv_1 dv_2\int\!\!\!\int {d{\bf
q}dq\over2\pi^3}\cdot{{\bf
q}^2~e^{iq(v_1-v_2)-{1\over4}[\alpha^2q^2+{\bf
q}^2]|v_1-v_2|}\over {\bf q}^2+\alpha^2 q^2}\\
&&\cdot\left\langle e^{- {i{\bf
q}\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(v_2))}
\right\rangle_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}\left\langle e^{-{i\alpha
q\over2}(\rho(v_1)+\rho(v_2))} \right\rangle_{\rho}\end{aligned}$$
The averaging over the fields $\rho$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}$ gives (see Appendix III) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\langle e^{i{{\bf k}\over2}
[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau_2)]}
\right\rangle_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}
\Rightarrow\sum\limits_{n\ell}e^{-|\tau_1-\tau_2|(E_{n}-E_{00})}
(-1)^\ell(2\ell+1){\bf C}^2_{n\ell}\left({k\over2}\right).\\
&&\left\langle
e^{-i{q\over2}(\rho(\tau_1)+\rho(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_\rho
\Rightarrow\sum\limits_{\kappa}e^{-|\tau_1-\tau_2|(E_{\kappa}-E_{0})}(-1)^\kappa\left|{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)\right|^2\end{aligned}$$
Finally we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Delta}
&&\Delta(\alpha) ={1\over\pi^3}\int\limits_0^\infty
d\tau\int\!\!\!\int d{\bf k}dq\cdot{{\bf k}^2\over {\bf
k}^2+\alpha^2 q^2}\cdot e^{iq\tau-{1\over4}[\alpha^2q^2+{\bf
k}^2]|\tau|}\\
&&\cdot\sum\limits_{n\ell}e^{-{\tau\over4}\left(1-{1\over
n^2}\right)}(-1)^\ell(2\ell+1){\bf
C}^2_{n\ell}\left({k\over2}\right) \sum\limits_{\kappa}(-1)^\kappa
e^{-{\tau\alpha^{{2\over3}}\over4}(\epsilon_{\kappa}-\epsilon_{0})}\left|{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)\right|^2\nonumber\\
&&=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\sum\limits_{\ell=0}^{n-1}
\sum\limits_{\kappa=0}^{?}(-1)^{\ell+\kappa}\Delta_{n\ell\kappa}(\alpha)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ After integration over $\tau$ and angles one can get $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{n\ell\kappa}(\alpha)
&=&{32\over\pi^2}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^\infty {dkdq~k^4\over
k^2+\alpha^2q^2}\cdot {k^2+\alpha^2q^2+1-{1\over
n^2}+\alpha^{{2\over3}}(\epsilon_\kappa-\epsilon_0)
\over\left(k^2+\alpha^2q^2+1-{1\over
n^2}+\alpha^{{2\over3}}(\epsilon_\kappa-\epsilon_0)\right)^2+16q^2}\nonumber\\
&\cdot&(2\ell+1){\bf C}^2_{nl}\left({k\over2}\right)\left|{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)\right|^2\end{aligned}$$ The numerical results are shown in Table 4. For the function $\Delta(\alpha)$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\Delta_0(0)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^3\sum\limits_{\ell=0}^{n-1}(-1)^\ell\Delta_{n\ell0}(0)=1.0,\\
&&
\Delta_0(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^3\sum\limits_{\ell=0}^{n-1}(-1)^\ell\Delta_{n\ell0}(\alpha)=0.9641,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \Delta(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^3\sum\limits_{\ell=0}^{n-1}
\sum\limits_{\kappa=0}^2(-1)^{\ell+\kappa}\Delta_{n\ell\kappa}(\alpha)=0.952754.\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, this result is in contradiction with the existing experimental number $(\Delta=0.99512...)$.
Breit potential approach
========================
One of the attempts to describe the bound state problem is the Breit potential approach (see, for example, [@Ahiezer]). Let us consider the elastic electron-positron scattering $$\begin{aligned}
&& e_{p}+\bar{e}_{k}~\Longrightarrow~e_{p'}+\bar{e}_{k'}\end{aligned}$$ The scattering amplitude in the lowest order of relativistic $S$-matrix theory is described by the Feynman diagrams shown on Fig.2 and looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ee} M&=&-e^2[\bar{u}(p')\gamma_\mu
u(p)]D_{\mu\nu}(p-p')[\bar{u}(-k)\gamma_\nu u(-k')]\\
&&\nonumber\\
&+&e^2[\bar{u}(-k)\gamma_\mu
u(p)]D_{\mu\nu}(p+k)[\bar{u}(p')\gamma_\nu u(-k')]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the first term $(a)$ is connected with scattering and the second one $(b)$ with annihilation channels. The spinors $\bar{u}(p')$ and $u(k')$ are the solutions of the Dirac equation. This amplitude in the non-relativistic limit should coincide with the non-relativistic Born approximation which defines the effective electron-positron potential. This potential should be introduced into the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation.
The Dirac spinors $\bar{u}(p')$ and $u(k')$ define the relativistic corrections to the non-relativistic potential. It should emphasize that electrons and positrons are on the mass shell, i.e. they are real physical particles. Thus the time is removed from the interaction Hamiltonian.
The part of the Breit potential which is responsible for the ortho- and para- mass difference looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Brpot1} U(r)&=&U_{sc}(r)+U_{an}(r)=-{\alpha\over
r}+{7\over12}\cdot{2\alpha\pi\over
m^2}(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_+)\delta({\bf
r}).\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Brpot2} U_{sc}(r)&=&-{\alpha\over
r}+{1\over3}\cdot{2\alpha\pi\over
m^2}(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_+)\delta({\bf
r}),\nonumber\\
U_{an}(r)&=&{1\over4}\cdot{2\alpha\pi\over
m^2}(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_+)\delta({\bf
r}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We want to stress that the coefficient ${7\over12}$ is the sum of the contributions from scattering and annihilation channels $${7\over12}=\left({1\over3}\right)_{sc}+\left({1\over4}\right)_{un}$$
Taking into account $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi^2(0)={\alpha^3m^3\over8\pi},\\
&&\langle(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_+)\rangle_{ortho}-
\langle(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}_+)\rangle_{para}=4,\end{aligned}$$ one can get for the ortho- and para- mass difference $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta=\epsilon_{ortho}-\epsilon_{para}={7\over12}\cdot{2\alpha\pi\over
m^2}\cdot{\alpha^3m^3\over8\pi}\cdot4={7\over12}\alpha^4m\end{aligned}$$ This result is in good agreement with the experimental data and, therefore, supports the point of view that the annihilation channel plays the essential role in the formation of the positronium.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, one can say that the functional approach is the best mathematical representation to preserve the gauge invariance. The developed technique of calculations permits one to get accurate results in QED where the coupling constant $\alpha$ is small. The lowest approximation of this functional representation is the pure non-relativistic Feynman path integral representation of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with the Coulomb potential. One can see that any regular series for next corrections to $\alpha$ do not exist and these corrections can not be reduced to some terms to the non-relativistic potential in the Schrödinger picture. In other words,the “nonphysical”$~$ time coordinate is important and leads to corrections which is not analytic of the order $\alpha^{{2\over3}}$.
There exists a contradiction in the current algebra formula (\[current\]). On one hand, it is supposed that the space of states $\{|n\rangle\}$ can contain possible bound states. However on the other hand, in reality it is the Fock space of free electrons and photons which does not contain any unstable bound states. Nevertheless calculations of the functional representation for an appropriate Green function in the limit $t\to\infty$ indicate that a bound with $M_{bound}<2m$ does exist really. Besides, the current algebra in QFT excludes influence of the annihilation channel for the bound state formation.
Our calculations show that the role of time is very important and give essential contribution into bound state mass. The next radiation corrections, connected with time excitations, to electromagnetic mass difference to positronium are of the order $\alpha^{{2\over3}}$, i.e. they are to large.
In addition, the “time excitations”, or abnormal states arise in QFT calculations but they are not exist in reality.
The experimental value of ortho- para-positronium mass difference is described in the framework of the Breit potential picture with attraction of the annihilation channel. Thus, explanation of experimental value para- ortho- positronium mass difference requires to take into account annihilation channel for effective potential.
One can conclude that in the relativistic QED time corrections are important, but the bound state problem requires the non-relativistic potential description where the time variable does not play any essential role.
The conclusion: the relativistic QED is not suited to describe real bound states correctly.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
I am grateful to R.N.Faustov for helpful discussions.
Appendix I
==========
We use the following representation for $\gamma$ matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & -1\\
\end{array}\right),~~~~~
\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 &\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}\\
-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} & 0\\
\end{array}\right),~~~~
\gamma_5=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\
1 & 0\\
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sigma_{\mu\nu}={1\over2i}(\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu-\gamma_\nu\gamma_\mu),\\
&&\sigma_{0j}=-i\sigma_j\gamma_5,~~~~~\sigma_{ij}=-\epsilon_{ijk}\sigma_k\end{aligned}$$ We should calculate the traces $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma^{(0)}_\Gamma= {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\Gamma(1-\gamma_0)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma_\Gamma(k)={k_\mu k_\nu\over k^2}\cdot {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\Gamma(1+\gamma_0)\sigma_{\mu\rho}\Gamma(1-\gamma_0)\sigma_{\nu\rho}=
\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}\cdot\Delta_\Gamma(k).\end{aligned}$$
For the para-positronium $(P)$ with $\Gamma_P=i\gamma_5$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma^{(0)}_P= {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~i\gamma_5(1+\gamma_0)i\gamma_5(1-\gamma_0)=-2\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma_P(k)={k_\mu k_\nu\over k^2}\cdot {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~i\gamma_5(1+\gamma_0)\sigma_{\mu\rho}i\gamma_5(1-\gamma_0)\sigma_{\nu\rho}=
{4{\bf k}^2\over {\bf k}^2+k_4^2}\end{aligned}$$
For the ortho-positronium $(V)$ with $\Gamma_V=\gamma_j$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma^{(0)}_P= {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\gamma_i(1+\gamma_0)\gamma_j(1-\gamma_0)=-2\delta_{ij}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Sigma_V(k)={k_\mu k_\nu\over k^2}\cdot {1\over4}{\rm
Tr}~\gamma_i(1+\gamma_0)\sigma_{\mu\rho}\gamma_j(1-\gamma_0)\sigma_{\nu\rho}=
-\delta_{ij}{4{\bf k}^2\over 3({\bf k}^2+k_4^2)}\end{aligned}$$ The results are collected in Table 2.
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \Delta_V(k)-\Delta_P(k)={8\over3}\cdot{{\bf k}^2\over {\bf
k}^2+k_4^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Appendix II
===========
Let us consider the contribution of the longitudinal part of the photon propagator to the integral (\[FX\]). We have equality $$\dot{z}_\mu(\tau)\partial_\mu f(z(\tau))={\partial\over\partial \tau}
f(z(\tau))$$ Then the term with the gauge dependent part $\partial_\mu\partial_\nu D_d$ looks like $$\begin{aligned}
&&W_{ij}^d={e^2\over2}\int\limits_{0}^{s_i}d\tau_1
\int\limits_{0}^{s_j}d\tau_2~\dot{z}_\mu^{(i)}(\tau_1)\dot{z}_\nu^{(j)}(\tau_2)
\partial_\mu\partial_\nu D_d(z^{(i)}(\tau_1)-z^{(j)}(\tau_2))\\
&&={e^2\over2}\int\limits_{0}^{s_i}d\tau_1
\int\limits_{0}^{s_j}d\tau_2~{\partial^2\over\partial\tau_1\partial\tau_2}
D_d(z^{(i)}(\tau_1)-z^{(j)}(\tau_2))\\
&&={e^2\over2}\left[D_d(z^{(i)}(s_i)-z_\mu^{(j)}(s_j))-D_d(z^{(i)}(0)-z^{(j)}(s_j))\right.\\
&&\left.-D_d(z^{(i)}(s_i)-z_\mu^{(j)}(0))+D_d(z^{(i)}(0)-z^{(j)}(0))\right]\\
&&=e^2\left[D_d(0)-D_d(x-y)\right]=e^2\int{dk\over(2\pi)^4}{d(k^2)\over
k^2}{1-e^{ik(x-y)}\over k^2}\end{aligned}$$ This term does not contribute to the bound state mass and should be omitted.
Appendix III
============
We consider the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1}
&&I=\int d\sigma ~e^{\Phi}=
\int\limits_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(0)=0,~{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(t)=0}
{D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over C} e^{-\int\limits_{0}^td\tau
\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(\tau)-U(|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau)|)
\right]+\Phi[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}]}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}]={1\over2}\int\!\!\!\int\limits_0^td\tau_1d\tau_2~A(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)\cdot
e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau_1)+{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau_2))}\end{aligned}$$ The assumption is that the functional $\Phi$ is small $||\Phi[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}]||\ll1$. We have in this case $$\begin{aligned}
&&I=\int d\sigma ~e^{\Phi}=N\exp\left\{{1\over N}\int
d\sigma~\Phi+O(\Phi^2)\right\},~~~~~N=\int d\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ and the problem is to calculate the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A2}
&&W=\langle\Phi[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}]\rangle={1\over N}\int
d\sigma~\Phi\\
&&={1\over N}
\int\limits_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(0)=0,~{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(t)=0}
{D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over C} e^{-\int\limits_{0}^td\tau
\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(\tau)-U(|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau)|)
\right]}\Phi[{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
&&H=-\left({\partial\over\partial{\bf x}}\right)^2+U(|{\bf x}|)\end{aligned}$$ have the spectrum $\{E_n\}$ with the wave functions $\Psi_n({\bf
x})$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& H\Psi_n({\bf x})=E_n\Psi_n({\bf x}).\end{aligned}$$ The time Green function can be represented in two forms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A3} && G_{t-t'}({\bf x},{\bf x}')=e^{-H(t-t')}\delta({\bf
x}-{\bf x}')=\int\limits_{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(t')={\bf
x}',{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(t)={\bf x}}
{D{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}\over C} e^{-\int\limits_{t'}^{t}d\tau
\left[{1\over4}\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}^2(\tau)-U(|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}(\tau)|)
\right]}\nonumber\\
&& =\sum\limits_n\Psi_n({\bf x})e^{-(t-t')E_n}\Psi_n^+({\bf x}').\end{aligned}$$ The Green function satisfies the correlation for $t>t''>t'$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&G_{t-t'}({\bf x},{\bf x}') =\int d{\bf y}~G_{t-t''}({\bf x},{\bf
y})G_{t''-t'}({\bf y},{\bf x}')\end{aligned}$$
We have for the function $W$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&W(t)=\int\limits_0^t
d\tau_1\int\limits_0^{\tau_1}d\tau_2~A(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)H(\tau_1,\tau_2)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&&H(\tau_1,\tau_2)={1\over N} \int d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1 \int
d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2~
G_{t-\tau_1}(0,{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1}
G_{\tau_1-\tau_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)
e^{i{{\bf k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2}G_{\tau_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2,0)\\
&&=\sum\limits_{n_1n_2n_3}{1\over N} \int\!\!\!\int
d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1 d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2~
e^{-E_{n_1}(X-\tau_1)}\Psi_{n_1}(0)\Psi^*_{n_1}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1}\\
&&\cdot e^{-E_{n_2}(\tau_1-\tau_2)}
\Psi_{n_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)\Psi^*_{n_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2}e^{-E_{n_3}\tau_2}
\Psi_{n_3}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)\Psi^*_{n_3}(0)\\
&&={1\over N}\sum\limits_{n_1n_2n_3}
e^{-E_{n_1}(X-\tau_1)-E_{n_2}(\tau_1-\tau_2)-E_{n_3}\tau_2}~\Psi_{n_1}(0)\\
&&\cdot\left(\int
d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1\Psi^*_{n_1}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1}\Psi_{n_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)\right)\left(
\int d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2
\Psi^*_{n_2}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2}
\Psi_{n_3}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)\right)\Psi^*_{n_3}(0)\end{aligned}$$ The function $W(t)$ for $t\to\infty$ behaves as $W(t)\sim tW_0$. It means that in the above stated sum in this limit only terms with $n_1=n_3=0$ survive: $$\begin{aligned}
&&H(\tau_1,\tau_2)\Rightarrow\sum\limits_{n}
e^{-(E_{n}-E_0)(\tau_1-\tau_2)}\\
&&\cdot \left(\int
d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1\Psi^*_{0}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1}\Psi_{n}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_1)\right)\left(
\int d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2
\Psi^*_{n}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2}
\Psi_{0}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}_2)\right)\\
&&=\sum\limits_{n} e^{-(E_{n}-E_0)(\tau_1-\tau_2)}C_{0n}\left({{\bf
k}\over2}\right)C^*_{0n}\left(-{{\bf k}\over2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&C_{0n}\left({{\bf k}\over2}\right)=\int d{\bf x}~\Psi_0({\bf
x})e^{i{{\bf k}\over2}{\bf x}}\Psi_{n}({\bf x})\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we have for $t\to\infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&W(t)=\int\limits_0^t
d\tau_1\int\limits_0^{\tau_1}d\tau_2~A(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)
\sum\limits_{n}e^{-(\tau_1-\tau_2)(E_{n}-E_{0})} C^2_{0n}\left({{\bf
k}\over2}\right)=t~W_0\\
&&W_0=\int\limits_0^\infty d\tau~A(\tau)
\sum\limits_{n}e^{-\tau(E_{n}-E_{0})} C_{0n}\left({{\bf k}\over2}\right) C^*_{0n}\left(-{{\bf k}\over2}\right)\\\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&&I=\int d\sigma ~e^{\Phi}=\Psi^2_0(0)\cdot
e^{-t(E_0-W_0+O(\Phi^2))}\end{aligned}$$
Spherically symmetric potentials
--------------------------------
If the potential is spherically symmetric $U=U(|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}|)$ then the spectrum $\{E_{n\ell}\}$ and the eigenfunctions are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi_{n\ell m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})=R_{n\ell}(\rho)Y_{\ell
m}({\bf n}),~~~~\sum\limits_ m Y_{\ell m}^*({\bf n})Y_{\ell m}({\bf
n})={2\ell+1\over4\pi}\end{aligned}$$ with ortho-normal conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}~\Psi^*_{n\ell
m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})\Psi_{n'\ell'
m'}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})=\delta_{nn'}\delta_{\ell\ell'}\delta_{mm'},\\
&&\sum\limits_{n\ell m}\Psi_{n\ell
m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})\Psi^*_{n\ell
m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}')=\delta({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}')=
{1\over \rho^2}\delta(\rho-\rho')\delta({\bf n}-{\bf n}')\end{aligned}$$ For radial functions we get ($\rho=|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}|$) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\limits_0^\infty d\rho\rho^2~R_{n\ell}(\rho)R_{n'\ell}(\rho)=\delta_{nn'},\\
&&\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty
R_{n\ell}(\rho)R_{n\ell}(\rho')={1\over\rho^2}\delta(\rho-\rho')\end{aligned}$$ The form-factors looks like $$\begin{aligned}
&&C_{0n}\left({{\bf k}\over2}\right)=C_{000,n\ell m}\left({{\bf
k}\over2}\right)=\int d{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}~
\Psi_{000}(\rho)e^{i{{\bf
k}\over2}{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}\Psi_{n\ell m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})\\
&&=\int\limits_0^\infty d\rho\rho^2~R_{00}(\rho)R_{nl}(\rho)\int
{d{\bf n}\over\sqrt{4\pi}}\cdot e^{i{{\bf kn}\over2}\rho}Y_{lm}({\bf n})\\
&&=\sqrt{4\pi} i^\ell Y_{\ell m}({\bf n}_k){\bf
C}_{n\ell}\left({k\over2}\right),\\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bf C}_{n\ell}\left({k\over2}\right)=\int\limits_0^\infty
d\rho\rho^2~R_{00}(\rho)R_{nl}(\rho)j_\ell\left({k\rho\over2}\right)\\
&&j_\ell\left({k\rho\over2}\right)=\sqrt{{\pi\over
k\rho}}J_{\ell+{1\over2}}\left({k\rho\over2}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Finally we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&W_0=\int\limits_0^\infty d\tau~A(\tau)
\sum\limits_{n\ell}e^{-\tau(E_{n\ell}-E_{0})}(-1)^\ell(2\ell+1) {\bf
C}^2_{n\ell}\left({k\over2}\right)\end{aligned}$$
The Coulomb potential
---------------------
In the representation (\[A1\]) the Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
&&
H\Psi_n({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})=E_n\Psi_n({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}),~~~~~
H=-\left({\partial\over\partial{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}}\right)^2-{1\over|{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}}|},\\\end{aligned}$$ The Coulomb wave functions $$\Psi_{n\ell m}({\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}})=R_{n\ell}(\rho)Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})$$ are solutions of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation ($E_n<0$) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left[{d^2\over d\rho^2}+{2\over \rho}{d\over
d\rho}-{\ell(\ell+1)\over \rho^2}+ {1\over
\rho}-|E_{n\ell}|\right]R_{n\ell}(\rho)=0\end{aligned}$$ or according to [@Landau] one can put $\rho={r\over2\sqrt{|E_{n\ell}|}}=nr$ so that we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left[{d^2\over dr^2}+{2\over r}{d\over dr}-{\ell(\ell+1)\over
r^2}+ {n\over r}-{1\over4}\right]{\cal R}_{n\ell}(r)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the spectrum is $$\begin{aligned}
&& n={1\over\sqrt{-4E_{n\ell}}}~~~{\rm
or}~~~E_{n\ell}=E_n=-{1\over4n^2}\end{aligned}$$ with $n=1,2,3,...$ and $\ell=1,...,n-1$.
Solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\cal R}_{n\ell}(\rho)={1\over n^2(2\ell+1)!}
\sqrt{{(n+\ell)!\over2(n-\ell-1)!}} \left({\rho\over n}\right)^\ell
e^{-{\rho\over2n}} F\left(-n+\ell+1,2\ell+2,{\rho\over n}\right)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bf C}_{n\ell}(k)=\int\limits_0^\infty
d\rho\rho^2~R_{00}(\rho)R_{nl}(\rho)j_\ell\left({k\rho\over2}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Several particular functions are $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bf C}_{10}(k)={16\over(4 + k^2)^2}\\
&& {\bf C}_{20}(k)={256\sqrt{2}~k^2\over(9 + 4 k^2)^3},~~~~{\bf C}_{21}(k)={128\sqrt{6}~ k\over(9 + k^2)^3}\\
&& {\bf C}_{30}(k)={432\sqrt{3}~ k^2(16 + 27 k^2)\over(16 +9 k^2)^4}\\
&& {\bf C}_{31}(k)={288\sqrt{6}~ k(16 + 27 k^2)\over(16 +
9k^2)^4},~~~~{\bf C}_{32}(k)=\sqrt{{6\over5}}\cdot{6912~ k^2\over(16
+9k^2)^4}\end{aligned}$$
“Time” potential
----------------
We have the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J12} &&
J_X(\alpha)={e^{{X\over4}}\over8\pi}I_X(\alpha),\nonumber\\
&&I_X(\alpha)=\int{D\rho\over
C}e^{-{1\over4}\int\limits_{0}^{X}d\tau\dot{\rho}^2(\tau)+U[\rho,\alpha]},\\
&&U[\rho,\alpha]=W\left[\rho;\alpha\right]-W\left[\rho;0\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In the paper \cite{} it is shown that for small $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U}
&&U[\rho,\alpha]=W\left[\rho;\alpha\right]-W\left[\rho;0\right]=
-{\alpha\over8}\int\limits_0^X d\tau|\rho(\tau)|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last integral corresponds to the one-dimensional non-relativistic quantum system with the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
&& L={\dot{\rho}^2\over4}-{\alpha\over8}|\rho|\end{aligned}$$ for which the Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ham} && H=p^2+{\alpha\over8}|\rho|\end{aligned}$$ The Schrödinger equation looks as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lineq} &&\left[-{d^2\over
d\rho^2}+{\alpha\over8}|\rho|\right]\Psi(\rho)={\cal E}\Psi(\rho)\end{aligned}$$ Let us introduce $$\rho={2v\over\alpha^{{1\over3}}},~~~~~~~~{\cal
E}={\alpha^{{2\over3}}\over4}\epsilon$$ then $\epsilon$ is the eigenvalue of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[-{d^2\over dv^2}+v\right]Y(v,\epsilon)=\epsilon
Y(v,\epsilon),~~~~~~~~~v\in[0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
The non-normalized solution of the equation looks like $$\begin{aligned}
&&Y(v,\epsilon)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\pi\sqrt{{\varepsilon-v\over3}}\left[J_{{1\over3}}\left({2\over3}(\varepsilon-v)^{{3\over2}}\right)+
J_{-{1\over3}}\left({2\over3}(\varepsilon-v)^{{3\over2}}\right)\right],
& v<\varepsilon \\
&\\
\sqrt{v-\varepsilon}K_{{1\over3}}\left({2\over3}(v-\varepsilon)^{{3\over2}}\right),
& v>\varepsilon \\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum is defined by the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left.{d\over dv}Y(v,\epsilon_{2n})\right|_{v=0}=0~~~~~~~{\rm
for~even~states}~~~~n\to 2n\\
&&Y(0,\epsilon_{2n+1})=0~~~~~~~{\rm for~odd~states}~~~~n\to
2n+1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The even eigenfunctions $\Phi_{2n}(v)=Y(v,\epsilon_{2n})$ should have $n$ zeros and the odd eigenfunctions $\Phi_{2n+1}(v)=Y(v,\epsilon_{2n+1})$ should have one zero for $v=0$ and $n$ zeros for $0<v<\infty$.
The wave functions are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi_n(\rho)=\sqrt{{\alpha^{{1\over3}}\over4N_n}}
Y\left({\alpha^{{1\over3}}\over2}\rho,\epsilon_n\right),~~~~~~\rho\in(-\infty,\infty)\end{aligned}$$ The form-factors are defined like $$\begin{aligned}
&& A_n\left({q\over2}\right)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty
d\rho~ e^{i{\alpha q\over2}\rho}~\Phi_0(\rho)\Phi_n(\rho)\\
&&= {\alpha^{{1\over3}}\over4
\sqrt{N_0N_n}}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty d\rho~ e^{i{\alpha
q\over2}\rho}~Y\left({\alpha^{{1\over3}}\over2}\rho,\epsilon_0\right)
Y\left({\alpha^{{1\over3}}\over2}\rho,\epsilon_n\right)\\
&&=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{1\over\sqrt{N_0N_{2n}}}\int\limits_0^\infty dv~
\cos\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q v\right)
~Y\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)Y\left(v,\epsilon_{2n}\right)\\
\\
{i\over\sqrt{N_0N_{2n+1}}}\int\limits_0^\infty dv~
\sin\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q v\right)
~Y\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)Y\left(v,\epsilon_{2n+1}\right)\\
\end{array}\right.\\
&&={\cal A}_n\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right),\end{aligned}$$ with the symmetry condition $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal A}_n\left(-\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)=(-1)^n{\cal
A}_n\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right),\end{aligned}$$
For $\alpha\ll1$ form-factors behave like $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal
A}_0\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)=1-\alpha^{{4\over3}}~a_0,~~~~~a_0=\int\limits_0^\infty
dv{v^2\over2}~{Y^2\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)\over N_0}=0.374939,\\
&&{\cal A}_1\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)= i\alpha^{{2\over3}}q
~a_1,~~~~~a_1=\int\limits_0^\infty dvv~
{Y\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)Y\left(v,\epsilon_1\right)\over\sqrt{N_0N_1}}=0.862863,\\
&&{\cal A}_2\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)= \alpha^{{4\over3}}q^2
~a_2,~~~~~a_2=\int\limits_0^\infty dv{v^2\over2}~
{Y\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)Y\left(v,\epsilon_2\right)\over\sqrt{N_0N_2}}=0.569709,\\
&&{\cal A}_3\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)= i\alpha^{{2\over3}}q
~a_3,~~~~~a_3=\int\limits_0^\infty dvv~
{Y\left(v,\epsilon_0\right)Y\left(v,\epsilon_3\right)\over\sqrt{N_0N_3}}=-0.0685378,\\\end{aligned}$$
The next integral for $t\to\infty$ behaves like $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal W}(t)\\
&&=\int{D\rho\over NC} e^{-\int\limits_{0}^td\tau
\left[{1\over4}\dot{\rho}^2(\tau)-U(\rho(\tau))
\right]}\int\limits_0^t
d\tau_1\int\limits_0^{\tau_1}d\tau_2~H(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)
e^{i{\alpha q\over2}(\rho(\tau_1)+\rho(\tau_2))}\\
&&=\int\limits_0^t d\tau_1\int\limits_0^{\tau_1}d\tau_2~H(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)\\
&&\cdot{1\over N} \int d\rho_1 \int d\rho_2~
G_{t-\tau_1}(0,\rho_1)e^{i{\alpha
q\over2}\rho_1}G_{\tau_1-\tau_2}(\rho_1,\rho_2)
e^{i{\alpha q\over2}\rho_2}G_{\tau_2}(\rho_2,0)\\
&&\Rightarrow\int\limits_0^t
d\tau_1\int\limits_0^{\tau_1}d\tau_2~H(|\tau_1-\tau_2|)
\sum\limits_{\kappa} e^{-(\tau_1-\tau_2)(E_{\kappa}-E_{0})}{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right){\cal
A}^*_{\kappa}\left(-\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right) =t~{\cal W}_0\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal W}_0=\int\limits_0^\infty d\tau~H(\tau) \sum\limits_{\kappa}
e^{-\tau(E_{\kappa}-E_{0})}{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right){\cal
A}^*_{\kappa}\left(-\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right) \\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $t\to\infty$ one can write $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\langle e^{i{\alpha
q\over2}(\rho(\tau_1)+\rho(\tau_2))}\right\rangle_\rho
=\sum\limits_{\kappa}(-1)^\kappa
e^{-{1\over4}|\tau_1-\tau_2|\alpha^{{2\over3}}(\epsilon_{\kappa}-\epsilon_{0})}\left|{\cal
A}_{\kappa}\left(\alpha^{{2\over3}}q\right)\right|^2\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} Weinberg S. (1995) The Quantum Theory of Fields, Cambridge University Press; Wightman A.S. (1964) Introduction to some aspects of the relativistic dynamics of quantized fields, French Summer School of Theoretical Physics, Cargese, Corsica; Wick G.C. (1954) Phys.Rev. 96:1124; Cutkosky R.E. (1954) Phys.Rev. 96:1135; N.Nakanishi, Suppl. of Pr.Theor.Phys., [**43**]{}, 1 (1969); G.V.Efimov, Few Body Syst, [**33**]{}, 199 (2003); Efimov G.V. (2007) Few Body Syst 41:157 (2007); S.M.Dorkin, M.Beyer, S.S.Semikh and L.P.Kaptari, Few Body Sist, [**42**]{}, 1 (2008); G.V.Efimov, hep-ph:08054337, (2008). G.V.Efimov, Few Body Sist, [**47**]{}, 137 (2010); Dyson F.J. (1952) Phys. Rev. [bf 85]{}, 631; W.E.Caswell and G.P.Lepage, Phys. Lett. [bf 167B]{}, 437 (1986); De Alfaro V., Fubini S., Furlan G. and Rossetti C. (1973) Currents in Hadron Physics, American Elsevier Publishing Company, NY; Ahiezer A.I. and Beresteckiy V.B. (1981) Quantum Electrodynamics, “Nauka”, Moscow; Berestetskii V.B., Lifshitz E.M., Pitaevskii L.P. (1982) Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford; Sapirstein J.R., D.R.Yennie, (1999) Theory of Hydrogenic Bound States in Quantum Electrodynamics, Ed. T.Kinishita, Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics, vol 7, World Scientific; Eides M.I., Grotch H., Shelyuto V.A.: (2001) Physics Reports, 342:63; M.Dineykhan, G.V.Efimov, G.Ganbold and S.N.Nedelko, [*Oscillator Representation in Quantum Physics*]{}, [**m24**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg N.Y., 1995.; L.D.Landau and E.L.Lifshic, Quantum mechanics, Moscow
Table 1. QM and QFT.
[|c|c|]{} Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Field Theory\
\
\
\
$(H_0+gH_I)\Psi_E=E\Psi_E$ &$H_0\Psi^{(0)}_E=E\Psi^{(0)}_E$\
$\left\{\Psi_E\right\}=\left\{free~particles\right\}\bigoplus\left\{bound~states\right\}$& Fock space$=\left\{free~particles\right\}$\
& $H_I$ is not operator on Fock space\
&\
$\Psi(t)=e^{-iH(t-t_0)}\Psi(t_0)$ & $S=\lim_{t_0\to-\infty}^{t\to+\infty}e^{iH_0t}e^{-iH(t-t_0)}e^{-iH_0t_0}$\
Development in time& $\bigoplus$ renormalization\
& $\Longrightarrow$ $S$ is operator on Fock space\
& Relation between asymptotically free states\
intermediate particles [**ON**]{} mass shell& intermediate particles [**OUT OF**]{} mass shell\
\
\
\
interaction is transmitted instantly & retarded interaction\
Small corrections to $H$& $ A_{in\to out}(p_1,p_2;k_1,k_2)\sim{1\over M^2-(p_1+p_2)^2}$\
Elimination [**TIME**]{} out of Hamiltonian &\
Effective theories& $\left\langle0|{\bf J}(x){\bf J}(0)|0\right\rangle_0\sim e^{-M|x|},~~~|x|\to\infty$\
Breit potential & Bethe-Salpeter equation\
Nonrelativistic QED &\
classification of states ${\bf R}^3$& classification of states ${\bf R}^4={\bf R}^3\bigotimes R^1_t$\
& “Time” excitations $\Rightarrow$ abnormal states\
Table 2. Quantum numbers of relativistic currents
----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ---------------- -------------
$J$ $(\overline{\psi}O_J\psi)$ $S$ $L$ $J$ $P=(-1)^{1+L}$ $J^P$
$S$ $(\overline{\psi}\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $1$ $0$ $+1$ $0^+$
(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma k$})$
$(\overline{\psi}\gamma_0\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $1$ $0$ $+1$ $0^+$
(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma k$})$
$V$
$(\overline{\psi}i\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $0$ $1$ $-1$ ${\bf 1^-}$
\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}$
$(\overline{\psi}\gamma_0\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $0$ $1$ $-1$ ${\bf 1^-}$
\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}
$
$T$
$(\overline{\psi}\sigma_{ij}\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $1$ $1$ $+1$ $1^+$
[\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma\times k$}]$
$(\overline{\psi}\gamma_5\gamma_0\psi)~\Longrightarrow~1 $0$ $0$ $0$ $-1$ ${\bf 0^-}$
$
$A$
$(\overline{\psi}\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\psi)~\Longrightarrow~ $1$ $1$ $1$ $+1$ $1^+$
[\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma\times k$}]$
$P$ $(\overline{\psi}i\gamma_5\psi)~\Longrightarrow~1$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $-1$ ${\bf 0^-}$
----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ---------------- -------------
Table 3. Functions $\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}$ and $\Sigma_\Gamma(k)$
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
$J^P$ ${\Gamma}$ $\Sigma_\Gamma^{(0)}$ $\Delta_\Gamma(k)$
$P(0^-)$ $i\gamma_5\cos\theta_P+\gamma_5\gamma_0\sin\theta_P$ $-2$ $-2\cdot{{\bf k}^2\over{\bf k}^2+k_4^2}$
$V(1^-)$ $\gamma_j\cos\theta_V+ i\gamma_0\gamma_j\sin\theta_V$ $-2\delta_{ij}$ ${2\over3}\cdot{{\bf k}^2\over
{\bf k}^2+k_4^2}$
$S(0^+)$ $I \cos\theta+\gamma_0\sin\theta$ 0 0
$A((1^+)$ $\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\cos\theta+ 0 0
i[\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}\times\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}]\sin\theta$
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
Table 4. The function $\Delta_{n\ell0}(\alpha)$
$(n\ell)$ (10) (20) (21) (30) (31) (32)
--------------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------
$\Delta_{n\ell0}(0)$ 1. 0.0987 0.0987 0.0283 0.0307 0.00244
$\Delta_{n\ell0}(\alpha)$ 0.9999 0.09868 0.09864 0.02829 0.03071 0.002438
$\Delta_{n\ell1}(\alpha)$ 0.96707 0.09387 0.09617 0.2683 0.002986 0.00238
$\Delta_{n\ell2}(\alpha)$ 0.01421 0.002089 0.001173 0.0006319 0.0004049 0.00002632
Table 5. Norm $N_n$
----- -------------- -------------------------------------------
$n$ $\epsilon_n$ $N_n=\int\limits_0^\infty dv~\Phi_n^2(v)$
0 1.0188 8.655
1 2.3381 14.558
2 3.2482 16.886
3 4.0879 19.097
4 4.8201 20.652
----- -------------- -------------------------------------------
[^1]: E-mail: efimovg@theor.jinr.ru, FAX: 7(49621)65084
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We define equivariant homology theories using bordism of stratifolds with a $G$-action, where $G$ is a discrete group. Stratifolds are a generalization of smooth manifolds which were introduced by Kreck [@kreck]. He defines homology theories using bordism of suitable stratifolds. We develop the equivariant generalization of these ideas.'
author:
- Julia Weber
title: Equivariant stratifold homology theories
---
Introduction and definitions {#sec1}
============================
Let $G$ be a discrete group. In this paper, we are going to define equivariant homology theories using bordism of stratifolds with a $G$-action. Stratifolds are defined inductively. An $n$-dimensional stratifold is obtained by gluing an $n$-dimensional smooth manifold to an $n-1$-dimensional stratifold via its boundary. The manifolds are equipped with collars which yield a smooth structure on the stratifolds.
Homology theories can be defined via bordism of certain classes of stratifolds. In particular, one obtains singular homology as a bordism theory. Stratifolds and the corresponding homology theories were developed by Kreck [@kreck], where one can find details concerning the relevant constructions.
We are concerned with the development of corresponding equivariant homology theories, a question raised by Kreck. We define the notion of $G$-stratifolds, for discrete groups $G$, and prove that they have the technical properties necessary to define a $G$-homology theory. We also treat an induction structure, thereby obtaining an equivariant homology theory. We give several examples of equivariant homology theories thus obtained. In particular, we have a generalization of singular homology, an equivariant theory with coefficients in the Burnside ring.
A stratifold $S$ is called a *$G$-stratifold* if there is a smooth $G$-action on $S$. This means there is a smooth map of stratifolds (the discrete group $G$ is a $0$-dimensional smooth manifold, so $G\times S$ with the product stratifold structure is a stratifold) $$\begin{aligned}
\theta : G\times S & \to & S\\
(g,s) & \mapsto & gs\end{aligned}$$ such that
1. es=s
2. (gh)s=g(hs).
$S$ is called a *proper* $G$-stratifold if the action of $G$ on $S$ is proper, which means that the map $G\times S\to S\times S, (g,s)\mapsto (gs,s)$ is proper.
[**Remark:** ]{} The map $\theta_g:S\to S, s\mapsto gs$ is in $Aut(S)$ for all $g\in G$.
This means that $g{\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_i={\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_i$ for all $g\in G$, that collars are preserved, collars of the strata as well as collars of $S$, and that the collar maps are equivariant (with respect to the trivial $G$-action on the interval). Thus we can also define the operation of $G$ on each stratum seperately (and not only on its interior ${\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_i \hookrightarrow S$) by continuing it onto the boundary. This leads to the observation that we could also have defined a $G$-stratifold by saying: The strata $S_i$ are $G$-manifolds with $G$-equivariant collars which are glued together with $G$-equivariant maps.
Let $X$ be a $G$-space. An $n$-dimensional *singular $G$-stratifold* is a pair $(S,f)$, where $S$ is an $n$-dimensional cocompact $G$-stratifold (i.e. $G\backslash S$ is compact) and $f:S\to X$ is a $G$-equivariant map.
As for usual homology theories defined via stratifolds, we can restrict ourselves to stratifolds satisfying certain conditions, thereby obtaining many different $G$-homology theories depending on the conditions imposed. We call a class of stratifolds a bordism class if it has properties allowing an equivalence relation “bordism” of its stratifolds and if the restrictions are sufficient to ensure that this bordism theory is a homology theory.
\[defbordclass\] A class ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ of stratifolds is called a *bordism class* if it satisfies the following axioms:
[**Axiom 1:**]{} If $S$ is a closed $G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, $S\times I$ (where the smooth manifold $I=[0,1]$ with boundary has trivial $G$-operation) is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
[**Axiom 2:**]{} If $S$ and $S'$ are cocompact $G$-stratifolds in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, then $S\amalg S'$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$. If $T'$ and $T''$ are cocompact $G$-stratifolds with boundary such that $\partial T'=S\cup S'$ with $S$ and $S'$ $G$-invariant and $\partial T''=S'\cup S''$ with $S'$ and $S''$ $G$-invariant and such that $S\cap S'=S'\cap S''=\partial S=\partial S'=\partial S''$ is an $(n-2)$-dimensional stratifold then $T'\cup_{S'}T''\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, and $\partial(T'\cup_{S'}T'')=S\cup_{\partial S'}S''\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
[**Axiom 3:**]{} If $S$ is a cocompact $n$-dimensional $G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, $\rho:S\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ is a smooth $G$-invariant map and $t\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ is a regular value of $\rho$, then $\rho^{-1}(t)$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, and $\rho^{-1}([t,\infty))$ and $\rho^{-1}((-\infty,t])$ are in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
[**Remarks:** ]{}
- Except for the fact that the boundary components in Axiom 2 have to be $G$-invariant and that $\rho:S\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ in Axiom 3 is $G$-invariant, the $G$-operation does not play a role in the formulation of these axioms, they are completely analogous to the ones used for usual homology theories.
- It is shown in [@kreck] that in the situation of Axiom 3 the pre-image of a regular value, $\rho^{-1}(t)$, is an $(n-1)$-dimensional stratifold, so to check Axiom 3 it is only necessary to verify that this fulfills the restrictions again.
- It is useful to observe that these axioms are usually fulfilled for conditions given “locally”, that is in terms of a neighborhood of $x$ for all $x\in S$. In particular, regular ($G$-)stratifolds are defined by the fact that each $x\in S$ has a neighborhood $V_{U_x}\cong B^i\times F$. A $G$-invariant neighborhood is then given by $$G V_{U_x} \cong G(B^i\times F)=(GB^i)\times F=(\cup_{g\in G/G_x}gB^i)\times F,$$ since we have equivariant collars. (Remember that $F\cong r_i^{-1}(\{x\})$, where $r_i$ is the projection along the collars.) If we only impose conditions on $F$, this gives a class of stratifolds satisfying all the axioms. (An example for this are Euler stratifolds. In their definition we require $F$ to fulfill the condition $\chi(F\backslash F^{(0)})\equiv 0 \mod 2 $.)
- Another case where the axioms are automatically satisfied is if we impose conditions on the emptyness/non-emptyness of strata of certain codimensions - the most prominent example is the special case “codimension 1-stratum empty” which leads to singular homology with ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-coefficients [@kreck].
- If we want to impose orientability conditions (as for example the extra condition “top-dimensional stratum oriented” leading to singular homology with ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$-coefficients instead of ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-coefficients), we have to require all $G$-operations to be orientation preserving.
Two $n$-dimensional cocompact singular $G$-stratifolds $(S,f)$ and $(S',f')$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ are called *bordant* (in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$) $\Leftrightarrow$ there is an $(n+1)$-dimensional cocompact $G$-stratifold $T$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ with boundary and an equivariant map $F:T\to X$ such that $\partial T=S\amalg S', F|_{\partial T}=f\amalg f'$.
The relation “bordant” (in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$) defined above is an equivalence relation.
Reflexivity: Clear. (Take $T:=S\times [0,1]$, with trivial $G$-operation on $[0,1]$.)\
Symmetry: Clear.\
Transitivity: If $(S,f) \sim_{(T,F)} (S',f')$ and $(S',f') \sim_{(T',F')} (S'',f'')$, then we can glue together $T$ and $T'$ along their common boundary component $S'$ to obtain a bordism between $(S,f)$ and $(S'',f'')$ given by $(T\cup_{S'}T', F\cup_{f'}F')$. (Remember that we have an equivariant collar.)
[**Remark:** ]{}Under disjoint union the equivalence classes $[S,f]$ with respect to the equivalence relation “bordant” (in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$) of $n$-dimensional cocompact singular $G$-stratifolds $(S,f)$ (in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$) form a group; the zero element is $[\emptyset]$, each element is its own inverse. Thus we get a ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-vector space. (The question whether this is a set has to be resolved analogously to usual stratifold bordism [@kreck].)\
We want to show that these bordism groups form a $G$-homology theory. We first need some technical statements:
\[partitionofunity\] Let $M$ be a proper $G$-manifold. Then for every $G$-invariant open covering $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ there is a subordinate smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity. More precisely, there is a collection of smooth $G$-invariant maps $\{\lambda_\beta:M\to (-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)\}$ such that
1. There is a locally finite open refinement $\{U_\beta\}_{\beta \in B}$ of $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ such that $supp(\lambda_\beta)\subseteq U_\beta$ for all $\beta \in B$.
2. $\sum_{\beta\in B} \lambda_\beta(x)=1$ for all $x\in M$.
$G$ acts properly on $M$, so $G\backslash M$ is a paracompact Hausdorff space. Also we know: For every $x\in M$ there is a smooth slice $S_x$ in $x$ [@palais]. For every $x\in M$ choose an open $G$-invariant neighborhood $W_x\subseteq G\times_{G_x} S_x$. Let $\pi:M\to G\backslash M$ be the projection. Since $G\backslash M$ is paracompact, there is a locally finite common refinement $\{U'_\beta\}_{\beta \in B}$ of $\{\pi(W_x)\}_{x \in M}$ and $\{\pi(V_\alpha)\}_{\alpha\in A}$ and a partition of unity $\{\lambda'_\beta\}$ subordinate to $\{U'_\beta\}_{\beta \in B}$. Set $U_\beta:=\pi^{-1}(U'_\beta)$ for all $\beta \in B$. This is a locally finite common refinement of $\{W_x\}_{x \in M}$ and $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$. Define $\lambda''_\beta$ on all of $M$ by setting $\lambda''_\beta(x):=\lambda_\beta'(G x)$ for all $x\in M$. This is a $G$-invariant partition of unity on $M$ subordinate to $\{U_\beta\}_{\beta \in B}$. Now change every $\lambda''_\beta$ into a smooth map: We know that $supp(\lambda''_\beta)\subseteq U_\beta \subseteq W_x\subseteq G\times_{G_x} S_x$ for an $x\in M$. Because of the $G$-invariance $\lambda''_\beta$ is completely defined by its values on $S_x$. Now we approximate $\lambda''_\beta|_{S_x}:S_x\to [0,1]$ by a smooth map $\tilde{\lambda}''_\beta:S_x\to (-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)$. We make this map $G$-invariant by setting $$\tilde{\lambda}_\beta(s):=\frac{1}{|G_x|} \sum_{g\in G_x} \tilde{\lambda}''_\beta(gs).$$ This is well defined because $G_x$ is finite since $G$ acts properly on $M$. So now we have a smooth $G_x$-invariant map $\tilde{\lambda}_\beta:S_x\to (-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)$. We define $\tilde{\lambda}''_\beta([g,s]):=\tilde{\lambda}''_\beta(s)$ for all $[g,s]\in G\times_{G_x} S_x$ and continue this map (which has $supp(\tilde{\lambda}''_\beta)\subseteq U_\beta \subseteq W_x$) by $0$ to all of $M$. This is a well defined $G$-invariant map $\tilde{\lambda}_\beta:M\to (-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)$. We do this for all $\beta \in B$ and set $\lambda_\beta(x):=\frac{\tilde{\lambda}_\beta(x)}{\sum_{\beta\in B} \tilde{\lambda}_\beta(x)}.$(The sum in the denominator is finite since the partition of unity $\{U_\beta\}_{\beta \in B}$ was locally finite.)
Then we have $\sum_{\beta\in B} \lambda_\beta(x)=1$ for all $x\in M$, and $\{\lambda_\beta\}$ is the desired smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity.
Let $S$ be a proper cocompact $G$-stratifold. Then every $G$-invariant open covering $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ has a subordinate smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity.
By Lemma \[partitionofunity\] every stratum $S_i$ of $S$ has a smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity subordinate to $\{V_\alpha\cap S_i\}_{\alpha\in A}$. With the $G$-equivariant collars one inductively combines these to finally obtain a partition of unity on $S$. The partition of unity on $\{V_\alpha\cap S^{(0)}\}_{\alpha\in A}$ is obvious. So now suppose a smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity $\{(\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha\}$ on $S^{(n-1)}$ subordinate to $\{V_\alpha\cap S^{(n-1)}\}_{\alpha\in A}$ and a smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity $\{(\lambda_{S_n})_\alpha\}$ on $S_n$ subordinate to $\{V_\alpha\cap S_n\}_{\alpha\in A}$ are given. Choose a collar $\varphi: \partial S_n\times [0,\varepsilon)\to S_n$ which is a representative of the given equivalence class, with $\varepsilon$ small enough such that $V_\alpha\cap S^{(n-1)}\neq \emptyset \Rightarrow \varphi(\hat{f}^{-1}_n ( supp((\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha))\times [0,\varepsilon))\subseteq V_\alpha\cap S_n$. (One can obtain the $\varepsilon$ by going over to a finite subcovering of the $V_\alpha$ at the beginning of the induction process, which is possible since $S$ is cocompact and the $V_\alpha$ are $G$-invariant. Then one can take the minimum of the appearing $\varepsilon$’s.)
Take a smooth map $f:[0,\varepsilon)\to [0,1]$ such that $f([0,\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon])=0$ and $f([\frac{2}{3}\varepsilon,\varepsilon))=1$, define $f':=fpr_2\varphi^{-1}:\varphi(\partial S_n\times [0,\varepsilon))\to [0,1], \varphi(x,t)\mapsto f(t)$ and continue $f'$ by $1$ to all of $S_n$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\alpha 1}(x) & := &
\begin{cases}
f'(x)\cdot (\lambda_{S_n})_\alpha (x) & \text{ if }x\in {\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_n\\
0 & \text{ else}
\end{cases}
\\
\lambda_{\alpha 2}(x) & := &
\begin{cases}
(\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha(x) & \text{ if }x\in S^{(n-1)}\\
\kappa_\alpha(x)
& \text{ if } x\in {\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_n \text{ and } V_\alpha\cap S^{(n-1)}\neq \emptyset\\
0 & \text{ else,}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\kappa_\alpha(x)=
\begin{cases}
(1-f')(x)\cdot(\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha(\hat{f_n}pr_1\varphi^{-1}(x)) & \text{ if }x\in \varphi(\hat{f}_n^{-1}(V_\alpha\cap S^{(n-1)})\times (0,\varepsilon))\\
0 & \text{ else, }
\end{cases}$$ and define $\lambda_\alpha(x):=\lambda_{\alpha 1}(x) + \lambda_{\alpha 2}(x)$.
The map $\lambda_\alpha$ is a smooth map from the stratifold $S$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$, since all appearing maps are smooth by construction and $\lambda_\alpha$ fulfills $\lambda_\alpha(\varphi(x,t))=\lambda_\alpha(x)$ for all $x\in \partial S_n$ and $t\in [0,\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon]$.
The support of $\lambda_\alpha$ is contained in $V_\alpha$. We have $\sum_{\alpha \in A} \lambda_\alpha = 1$, because for $x\in S^{(n-1)}$ we calculate $\sum_{\alpha \in A} \lambda_\alpha (x)= \sum_{\alpha \in A} (\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha (x) = 1$ and for $x\in{{\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}}_n$ we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{\alpha \in A}\lambda_\alpha(x)}\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in A}(\lambda_{\alpha 1}(x) + \lambda_{\alpha 2}(x))\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in A} f'(x)\cdot (\lambda_{S_n})_\alpha (x) + \sum_{\alpha \in A} (1-f')(x)\cdot (\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha(\hat{f_n}pr_1\varphi^{-1}(x)) \\
& = & f'(x)\cdot \sum_{\alpha \in A} (\lambda_{S_n})_\alpha (x) + (1-f')(x) \cdot\sum_{\alpha \in A} (\lambda_{S^{(n-1)}})_\alpha(\hat{f_n}pr_1\varphi^{-1}(x)) \\
& = & f'(x)\cdot 1 + (1-f')(x)\cdot 1\\
& = & 1.\end{aligned}$$ The map $\lambda_\alpha$ is $G$-invariant since all appearing maps are $G$-invariant. So $\{\lambda_\alpha\}$ is the desired smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity on $S$ subordinate to $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$.
Note: If we use another definition of collars (with a $\delta$-function), cocompactness is not necessary any more.
\[differentiableGinvariantextension\] Let $M$ be a proper smooth $G$-manifold respectively $S$ a proper $G$-stratifold. Let $A$, $B$ be disjoint closed $G$-invariant subsets of $M$ respectively $S$. Then there is a smooth $G$-invariant map $\rho:M\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ respectively $\rho:S\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ which extends $\rho|_A\equiv 0$, $\rho|_B\equiv 1$.
We write out the proof for the case of a manifold $M$ - it is identical for a stratifold $S$, only the existence of a smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity is used.
The space $G\backslash M$ is a paracompact Hausdorff space, so we can find a continuous map $\rho':G\backslash M\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ extending $\overline{\rho|_{A\cup B}}$. So we also have a continuous $G$-invariant extension $\rho'':M\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ of $\rho|_{A\cup B}$ by setting $\rho''(x):=\rho'(Gx)$ for all $x\in M$. With the smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity on $M$, we construct a smooth $G$-invariant approximation of $\rho'':M\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ also extending $\rho|_{A\cup B}$. (The proof is analogous to [@bredon1993 proof of Th. II.11.7].) For $x\in M$ let $V_x$ be a $G$-invariant neighborhood of $x$ in $M$ and $h_x:V_x\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ such that
1. $x\in A \Rightarrow V_x\cap B=\emptyset \text{ and }h_x\equiv 0,\; x\in B\Rightarrow V_x\cap A=\emptyset \text{ and }h_x\equiv 1$.
2. $x\not\in A\cup B\Rightarrow V_x\cap (A\cup B)=\emptyset$ and $y\in V_x\Rightarrow h_x(y)=\rho''(x)$ (constant in $y$).
The map $h_x$ is $G$-invariant by construction. (We have $h_{g_1 x}(g_2 y)=\rho''(g_1 x)=\rho''(x)$ for all $g_1, g_2\in G.$)
Let $\{U_\alpha\}$ be a locally finite $G$-invariant refinement of $\{V_x\}$ with index assignment $\alpha\mapsto x(\alpha)$ and let $\{\lambda_\alpha\}$ be a smooth $G$-invariant partition of unity on $M$ with $supp(\lambda_\alpha)\subseteq U_\alpha$. ($\lambda_\alpha=0$ on $A\cup B$ except if $x(\alpha)\in A\cup B$.)
Let $\rho(y):=\sum \lambda_\alpha(y)h_{x(\alpha)}(y)$ for $y\in M$. Then $\rho$ is smooth on $M$ because the $\lambda_\alpha$ and $h_{x(\alpha)}$ are smooth. $\rho$ is $G$-invariant since the $\lambda_\alpha$ and $h_{x(\alpha)}$ are $G$-invariant. If $y\in A$, then $\rho(y)=\sum \lambda_\alpha(y)h_{x(\alpha)}(y)=\sum \lambda_\alpha(y)\cdot 0 = 0$ and if $y\in B$, then $\rho(y)=\sum \lambda_\alpha(y)h_{x(\alpha)}(y)=\sum \lambda_\alpha(y)\cdot 1 = 1$. So $\rho$ is the desired smooth $G$-invariant extension of $\rho|_A\equiv 0$, $\rho|_B\equiv 1$.
Now we are ready to show that our bordism groups form a $G$-homology theory.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ be a bordism class of proper $G$-stratifolds. The assignment $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}: G-Top & \to & Ab\\
X & \mapsto & \{\; [S,f]\;|\; S \text{ $n$-dim.~cocomp.~proper $G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, }\\
& & \quad \quad \quad \quad f:S\to X \text{ $G$-equivariant}\}\\
(g:X\to Y) & \mapsto & (g_*:[S,f]\mapsto [S,gf])\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\xspace}$ (${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}:=0$ for $n< 0$) together with the boundary operator $d$ defined in the proof is a $G$-homology theory.
The procedure is analogous to the case without $G$-operation.\
i) ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_n(\emptyset)=0$ since there is no map of a non-empty stratifold into $\emptyset$.\
ii) functoriality: clear by definition\
iii) $G$-homotopy invariance:\
Let $F:X\times I \to Y$ be a $G$-homotopy of $g_1:X\to Y$ and $g_2:X\to Y$. Let $[V,f]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_n(X)$. Then $V\times I$ (with the trivial $G$-operation on $I$) is an $(n+1)$-dimensional cocompact proper $G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ with boundary. We have $$g_{1*} ([V,f]) + g_{2*} ([V,f])=[V,g_1 f]+[V,g_2 f] = [\partial (V\times I),F(f\times id)|_{\partial (V\times I)}] = 0,$$ so $ g_{1*}([V,f])=-g_{2*}([V,f])=g_{2*}([V,f]).$\
iv) Mayer-Vietoris-sequence:\
For $X=X_1\cup X_2$, where $X_1$ and $X_2$ are $G$-invariant open subsets of $X$, a boundary operator $d:H^G_n(X_1\cup X_2)\to H^G_{n-1}(X_1\cap X_2)$ is needed (for all $n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\xspace}$). We construct it as follows: If $[S,f]\in H^G_n(X_1\cup X_2)$, then both $f^{-1}(X_1\setminus X_2)$ and $f^{-1}(X_2\setminus X_1)$ are disjoint closed $G$-invariant subspaces of $S$. We define a $G$-invariant map $$\tilde{\rho}:f^{-1}(X_1\setminus X_2)\amalg f^{-1}(X_2\setminus X_1)\to \mathbb{R}$$ by setting $$\tilde{\rho}(f^{-1}(X_1\setminus X_2) )=0, \quad\tilde{\rho}(f^{-1}(X_2\setminus X_1) )=1.$$ By Lemma \[differentiableGinvariantextension\] we can find a differentiable $G$-invariant map $\rho:S\to \mathbb{R}$ extending $\tilde{\rho}$. We choose a regular value $t\in (0,1)$ of $\rho$. We define $Z:=\rho^{-1}(t)$. This is an $(n-1)$-dimensional stratifold and a $G$-invariant subspace of $S$ (since $\rho$ is $G$-invariant), thus a $G$-stratifold with proper $G$-action (since the action of $G$ on $S$ is proper). It is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ by axiom 3. Since $t\notin \{0,1\}$, we have $Z\not\subseteq f^{-1}(X_1\setminus X_2 \cup X_2 \setminus X_1)$, and so $f(Z)\subseteq X_1\cap X_2$. We set $d([S,f]):=[Z,f|_Z]\in H^G_{n-1}(X_1\cap X_2)$.
The map $d$ is well defined: Another choice $t'\in (0,1)$ of of the regular value would lead to a singular stratifold $(Z':=\rho^{-1}(t'),f|_{Z'})$ which is bordant to $(Z,f|_{Z})$ by $(\rho^{-1}([t,t']), f|_{\rho^{-1}([t,t'])})$ if $t'>t$ and by $(\rho^{-1}([t',t]), f|_{\rho^{-1}([t',t])})$ if $t'<t$. Another choice $(S',f')$ of the representative of $[S,f]$ would be bordant to $(S,f)$ by a pair $(T,F)$, and we could define $\rho$ on all of $T$ as above, which would lead to a bordism between $(\rho^{-1}(t)\cap S, f|_{\rho^{-1}(t)\cap S})$ and $(\rho^{-1}(t)\cap S', f|_{\rho^{-1}(t)\cap S'})$ given by $(\rho^{-1}(t), F|_{\rho^{-1}(t)})$ (where $t$ is a regular value of $F$, $f$ and $f'$).
The construction is independent of the choice of $\rho$, which is shown analogously to the non-equivariant case [@kreck], which in turn is shown analogously to the case of usual bordism of manifolds [@tomdiecktopologie]. We have to show that if there are two $G$-invariant maps $\rho:S\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ and $\rho':S\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ both sending $f^{-1}(X_1\setminus X_2) $ to $0$ and $f^{-1}(X_2\setminus X_1) $ to $1$, then there is a regular value $t$ of $\rho$ and $\rho'$ such that $[\rho^{-1}(t), f|_{\rho^{-1}(t)}]=[\rho'^{-1}(t), f|_{\rho'^{-1}(t)}]$. We take a smooth map $h:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ such that $h([0,\frac{1}{3}])=0$ and $h([\frac{2}{3},1])=1$ and define $\phi:S\times I \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}, \;(s,x)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}(\rho(s)\cdot (1-h)(x) + \rho'(x)\cdot h(x))$. We know that $S\times I$ is an $(n+1)$-dimensional $G$-stratifold with boundary $S\times\{0\}\amalg S\times\{1\}$, that $\phi$ is a $G$-invariant map, and that $\phi|_{S\times\{0\}\amalg S\times\{1\}}=\rho\amalg \rho'$. We choose a regular value $t$ of $\phi$, $\rho$ and $\rho'$, then $(\phi^{-1}(t),f pr_S|_{\phi^{-1}(t)})$ is a bordism between $(\rho^{-1}(t), f|_{\rho^{-1}(t)})$ and $(\rho'^{-1}(t), f|_{\rho'^{-1}(t)})$.
The exactness of the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence is also proven analogously to the non-equivariant case [@kreck], respectively analogously to usual bordism of manifolds [@tomdiecktopologie Satz VIII.13.8]. We will not write out the details here, since there are no additional technical difficulties involved.
We can also place restrictions on the nature of the $G$-operations allowed on the stratifolds. We are especially concerned with “free proper $G$-actions” or “all proper $G$-actions”, but one could imagine many other restrictions such as “fixed point free” or, more generally, “with isotropy in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace}$”, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace}$ is a set of subgroups of $G$ closed under conjugation or subconjugation. These other restrictions might also lead to interesting homology theories.
Homology theories defined by stratifolds with free proper $G$-Operations {#sec2}
========================================================================
If we restrict ourselves to free proper $G$-operations on a certain class ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ of stratifolds, we obtain an explicit description of the usual ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$-stratifold homology theory of the Borel construction $EG\times_G X$. We show that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)\cong {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(EG\times_G X),$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ stands for the homology theory in question. Our standard examples are $Eh$, Euler homology, and $H(-;{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace})$ or $H(-;{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace})$, singular homology with ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$- or ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$-coefficients. The construction is analogous to the one for bordism of smooth manifolds with free $G$-action [@conner-floyd page 50 ff]. We define $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)= & \{ \;[S,f] \;| & S \text{ $n$-dim.~cocomp.~$G$-str.~in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ with free proper} \\
& & \text{$G$-action, $f:S\to X$ $G$-equiv.}\}.\end{aligned}$$
We want to give a natural transformation $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(-)\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(EG\times_G -)$$ and check that it is an equivalence of homology theories.
Let $X\in G-Top$ be a $G$-space and $[S,f]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$. Since $S$ is a free $G$-stratifold, there is up to $G$-homotopy a unique $G$-equivariant map $h:S\to EG$. (Here we consider $EG$ as a left $G$-space, where the left action of $G$ on $EG$ is given by $G\times EG\to EG, (g,e)\mapsto e g^{-1}$. Then $EG\times_G X=G\backslash EG\times X$.) Thus we have a map $(h,f):S\to EG\times X$. Taking $G$-orbits gives a map $\overline{(h,f)}: G\backslash S\to EG\times_G X$. (We have $(h,f)(s)=(h(s),f(s))$ and $(h,f)(gs)=(h(s)g^{-1},gf(s))$, and these are exactly the elements that are identified in the passage from $EG\times X$ to $EG\times_G X$.)
We have to check that $G\backslash S$ (with trivial $G$-action) is again in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
\[orbitraumstratifold\] If $S$ is a $G$-stratifold with free proper $G$-action, then the orbit space $G\backslash S$ again has a stratifold structure given by $(G\backslash S)_i=G\backslash S_i$, $(f_{G\backslash S})_i=\bar{f_i}$.
Since $gS_i=S_i$ for all $g\in G$, every $S_i$ is a free proper $G$-manifold, and thus $G\backslash S_i$ is again a manifold. We have $\partial (G\backslash S_i)=G\backslash \partial S_i$. Collars are also preserved. Since $f_i: \partial S_i\to S^{(i-1)}$ is $G$-equivariant, it induces a map $\bar{f_i}: G\backslash \partial S_i\to G\backslash S^{(i-1)}$ on the orbit spaces. ($\bar{f_i}$ is proper since $f_i$ is proper.)
\[propertiesfulfilled\] If $S$ is in a class ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ of stratifolds defined “locally” or by emptyness conditions on the strata, $G\backslash S$ is in the same class.
We proceed case by case.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ “locally” defined: A $G$-invariant neighborhood of $x\in S$ is given by $GV_{U_x}\cong G(B^i\times F)=G B^i\times F$, and this is a neighborhood of $Gx$ in $S$, thus $G\backslash GV_{U_x}\cong G\backslash (G B^i\times F)\cong B^i\times F$ is a neighborhood of $Gx$ in $G\backslash S$. $F$ remains unchanged.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ defined by emptyness conditions on strata: $(G\backslash S)_i=G\backslash S_i=\emptyset \Leftrightarrow S_i=\emptyset$, so properties remain unchanged.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ with orientability condition: If $S_n$ is orientable and $G$ operates orientation preserving, then $G\backslash S_n$ is orientable.
We know that $G\backslash S$ is compact since $S$ is cocompact. Thus we have an assignment $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X), \quad
{}[S,f] \mapsto [G\backslash S, \overline{(h,f)}].$$
The assignment $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) & \to & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X)\\
{}[S,f] & \mapsto & [G\backslash S, \overline{(h,f)}].\end{aligned}$$ induces a natural equivalence of $G$-homology theories on the category $G-Top$.
We proceed in several steps.
- The assignment is well defined: if we choose another representative $(S',f')\in [S,f]$, then there is a free proper $G$-stratifold $T$, $\partial T=S\amalg S'$, $F:T\to X$, $F|_{\partial T}=f\amalg f'$. So $(G\backslash T, \overline{(h,F)})$ gives a bordism between $(G\backslash S, \overline{(h,f)})$ and $(G\backslash S', \overline{(h,f')})$.
- This assignment is evidently a group homomorphism.
- It is functorial in $X$: Let $g:X\to Y$ be a $G$-equivariant map. Then $$\xymatrix{
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{g_*} & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X) \ar[d]^{(id\times g)_*}\\
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(Y) \ar[r] & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G Y)
}$$ commutes since $(id\times g)_* \overline{(h,f)} = \overline{(h,gf)}:S\to EG\times_G Y$.
- It is compatible with the boundary operator since we chose $\rho$ $G$-invariant. (We see that a choice of $\rho$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$ induces a choice of $\rho$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X)$ and vice versa, since we otherwise made the same construction as for usual stratifold homology theories. Note that for $G$-invariant $X_1, X_2$ we have $EG\times_G(X_1\cup X_2) = EG\times_G X_1 \cup EG\times_G X_2$.)
- It is an isomorphism for each $X\in G-Top$, since we can construct an inverse ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G, free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$: Let $[W,j]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(EG\times_G X)$. We have the following commutative diagram:$$\xymatrix{
S:=(pr_1 j)^* EG \ar[rr]^h \ar[d]^\pi & & EG \ar[d]^\nu \\
W \ar[r]^j & EG\times_G X \ar[r]^{pr_1} & BG
}$$ $S$ is a $G$-principal bundle over $W$. $S$ is a stratifold: Consider the diagram$$\xymatrix{
S_i:=(pr_1 j \; inc_i)^* EG \ar[dd]^{\pi_i} \ar@{..>}[dr] \ar[drrr]& & &\\
& S \ar[rr]^h \ar[dd]^\pi & & EG \ar[dd]^\nu \\
W_i \ar[dr]^{inc_i} &&& \\
& W \ar[rr]^{pr_1 j} & & BG
}$$ This defines strata $S_i$ and unique $G$-equivariant inclusion maps into $S$ via the pullback property. $S_i$ is an $i$-dimensional smooth manifold since $\pi_i:S_i\to W_i$ is a local homeomorphism. For the same reason collars are preserved. $S_i$ is a covering space of $W_i$ with fiber $G$ (discrete). The free action of $G$ on the fiber induces a free action of $G$ on $S_i$. $S$ is a covering space of $W$ with fibre $G$, so $G\backslash S \cong W$ is compact and we have a free action of $G$ on $S$. Since $S\to W$ is a local homeomorphism, $S\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}\Leftrightarrow W\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ for stratifold classes ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ defined locally or by emptyness conditions.
It is known that $$\xymatrix{
EG\times X \ar[d] \ar[r] & EG \ar[d] \\
EG\times_G X \ar[r] & BG
}$$ is a pullback diagram ([@bredon1972 II.2.5]). Thus there is a unique $G$-equivariant map $\tilde{f}$ making the following diagram commutative:$$\xymatrix{
S \ar[dd]^{\pi} \ar@{..>}[dr]_{\tilde{f}} \ar[drrr]^h & & &\\
& EG\times X \ar[dd] \ar[rr] & & EG \ar[dd] \\
W \ar[dr]^j &&& \\
& EG\times_G X \ar[rr]^{pr_1} & & BG
}$$ If we take this map $\tilde{f}$ and compose it with the projection $pr_X$ to $X$, we obtain a map $f:=pr_X \tilde{f}:S\to X$. Thus we have constructed a pair $(S,f)$ such that $[S,f]\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G,free}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$ and which maps to $[W,j]$ under the above correspondence: $G\backslash S=W$, $\overline{(h,f)}=\overline{\tilde{f}} =j$.
[**Remark:** ]{}If we want to extend this method to other restrictions on the $G$-actions by replacing $EG$ by an appropriate $E(G,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace})$, we have to think about whether $G\backslash S$ is still a stratifold and still in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$. We might make it into a stratifold by giving it a more complicated stratifold structure, but then it is in general not in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ any more.
The induction structure {#sec3}
=======================
From now on, we restrict ourselves to $G$-CW-complexes $X$: In the sequel, we mean functors from $G$-CW-complexes to $Ab$ when we speak about $G$-homology theories.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ be a bordism class such that
- If $S\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ and $K$ acts freely and properly on $S$ ($K$-cocompact), then $K\backslash S$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
- If $S\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, then any connected component of $S$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again.
- If $S\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, then a discrete union of copies of $S$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
The fact that $K\backslash S$ is again a stratifold was proven in Lemma \[orbitraumstratifold\]. The above properties are fulfilled for the usual restrictions: The first point was proven in Lemma \[propertiesfulfilled\], the other points are shown completely analogous.
We now show that we have an induction structure on our $G$-homology theories (as defined for example in [@lueck page 198f]). This induction structure links the various homology theories for different groups $G$.
We have an induction strucure on the $G$-homology theories $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}: G\text{-CW-complexes }\to Ab$$ defined as above by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)= \{ [S,f]\,|\,S \text{ $n$-dim.~cocomp.~pr.~$G$-str.~in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$, }f:S\to X \text{ $G$-equiv.}\}.$$ Given a group homomorphism $\alpha: H\to G$ and an $H$-CW-complex $X$ such that $ker (\alpha)$ acts freely on $X$, we define maps $$\begin{aligned}
ind_\alpha : {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) & \to & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(ind_\alpha (X))\\
{}[S,f] & \mapsto & [ind_\alpha (S), ind_\alpha(f)].\end{aligned}$$ Here $ind_\alpha (X)=G\times_\alpha X$, $ind_\alpha (S)=G\times_\alpha S$ and $ind_\alpha(f)=id_G\times_\alpha f$.
These maps $ind_\alpha$ are isomorphisms for all $n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$ and satisfy
[**a) compatibility with boundary homomorphisms**]{} $$d_n^G\; ind_\alpha=ind_\alpha\; d_n^H.$$
[**b) functoriality**]{}
Let $\beta:G\to K$ be another group homomorphism such that $ker(\beta\alpha)$ acts freely on $X$. Then we have $$ind_{\beta\alpha}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^K(f_1)ind_\beta ind_\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^H(X)\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^K(ind_{\beta\alpha}(X)),$$ where $f_1:ind_\beta ind_\alpha(X)\xrightarrow{\cong} ind_{\beta\alpha}(X),\quad [k,g,x]\mapsto [k\beta(g),x]$ is the natural $K$-homeomorphism.
[**c) compatibility with conjugation**]{}
For $g\in G$ and a $G$-CW-complex $X$ the homomorphism $$ind_{c(g):G\to G}:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^G(X)\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^G(ind_{c(g):G\to G}(X))$$ agrees with ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n^G(f_2)$ for the $G$-homeomorphism $f_2:X\to ind_{c(g):G\to G}(X)$ which sends $x$ to $[1,g^{-1} x]$ in $G\times_{c(g)} X$.
It is clear that we only have to treat the case $n\geq 0$ since for $n<0$ all appearing homology groups are $0$. We first need to show that $ind_\alpha$ is well defined:
Let $S$ be an $n$-dimensional proper cocompact $H$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$. Then $ind_\alpha(S)=G\times_\alpha S=(\cup_{\bar{g}\in G / \alpha(H)}\bar{g} \alpha(H))\times_\alpha S=\cup_{\bar{g}\in G / \alpha(H)}\bar{g} (\alpha(H)\times_\alpha S)$, and $\alpha(H)\times_\alpha S\cong ker(\alpha)\backslash S$. Note that $ker (\alpha)$ acts freely on $S$ since $f$ is $H$-equivariant and $ker (\alpha)$ acts freely on $X$. It acts properly on $S$ since $H$ acts properly on $S$. So $ker (\alpha)\backslash S$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again. It is an $n$-dimensional stratifold since $ker(\alpha)$ is a discrete group. A discrete union of copies of this is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again. Thus $ind_\alpha(S)$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again. The $n$-dimensional stratifold $ind_\alpha(S)$ is endowed with the obvious $G$-action by left multiplication in the first variable. It is a cocompact $G$-stratifold, since $G\backslash ind_\alpha(S)=G\backslash G\times_\alpha S \cong H \backslash S$ is compact.
It is a proper $G$-stratifold: We know that a discrete group $G$ acts properly on a Hausdorff space $X$ if and only if for each pair of points $(a,b)$ in $X$ there exist neighborhoods $V_a$ of $a$ and $V_b$ of $b$ such that the set $\{g\in G\;|\;gV_a\cap V_b\neq \emptyset\}$ is finite [@tomdieck Cor. I.3.22]. Thus we need to show that for all $[g,x]$ and $[g',x']$ in $G\times_\alpha S=ind_\alpha(S)$ there are open neighborhoods $W_x$ of $[g,x]$ and $W_{x'}$ of $[g',x']$ such that the set $\{\tilde{g}\;|\; \tilde{g} W_x\cap W_{x'}\neq \emptyset\}$ is finite. We use that $S$ is a proper Hausdorff $H$-space with $H$ discrete, thus for all $x,x'\in S$ there are $V_x,V_{x'} \text{ open such that } \{h\in H\;|\;hV_x\cap V_{x'}\neq \emptyset\}=:\tilde{H}$ is finite. We set $W_x:=\overline{g\times V_x}$ and $W_{x'}:=\overline{g'\times V_{x'}}$ and claim that $\{ \tilde{g}\;|\;\tilde{g}W_x\cap W_{x'}\neq \emptyset \}=g'\alpha(\tilde{H})g^{-1}$, thus finite. This would show that $ind_\alpha (S)$ is a proper $G$-space.
Proof of the claim:
We have $\tilde{g}W_x\cap W_{x'}\neq \emptyset$ if and only if there are $[\lambda_1,a_1]\in W_x$ and $[\lambda_2,a_s]\in W_{x'}$ such that $[\tilde{g}\lambda_1,a_1]=[\lambda_2,a_2].$ Since ${}[\lambda_1,a_1]\in W_x$, there is $h'_1\in H$ such that $\lambda_1\alpha(h'^{-1}_1)=g \text{ and } h_1'a_1\in V_x.$ Since ${}[\lambda_2,a_2]\in W_{x'}$, there is $ h'_2\in H$ such that $\lambda_2\alpha(h'^{-1}_2)=g'\text{ and } h_2'a_2\in V_{x'}.$ Because of ${}[\tilde{g}\lambda_1,a_1]=[\lambda_2,a_2]$ there are $h_1,h_2\in H \text{ such that }\tilde{g}\lambda_1\alpha(h_1)=\lambda_2\alpha(h_2)$ and $h_1^{-1}a_1=h_2^{-1}a_2.$
Thus we obtain the equation $\tilde{g}g\alpha(h_1')\alpha(h_1)=g'\alpha(h_2')\alpha(h_2)$ which implies $\tilde{g}=g'\alpha(h_2'h_2h_1^{-1}h'^{-1}_1)g^{-1},$ and $h_2h_1^{-1}a_1=a_2$ which in turn implies that $h_2'h_2h_1^{-1}h'^{-1}_1(h_1'a_1)=(h_2'a_2)$. So $h_2'h_2h_1^{-1}h'^{-1}_1=:h\in\tilde{H}$, and we know that $\tilde{g}=g'\alpha(h)g^{-1}\in g'\alpha(\tilde{H})g^{-1}$.
Conversely, if $\tilde{g}\in g'\alpha(\tilde{H})g^{-1}$, then $\tilde{g}=g'\alpha(h)g^{-1}$ for an $h\in\tilde{H}$, and there are $a_1\in V_{x}$ and $a_2\in V_{x'}$ such that $ha_1=a_2$. We compute $\tilde{g}[g,a_1]=[g'\alpha(h)g^{-1}g,a_1]=[g',ha_1]=[g',a_2]$, thus $\tilde{g}W_x\cap W_{x'}\neq \emptyset.$
So $ind_\alpha(S)$ is an $n$-dimensional proper cocompact $G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ and $ind_\alpha(f) : ind_\alpha(S)\to ind_\alpha(X)$ is a $G$-equivariant continuous map by definition, thus the map $ind_\alpha$ is well defined.
[**Step 1:**]{} The induction map $ind_\alpha : {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X)$ is an isomorphism.
We want to define an inverse map $\psi:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$. Let $[S',f']\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n} (G\times_\alpha X)$, so $S'$ is an $n$-dimensional cocompact proper $G$-stratifold and $f':S'\to G\times_\alpha X$ is a $G$-equivariant map. We have $\alpha(H)\leq G$, and so $\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X \subseteq G\times_\alpha X$, which is an open and closed subspace since $G$ is discrete.
The operation of $G$ on $G\times_\alpha X$ induces an operation of $H\stackrel{\alpha}{\hookrightarrow} G$ on $G\times_\alpha X$ by $h.[g,x]:=[\alpha(h)g,x]$. The subspace $\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X$ is invariant under this operation.
Define $W:=f'^{-1}(\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X)\subseteq S'$. The map $f'$ is continuous, so $W$ is open and closed in $S'$. Thus $W$ is an $n$-dimensional stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again.
$H$ operates on $W$ by $H\times W \to W, (h,w)\mapsto \alpha(h)w$ since $f'$ is $G$-equivariant. This is a restriction of a proper $G$-action, thus proper. Note that $G\times_{\alpha} W \cong S'$ since $f'$ is $G$-equivariant. Thus $W$ is a cocompact $H$-space, since $H\backslash W\cong G\backslash G\times_{\alpha}W\cong G\backslash S'$, and $G\backslash S'$ is compact since $S'$ is a cocompact $G$-space. The restriction of $f'$ to $W$ is an $H$-equivariant map $f'|_W: W\to \alpha(H)\times_\alpha X\cong ker(\alpha)\backslash X$.
Since $ker(\alpha)$ operates freely on $X$, we can lift this: $X\to ker(\alpha)\backslash X$ is a $ker(\alpha)$-principal bundle, and we define $\tilde{W}:=(f'|_W)^*(X)$ as the pullback of this bundle along $f'|_W$: $$\xymatrix{
\tilde{W}:=(f'|_W)^*(X) \ar[r]^{\tilde{f}} \ar[d] & X \ar[d]\\
W \ar[r]^{f'|_W} & ker(\alpha)\backslash X
}$$ Concretely, $\tilde{W}=\{(w,x)\in W\times X\;|\;f'(w)=[1,x]\in \alpha(H)\times_\alpha X\}$. The operation of $H$ on $\tilde{W}$ is induced by the action on $W$ and $X$: We have $h.(w,x):=(\alpha(h)w,hx).$ Thus $\tilde{f}$ is $H$-equivariant by definition. $\tilde{W}$ is a cocompact $H$-space: $H\backslash \tilde{W}=\{(Hw,Hf'(w))\subseteq H\backslash W\times H\backslash X\}\cong H\backslash W$, and this is compact.
$H$ operates properly on $\tilde{W}$: $\tilde{W}$ is a Hausdorff space, so $H$ operates properly if and only if for every $(w,x)$ and $(w',x')$ in $\tilde{W}$ there are open neighborhoods $V_{(w,x)}$ and $V_{(w',x')}$ such that the set $\{h\in H\;|\;h V_{(w,x)}\cap V_{(w',x')}\neq \emptyset\}=:\tilde{H}_{\tilde{W}}$ is finite. We know that $H$ operates properly on $W$, so we know that for $w$ and $w'$ in $W$ there are open neighborhoods $V_w$ and $V_{w'}$ such that the set $\{h\in H\;|\; h V_w\cap V_{w'}\neq \emptyset\}=:\tilde{H}_W$ is finite. We set $V_{(w,x)}:=(V_w\times X)\cap \tilde{W}$ and $V_{(w',x')}=(V_{w'}\times X)\cap \tilde{W}$. Then $\tilde{H}_{\tilde{W}}$ is contained in $\tilde{H}_W$, thus finite.
The space $\tilde{W}$ is a $ker(\alpha)$-principal bundle over $W$, thus a stratifold again: The strata are given by the pullbacks of the strata of $W$, which map to $\tilde{W}$ by the universal property of $\tilde{W}$: $$\xymatrix{
\tilde{W}_i:=(f'|_W \; inc_i)^* (X) \ar[dd] \ar@{-->}[dr] \ar[drr]\\
& \tilde{W} \ar[r]_{\tilde{f}} \ar[dd] & X \ar[dd]\\
W_i \ar[dr]^{inc_i} & & \\
& W \ar[r]^{f'|_W} & ker(\alpha)\backslash X
}$$
The $W_i$ are c-manifolds, thus the $\tilde{W_i}$ are c-manifolds, too, since the projection map is a local homeomorphism. The stratifold $\tilde{W}$ is locally isomorphic to $W$. Thus the collars and all usual (local) restrictions are preserved, and $\tilde{W}\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ again. We define the map $$\begin{aligned}
\psi: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X)& \to & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) \\
{}[S',f'] & \mapsto & [\tilde{W}, \tilde{f}].\end{aligned}$$ We now show that $\psi$ is inverse to $ind_\alpha$.
[**1.**]{} The composition $$\begin{aligned}
ind_\alpha \psi : {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X) & \to & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X) \\
{}[S',f'] & \mapsto [\tilde{W}, \tilde{f}] \mapsto & [G\times_\alpha \tilde{W}, id_G\times_\alpha \tilde{f}]\end{aligned}$$ is equal to the identity on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G\times_\alpha X)$: We show that $$\xymatrix{
G\times_\alpha \tilde{W} \ar[rr]_{id_G\cdot pr_W}^{\simeq} \ar[dr]_{id_G\times \tilde{f}} & & S' \ar[dl]^{f'}\\
& G\times_\alpha X &
}$$ commutes, where all appearing maps are $G$-equivariant and the horizontal map $id_G\cdot pr_W$ is an isomorphism of $G$-stratifolds.
The map $f'$ is $G$-equivariant by definition. The map $id_G\times \tilde{f}$ is $G$-equivariant: $(id_G\times\tilde{f})(\tilde{g}[g,(w,x)])=[\tilde{g}g,\tilde{f}((w,x))]=\tilde{g}[g,x]=\tilde{g}(id_G\times\tilde{f}([g,(w,x)])).$ The map $id_G\cdot pr_W$ is $G$-equivariant: $(id_G\cdot pr_W)(\tilde{g}[g,(w,x)])=\tilde{g}g.w=\tilde{g}(id_G\cdot pr_W)([g,(w,x)]).$
We define an inverse $\varphi: S'\to G\times_\alpha \tilde{W}$ to $id_G\cdot pr_W$: If $s'\in S'$, then $f'(s')= [g,x]\in G\times_\alpha X$, and we set $\varphi(s'):=[g,(g^{-1}s', x)] \in G\times_{\alpha} \tilde{W}$. (Remember that $\tilde{W}=\{(w,x)\;|\;f'(w)=[1,x]\in \alpha(H)\times_\alpha X\}\subseteq W\times X$ and $W=f'^{-1}(\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X)\subseteq S'$.) This map $\varphi$ is well defined: We know that $g^{-1}s'\in W$ since $f'(g^{-1}s')=g^{-1}f'(s')=g^{-1}[g,x]=[1,x]\in\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X.$
If we had chosen a different representative $[g\alpha(h^{-1}), hx]=f'(s')\in G\times_\alpha X$, this would lead to the same element: $[g\alpha (h^{-1}), ((g\alpha(h^{-1}))^{-1}s',hx)] = [g\alpha (h^{-1}),(\alpha(h) g^{-1}s',hx)]= [g\alpha (h^{-1}),h.(g^{-1}s',x)]=\varphi(s').$
The map $\varphi$ is $G$-equivariant: What is $\varphi(\tilde{g}s')$? We know that $\tilde{f}(\tilde{g} s')=\tilde{g} \tilde{f}(s')=\tilde{g}[g,x]=[\tilde{g}g,x].$ Thus we have $\varphi(\tilde{g}s')=[\tilde{g}g, ((\tilde{g}g)^{-1}(\tilde{g}s'),x)]=[\tilde{g}g, (g^{-1}\tilde{g}^{-1}\tilde{g}s',x)]=\tilde{g}[g,(g^{-1}s',x)]=\tilde{g}\varphi(s').$
The map $\varphi$ is indeed an inverse to $(id_G\cdot pr_W)$: We calculate $$(id_G\cdot pr_W)\varphi(s')=(id_G\cdot pr_W)[g,(g^{-1}s', x)]=gg^{-1}s'=s'.$$ Conversely, we calculate $\varphi(id_G\cdot pr_W)[g,(w,x)]=\varphi(gw).$ We know $f'(gw)=gf'(w)=g [1,x] = [g,x],$ so by definition $\varphi(gw) = [g, (g^{-1}(gw),x)]=[g,(w,x)].$ Both $(id_G\cdot pr_W)$ and $\varphi$ preserve the stratifold structure, thus this is an isomorphism of $G$-stratifolds.
The diagram commutes: If $f'(s')=[g,x]$, then $(id_G\times \tilde{f})\varphi (s')=(id_G\times \tilde{f})[g,(g^{-1}s',x)]=[g,x].$
[**2.** ]{}The composition $$\begin{aligned}
\psi \; ind_\alpha: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X) & \to & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X), \\
{}[S,f] & \mapsto [\underbrace{ind_\alpha(S)}_{S'}, \underbrace{ind_\alpha(f)}_{f'}] \mapsto & [\tilde{W}, \tilde{f}]\end{aligned}$$ is equal to the identity on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)$ since $$\xymatrix{
S \ar[rr]^{ s\mapsto ([1,s], f(s))}_{\simeq} \ar[dr]_{f}& & \tilde{W} \ar[dl]^{\tilde{f}}\\
& X &
}$$ commutes, all appearing maps are $H$-equivariant, and the horizontal map is an isomorphism of $H$-stratifolds. (Remember that $\tilde{W}=\{(w,x)\in W\times X | f'(w) =[1,x] \in G\times_\alpha X\}$ and $W=f'^{-1}(\alpha(H)\times_\alpha X)=\alpha(H)\times_\alpha f^{-1}(X)=\alpha(H)\times_\alpha S$.)
The horizontal map is injective: $([1,s],f(s))=([1,s'], f(s'))$ implies $[1,s]=[1,s']$ and $f(s)=f(s')$. This implies $s'=hs$ with $h\in ker(\alpha)$, so $f(s)=hf(s)$. But $ker(\alpha)$ operates freely on $X$, so $h=1$, thus $s'=s$.
It is surjective: If $(w,x)\in \tilde{W}$, then $w=[1,s]\in W$, and for $f(s)\in X$ we have $[1,f(s)]=[1,x]\in G\times_\alpha X$. This means there is an $h\in ker(\alpha)$ such that $hf(s)=x$, or equivalently $f(hs)=x$. We see that $hs$ is mapped to $(w,x)$: $hs \mapsto ([1,hs],f(hs))=([\alpha(h),s],x)=([1,s],x)=(w,x).$
It is $H$-equivariant: For $\tilde{h}\in H$ we obtain the map $\tilde{h}s\mapsto ([1,\tilde{h}s],f(\tilde{h}s))=([\alpha(\tilde{h}),s],\tilde{h} f(s))=\tilde{h}.([1,s],f(s)).$ The horizontal map $S\to \tilde{W}$ is open: The projection $\tilde{W}\to W$ is a local homeomorphism, so $S\to \tilde{W}$ is open if $S\to\tilde{W}\to W$ is open. But this is the map $s\mapsto([1,s],f(s))\mapsto[1,s]$, which is open since $W$ has the quotient topology. The map obviously respects the stratifold structure, so it is an isomorphism of $G$-stratifolds. The diagram clearly commutes: $\tilde{f}([1,s],f(s))=f(s)$.
[**Step 2:** ]{}The map $ind_\alpha$ satisfies properties a), b) and c):
a\) We check the compatibility with the boundary operator in the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence. Let $X=X_1\cup X_2$ be an $H$-space, with $X_1$ and $X_2$ $H$-invariant. Note that $ind_\alpha (X_1\cup X_2)=ind_\alpha (X_1) \cup ind_\alpha (X_2)$ and $ind_\alpha (X_1\cap X_2)=ind_\alpha (X_1) \cap ind_\alpha (X_2)$ because $X_1$ and $X_2$ are $H$-invariant. The diagram $$\xymatrix{
H^H_n(X_1\cup X_2) \ar[rr]^{ind_\alpha} \ar[dd]^{d_H} & & H^G_n(ind_\alpha (X_1) \cup ind_\alpha (X_2)) \ar[dd]^{d_G}\\
&&\\
H^H_{n-1}(X_1\cap X_2) \ar[rr]^{ind_\alpha} & & H^G_{n-1}(ind_\alpha (X_1) \cap ind_\alpha (X_2))
}$$ commutes since we can choose the $G$-invariant map $\rho_G$ on the right (used for the definition of $d_G$) to be $ind_\alpha(\rho_H)$, with $\rho_H$ the $H$-invariant map on the left side. (The construction is independent of the choice of $\rho$.)
b\) The diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_n(X) \ar[r]^-{ind_\alpha}
\ar`u[rrr]`[rrr]^{ind_{\beta\alpha}}
& {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_n(G\times _\alpha X) \ar[r]^-{ind_\beta}
& {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^K_n(K\times_\beta G \times_\alpha X) \ar[r]^-{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^K_n(f_1)}
& {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^K_n(K\times_{\beta\alpha} X),
}$$ where $f_1=id_K\cdot \beta \times_\alpha id_X: K\times_\beta G \times_\alpha X\to K\times_{\beta\alpha} X$ is the natural $K$-homeomorphism, commutes if $[K\times_\beta G\times_\alpha S, f_1(id_K\times_\beta id_G\times_\alpha f)]=[K\times_{\beta\alpha} S, id_K\times_{\beta\alpha} f].$ This is true since the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
K\times_\beta G\times_\alpha S \ar[dr]_{f_1(id_K\times_\beta id_G\times_\alpha f)} \ar[rr]^{\simeq}_{id_K\cdot \beta \times_\alpha id_S} & & K\times_{\beta\alpha} S \ar[dl]^{id_K\times_{\beta\alpha} f}\\
& K\times_{\beta\alpha} X &
}$$ commutes, all appearing maps are $K$-equivariant, and the horizontal map is an isomorphism of $K$-stratifolds. The $K$-equivariance of the maps is immediate. The horizontal map is the natural $K$-homeomorphism $ind_\beta ind_\alpha(S)\xrightarrow{\sim} ind_{\beta\alpha}(S), (k,g,s)\mapsto(k\beta(g),s).$ It obviously respects the stratifold structure. The commutativity of the diagram is clear: We calculate $(id_K\times_{\beta\alpha}f)(id_K\cdot\beta\times_\alpha id_S)(k,g,s)=(k\beta(g),f(s))=f_1(id_K\times_\beta id_G\times_\alpha f)(k,g,s).$\
c) The diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_n(X) \ar@/_/[d]_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_n(f_2)} \ar@/^/[d]^{ind_c(g)}\\
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_n(G\times_{c(g)} X),
}$$ where $f_2:X\to G\times_{c(g)}X, x\mapsto (1,g^{-1}x)$ is a $G$-homeomorphism, commutes since the following diagram commutes, all appearing maps are $G$-equivariant, and the horizontal map is an isomorphism of $G$-stratifolds:$$\xymatrix{
S \ar[dr]_{f_2 f} \ar[rr]^{\simeq}_{s\mapsto[1,g^{-1}s]} & & G\times_{c(g)} S \ar[dl]^{id_G\times_{c(g)}f}\\
& G\times_{c(g)} X &
}$$ The horizontal map is the $G$-homeomorphism $S\to G\times_{c(g)} S, s\mapsto [1,g^{-1}s]$ which obviously respects the stratifolds structure. The maps are $G$-equivariant since $f_2$ is $G$-equivariant. The commutativity of the diagram is clear: We calculate $(id_G\times_{c(g)} f)(1,g^{-1}s)=[1,f(g^{-1}s)]=[1,g^{-1}f(s)]=f_2 f(s).$
We have shown that our construction yields $G$-homology theories with an induction structure, thus equivariant homology theories. In the next sections we study some of the homology theories thus obtained in detail.
Homology theories defined by stratifolds with arbitrary proper $G$-Operations {#sec4}
=============================================================================
We use the $G$-comparison theorem and the cone construction, refining the procedure employed in the analysis of usual stratifold homology theories. In order to use the $G$-comparison theorem, we need to compute the coefficients for all homogeneous $G$-spaces, thus for all $G/H$ with $H\leq G$. The induction map applied to the inclusion $\alpha: H\hookrightarrow G$ gives an isomorphism $$ind_\alpha: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(\underbrace{ind_\alpha *}_{G/H}).$$ This allows us to reduce our analysis of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}$ to the inspection of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)$ for all $H\leq G$.
The cone construction only works for actions of finite groups $H$, since otherwise the trivial action on the cone point is not proper any more. So we only obtain complete answers in the case of finite groups $G$ or proper $G$-CW-complexes $X$.
Let $H$ be a finite group. By forgetting the $H$-action, we get a map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)$. This is well-defined since the finiteness of $H$ implies that an $H$-cocompact stratifold is compact. The map is split surjective since we can endow each stratifold $S$ with the trivial $H$-action (which is proper since $H$ is finite). Thus we get a refinement of usual homology theories defined via stratifolds.
Let us now look in detail at the equivariant homology theories defined by different bordism classes ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$.
${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}=All$, “all stratifolds”
----------------------------------------------------------
Let $H$ be a finite group. We obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{All,n}(*)=0$ for all $n\geq 0$.
Let $[S]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{All,n}(*).$ We can “cone off” $S$ and extend the given $H$-action to the cone by setting $CS=S\times [0,1]/S\times \{1\}$, $h(x,t):=(hx,t).$ Then $[S]=[\partial CS]=0.$
Let $G$ be a finite group. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,n}(G/H)=0$ for all $H\leq G$ and for all $n$, thus ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,*}=0$ on all $G$-CW-complexes $X$.
The induction structure gives us ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,n}(G/H)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{All,n}(*)=0$, thus the coefficients are all trivial. Since there is a map to the zero homology theory, we can use the comparison theorem to obtain the fact that the homology theory we have constructed is in fact the zero homology theory.
\[homgroupszero\] Let $G$ be a discrete group, and let $H$ be a finite subgroup of $G$. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,n}(G/H)=0$ for all $n\geq 0$.
${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,n}(G/H)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{All,n}(*)=0.$
Let $G$ be a discrete group, and let $X$ be a proper $G$-CW-complex. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,*}(X)=0$.
A proper $G$-CW-complex $X$ is built up of cells of the form $G/H\times D^i$ with $H$ a finite subgroup of $G$, $i\geq 0$. So one can use the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence to reduce the calculation of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,*}(X)$ to the calculation of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{All,n}(G/H)$ for all finite subgroups $H$ of $G$, for $n\geq 0$. But these homology groups are all zero by Corollary \[homgroupszero\].
${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}=$ “Euler stratifolds”
--------------------------------------------------------
Recall the following definition:
An $n$-dimensional stratifold $S$ is called *regular* if for all $0\leq i \leq n$ and for all $x\in f_i({\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_i)$ there is an open neighborhood $U_x$ of $x$ in $f_i({\ensuremath{\text{\emph{\r{S}}}}\xspace}_i)$ diffeomorphic to the open $i$-ball $B^i$ such that there is a diffeomorphism of stratifolds $\psi: r_i^{-1}(U_x){\ensuremath{\xrightarrow{\sim}}\xspace}B^{i}\times F$, with $F$ a stratifold whose $0$-stratum $F_0$ is a single point. Here $r_i$ is the retract given by the collars.
A regular stratifold $S$ is called an *Euler stratifold* if for all $x\in S$ these $F$ have the property that the complement of the $0$-stratum has even Euler characteristic: $\chi(F\setminus F_0)\equiv 0 \mod 2$.
An $n$-dimensional stratifold $T$ with boundary is called regular if its interior $S$ is regular, and Euler if its interior $S$ is Euler.
We denote the homology theory defined by the class of Euler stratifolds by $Eh$. We obtain:
Let $H$ be a finite group. Then $$Eh^H_{n}(*)\cong {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$$ for all $n\geq 0$.
Let $[S]\in Eh^H_{n}(*)$. If $\chi(S)\equiv 0 \mod 2$, we can cone off $S$ as above, obtaining $[S]=[\partial CS]=0$ [@diplomarbeit Lemma 7]. If $\chi(S)\equiv 1 \mod 2$ we endow the one-point space $pt$ with the trivial $H$-operation, making it a $0$-dimensional $H$-stratifold, and then we cone off $S\cup pt$, which is possible since $\chi(S\cup pt)\equiv 0 \mod 2$. We obtain $[S\cup pt]=[\partial(C(S\cup pt))]=0$, and so $[S]=[pt]$. Since $\chi(\partial S)=0$ for all Euler stratifolds $S$, we know that $pt$ cannot be zero bordant [@diplomarbeit Satz 2]. Thus $Eh^H_n(*)=\{0,[pt]\}\cong {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$. (Equivalently, we know that we have a surjection onto $Eh_{n}(*)\cong {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$.)
Let $G$ be a discrete group, and let $H$ be a finite subgroup of $G$. Then $$Eh^G_{n}(G/H)\cong {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$$ for all $n\geq 0$.
$Eh^G_{n}(G/H)\cong Eh^H_{n}(*) \cong {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$.
Note that with this information, one can calculate $Eh^G_*(X)$ for all proper $G$-CW-complexes $X$ since these are built up of cells of the form $G/H\times D^i$ with $H$ a finite subgroup of $G$, $i\geq 0$. We can use the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence to compute $Eh^G_*(X)$ since we know $Eh^G_{n}(G/H)$ for all finite subgroups $H$ of $G$, for all $n\geq 0$. In particular, if $G$ is finite one knows $Eh^G_*(X)$ for all $G$-CW-complexes $X$.
${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}=$ “oriented singular homology stratifolds”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An $n$-dimensional stratifold $S$ belongs to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ if and only if its top-stratum $S^n$ is oriented, $G$ operates orientation preserving, and its “codimension-1”-stratum $S^{n-1}$ is empty. The homology theory without $G$-action defined by these stratifolds is singular homology with ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$-coefficients, $H_*(-;{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace})$ [@kreck]. In the case of a $G$-action on the stratifolds, we obtain the following result:
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ be the class of “oriented singular homology stratifolds” and let $H$ be a finite group. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\cong \begin{cases} A(H) \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else. }\end{cases}$$ Here $A(H)$ denotes the Burnside ring of $H$.
Let $n>0$. For $[S]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)$, the cone $CS$ over $S$ again has an orientation on the top-stratum $S^n\times I$ and the codimension-1-stratum is $S^{n-1}\times I=\emptyset \times I = \emptyset$. We can define the action of $H$ on $CS=S\times [0,1]/S\times \{1\}$ as above by $h(x,t):=(hx,t).$ The $H$-stratifold $CS$ thus obtained gives a zero bordism of $S$: $[S]=[\partial CS]=0$. Thus for $n>0$ we have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)=0$.
Now let $n=0$ and let $[S]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},0}(*)$. $S$ is an oriented $0$-dimensional stratifold, thus an oriented $0$-dimensional manifold, with $G$-action. The cone $CS$ cannot be used as a zero bordism, since it does not fulfill the requirement “codimension-1-stratum empty”: its $0$-stratum is the cone point $\overline{S\times\{1\}}$. A bordism can only be given by an oriented $1$-dimensional stratifold with boundary whose $0$-stratum is empty - and this is nothing but a $1$-dimensional oriented smooth manifold with boundary. Thus we know that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},0}(*)=\Omega^H_0(*;{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace})$, and this is known to be $A(H)$ [@stong1970].
Let $G$ be a discrete group, and let $H$ be a finite subgroup of $G$. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)\cong \begin{cases} A(H) \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else. }\end{cases}$$ Here $A(H)$ denotes the Burnside ring of $H$.
$${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)\cong {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\cong \begin{cases} A(H) \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else. }\end{cases}$$
Note that with this information, one can calculate ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ for all proper $G$-CW-complexes $X$ since these are built up of cells of the form $G/H\times D^i$ with $H$ a finite subgroup of $G$, $i\geq 0$. We can use the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence to compute ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ since we know ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)$ for all finite subgroups $H$ of $G$, for all $n\geq 0$. In particular, if $G$ is finite one knows ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ for all $G$-CW-complexes $X$.
${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}=$ “non-oriented singular homology stratifolds”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now an $n$-dimensional stratifold $S$ belongs to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ if and only if its “codimension-1”-stratum $S^{n-1}$ is empty. There are no orientation requirements. Without $G$-action the homology theory defined by these stratifolds is singular homology with ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-coefficients, $H_*(-;{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace})$ [@kreck]. In the case of a $G$-action on the stratifolds, we obtain:
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ be the class of “non-oriented singular homology stratifolds” and let $H$ be a finite group. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\cong \begin{cases} V \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else, }\end{cases}$$ where $V$ is a ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-vector space with base $\{ H/K \}$, where $K$ belongs to a complete set of conjugacy class representatives of the collection of subgroups of $H$ having odd index in their normalizer.
Let $n>0$. As above, any stratifold $[S]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)$ can be coned off, since $CS^n=S^{n-1}\times I=\emptyset$, and we can extend the $G$-operation to $CS$. So ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)=0$.
Let $n=0$ and let $ [S]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},0}(*)$. Again a bordism cannot be given by the cone, only by a $1$-dimensional smooth manifold with boundary. Thus ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},0}(*)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}\xspace}^H_0(*)$, and this is calculated in [@stong1970 Prop. 13.1] to be the ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-vector space $V$ described above.
[**Remark:** ]{}In [@stong1970] it is noted that there is a one to one correspondence between the collection of conjugacy classes of subgroups $K\leq H$ with $[N_H(K):K]$ odd and the collection of conjugacy classes of subgroups $L\leq H$ admitting no nontrivial homomorphism to ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$.
Let $G$ be a discrete group, and let $H$ be a finite subgroup of $G$. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)\cong \begin{cases} V \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else, }\end{cases}$$ where $V$ is a ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}/2}\xspace}$-vector space with base $\{ H/K \}$, where $K$ belongs to a complete set of conjugacy class representatives of the collection of subgroups of $H$ having odd index in their normalizer.
$${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)\cong {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^H_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(*)\cong \begin{cases} V \text{ if }n=0\\ 0 \text{ else. }\end{cases}$$
Note that with this information, one can calculate ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ for all proper $G$-CW-complexes $X$ since these are built up of cells of the form $G/H\times D^i$ with $H$ a finite subgroup of $G$, $i\geq 0$. We can use the Mayer-Vietoris-sequence to compute ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ since we know ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(G/H)$ for all finite subgroups $H$ of $G$, for all $n\geq 0$. In particular, if $G$ is finite one knows ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^G_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},*}(X)$ for all $G$-CW-complexes $X$.
Possible further developments {#sec5}
=============================
One could continue this analysis for any other bordism class of stratifolds one is interested in. (The standard procedure would be to have ideas of how to calculate the bordism groups in the non-equivariant case, and to then generalize these to the equivariant setting.)
It would be more satisfying to solve the above problem completely also for discrete $G$ and non-proper $G$-CW-complexes $X$, but at the moment I do not see a promising approach. One might try to do something for actions of groups $G$ which are direct products of a finite group $F$ and an infinite group $Z$ without any nontrivial finite subgroups. Maybe one could apply the methods of Section \[sec2\] to the action of $Z$ (which is free since it is proper and $Z$ has no finite subgroups which could serve as isotropy groups other than the trivial group) and the methods of Section \[sec4\] to $F$ and then combine the results. All finitely generated abelian groups are of the type described above for which this method might work.
As already mentioned, it would also be interesting to consider restrictions on the $G$-operations on the stratifolds other than “free and proper” and “proper”. (One has to be very careful in adapting the induction structure to these more general cases and probably needs additional requirements, somenthing like $\alpha({\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace}_H)\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace}_G$ if one has the condition “with isotropy in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}\xspace}$”, maybe more.)
It would also be interesting to extend the analysis to actions of higher dimensional Lie groups $G$. I think that the material in Sections \[sec1\] and \[sec2\] can be extended to this more general case, but this has to be carefully checked. One could define $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}\xspace}^{G}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace},n}(X)= & \{ [S,f]\; | & S \text{ ($n + \dim G$)-dim.~cocomp.~$G$-stratifold in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}\xspace}$ } \\
& & \text{with free proper $G$-action, $f:S\to X$ $G$-equiv.}\}\end{aligned}$$ and see if all arguments used in the proofs are still valid.
[Web01]{}
Glen E. Bredon. . Academic Press, New York, 1972. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 46.
Glen E. Bredon. , volume 139 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
P. E. Conner and E. E. Floyd. . Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, N. F., Band 33. Academic Press Inc., Publishers, New York, 1964.
Matthias Kreck. Differential algebraic topology. Lecture Notes Universität Heidelberg, 2002.
Wolfgang L[ü]{}ck. Chern characters for proper equivariant homology theories and applications to [$K$]{}- and [$L$]{}-theory. , 543:193–234, 2002.
Richard S. Palais. On the existence of slices for actions of non-compact [L]{}ie groups. , 73:295–323, 1961.
R. E. Stong. . Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 103. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1970.
Tammo tom Dieck. , volume 8 of [*de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics*]{}. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1987.
Tammo tom Dieck. . de Gruyter Lehrbuch. \[de Gruyter Textbook\]. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1991.
Julia Weber. Eulerhomologie. Diplomarbeit Universität Heidelberg, 2001.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '[ ]{} Dirac in 1931 gave a beautiful argument for the quantization of electric charge, which required only the existence in the universe of one magnetic monopole, because gauge invariance of the interaction between the pole and any charge could hold only if the product of the charge and the pole strength were quantized in half-integer multiples of the reduced Planck constant. However, if the photon had a nonzero mass, implying exponential decrease of the flux out of an electric charge, then Dirac’s argument might seem to fail. We demonstrate that the result still should hold. The key point is that magnetic charge, unlike electric charge, cannot be screened, so that on any surface enclosing the pole Dirac’s string, or equally the Wu-Yang gauge shift, must be present, and to make either of these invisible to charged particles the quantization condition is required.'
author:
- Alfred Scharff Goldhaber
- Ricardo Heras
title: Dirac Quantization Condition Holds with Nonzero Photon Mass
---
Introduction
============
Dirac’s 1931 paper [@1], best-known for giving only the second prediction of a new particle, the anti-electron or positron (the first being Einstein’s introduction of the quantum of light, the photon [@2]), was devoted largely to consideration of a hypothetical particle, a magnetic monopole, still undiscovered today. By examining the interaction between such a pole and an ordinary electric charge, he deduced that the product of the electric and magnetic charges must be quantized in integer multiples of the smallest quantum of angular momentum, $\hbar/2$. There is a dramatic implication: the existence of even one monopole in the universe would imply the quantization of all electric charges!
Later authors [@3; @4] noted that Dirac’s result could be obtained from quantization of the angular momentum in the electromagnetic field resulting from the crossed electric and magnetic fields of charge and pole. However, if the photon had a nonzero mass, the exponential falloff of the static electric field from the charged particle would invalidate that second form of the argument: the electromagnetic angular momentum would decline in magnitude with increasing distance between charge and pole, so that its magnitude could not have a fixed, quantized value. This led to a number of papers [@5; @6] saying that nonzero photon mass is incompatible with Dirac’s quantization condition. Here we show that even though the angular-momentum quantization argument fails under these circumstances, Dirac’s gauge-invariance considerations continue to hold, and therefore the quantization condition remains valid. Our analysis makes use of the ‘modern’ method of introducing photon mass, electromagnetic coupling to an electrically charged scalar field, introduced independently by Higgs [@7], Englert and Brout [@8], and Hagen, Guralnik, and Kibble [@9] in the early 1960s. As we shall see, if the photon mass be introduced in the ‘old-fashioned’ Proca way, as a fixed constant, then gauge invariance manifestly is violated, but nevertheless the Dirac argument still holds.
The Dirac argument
==================
In electrodynamics potential functions are introduced, a scalar potential $V$ and a vector potential ${\bf A}$, with the electric field taking the form ${\bf E}=-\nabla V-\partial {\bf A}/\partial t$, and the magnetic field ${\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}.$ Because of the well-known fact that the divergence of the curl of a vector field must vanish, one might think that this would preclude the possibility of magnetic monopoles, but Dirac easily overrode this concern, describing the pole as one end of a “fictitious” singular string of magnetic flux, where the magnitude of the flux would be just such as to render it invisible to charged particles. With this ingenious description of the pole, Dirac derived his quantization condition. In creating his apparently singular description, Dirac invented the concept of ‘fiber bundles’ about five years before mathematicians discovered it [@10], of course in complete ignorance of Dirac’s work.
A less singular way to describe Dirac’s argument, along the lines of modern fiber bundle theory, was presented by Wu and Yang [@11], who introduced two singular vector potentials, one with its singular line in the direction of the south pole of a sphere centered on the monopole, whose potential is used for the northern hemisphere centered on the pole, while the second vector potential has its singularity in the direction of the north pole, and is used to describe the magnetic field in the southern hemisphere. In the region around the equator where both potentials are nonsingular, there is a gauge transformation connecting them, [*provided*]{} the product of electric and magnetic charges is quantized as described earlier. The transformation function is $e^{in\phi}$, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle about the polar direction, and $n$ is twice the number of quantum units in the product of electric and magnetic charges. Only if the function is continuous on the circle, i.e., only if $n$ is an integer, is this an acceptable gauge transformation, and hence only in that case is the theory well defined. For Dirac, with his singular string, the quantization condition is necessary to make the string invisible. This means that a charged-particle wave diffracted around the string would go forward exactly as if no string were present.
Giving mass to the photon
=========================
As envisioned by de Broglie and most fully articulated by Proca [@12], a mass $\mu$ is provided to the electromagnetic field by adding to the Lagrangian a term proportional to $\mu^2({\bf A}^2-V^2)$. This yields terms proportional to $\mu^2$ in the equations of motion, which mean that for a free photon the relation between energy and momentum is given by $\hbar\omega=\sqrt{(\hbar c{\bf k})^2+(\hbar\mu c)^2}$, where $\omega$ is the circular frequency of the photon, ${\bf k}$ is its wave vector, and $\mu$ is the mass expressed in units of inverse length. A trouble with this formulation is that it breaks the gauge invariance of electrodynamics, imposing the Lorenz gauge on the electromagnetic potential functions. With time it has become clearer and clearer that gauge invariance is an important principle, and in fact where it is relevant that invariance is necessary for consistency. The violation of gauge invariance implied by a constant photon mass goes beyond the imposition of the Lorenz gauge: the 4-vector potential now acts as a ‘current’ that generates additional observable electromagnetic fields (Proca’s four-potential involves an additional degree of freedom [@13]).
The modern way to maintain gauge invariance, while accommodating a nonzero photon mass, is through a mechanism introduced by Higgs [@7], Englert and Brout [@8], and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble [@9], independently in the early 1960’s. The Higgs mechanism is one in which gauge transformations act multiplicatively on a field carrying electric charge, or a set of charges. For the Abelian case (which is what interests us here), this mechanism is equivalent to the (additive) Stückelberg mechanism [@14], in which the gradient of a scalar field is added to the vector potential (the Stückelberg model can be considered as the free Abelian Higgs model [@15]). What we shall see below, however, is that even the old-fashioned constant mass term, $\mu^2({\bf A}^2-V^2)$, allows the Wu-Yang mapping to proceed, and hence leaves the theory consistent.
A new, electrically charged scalar field is introduced, whose action includes an energy density which is minimized for a nonzero value of the field magnitude (the vacuum expectation value or “vev" of the field). For the covariant derivative of this Higgs field to vanish in the presence of some background gauge field configuration, the four-vector potential must be the four-gradient of the phase $\alpha$ of a scalar phase factor $e^{i\alpha}$. Thus we see that the photon mass is given by the vev of the Higgs field multiplied by the electric charge of that field: Here the point is that if the vector potential is the four-gradient of a scalar function, $A_\mu=\partial_\mu\Phi$, then the associated field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ vanishes, so that this is a trivial gauge field, and should be unobservable. For that to be correct, the covariant derivative of the Higgs field $H$ \[i.e., $(\partial_\mu -iqA_\mu)H$\] must vanish, which will be true if the spatial dependence of $H$ is given by $H=H_0e^{iq\Phi}$, and of course $H_0$ is the vev of $H$.
The important difference between the Proca mass mechanism and the Higgs mass mechanism is that the Higgs field is a dynamical field, and as a result affects the electric field of a charge and the magnetic field of a pole in different ways. For the electric field, one has exactly the same exponential fall-off of the electric field for either mechanism. The Higgs field screens the electric charge, so that in an arbitrarily large sphere centered on a charged particle the total charge is zero. This has been called the ‘local charge’ which is measured by the electric flux coming out of the region. On the other hand, in response to an applied magnetic field, the particle wave function suffers a relative phase shift, when taking two different paths, equal to the product of the charge and the enclosed magnetic flux between the two paths.[@16] The charge thus measured has been called the ‘Aharonov-Bohm charge’ [@17] which does [*not*]{} vanish even though the local charge is zero. The reason is that as the particle moves, the screening charge simply rearranges itself, with no net flow of current, so that only the particle is sensitive to the magnetic vector potential.
We now are ready to discuss how the Higgs field would affect a magnetic monopole. Because the Higgs field does not carry magnetic charge, it cannot screen a pole. However, as Dirac showed in his original paper, a charged-particle wave function, of which the Higgs field is an example, must have a line of zeros emanating from the pole. Because in the vicinity of that line the field departs from its vev, there must be an energy diverging linearly with radius associated with this configuration. The only way to truncate this divergence would be to find an antipole at some finite distance from the pole, so that the line of zeros would be finite in extent. The magnetic flux emanating from the monopole might still be spherically symmetric. If so, the magnetic field of the pole is not screened, but magnetic charge is *[confined]{}, because there must always be an anti-pole some finite distance from the pole. The argument just given, that monopoles are confined in the presence of a Higgs field because they have lines of zeros of the Higgs field coming out of them, was first presented by Nielsen and Olesen [@18], who used this as a ‘dual model’ for ‘electric’ confinement of quarks. Note that an immediate consequence of the above discussion is that the product of the magnetic charge with the electric charge of the Higgs field must be quantized. This leaves open the question of whether the charge of any other particle must be quantized.*
Under the circumstances just described, the magnetic field of the pole is the same as it would have been if the Higgs field were not present, so of course the quantization condition should hold exactly as before. However, there is another possibility, first discussed by Abrikosov [@19] for magnetic fields interacting with superconductors: the Higgs field, as a macroscopic field with an electric charge coupling, includes as an example the wave function of a superconductor. Depending on the details of the dynamics, the line of zeros of the Higgs field can also be the center of a tube carrying the total magnetic flux emanating from the pole. In this case, Dirac’s argument still applies: choosing the line of zeros of the Higgs field to be the $z$ axis, we let the vector potential take the form ${\bf A} = B{\hat{z}}\times {\bf r}/2,$ with $B=4g/R^2.$ Outside the radius $R$ of the tube, we may set ${\bf A}=0$, which clearly assures that its curl, and hence $\bf B$, vanishes. The gauge transformation on a charged-particle wave function at that boundary then is given by $e^{i\alpha}=e^{iq\Phi\phi/2\pi}$, which requires for consistency $q\Phi=2\pi n $ (with $q$ the charge of the particle), precisely the Dirac quantization condition! (note $\Phi=4\pi g$).
We see that, regardless of the form of the distribution of magnetic flux out of the pole, we get the same quantization condition. There is an important point to note here: In the presence of screening, the net electric flux out of a charge goes to zero exponentially with distance from the charge. Thus, if we want to measure the charge by its long-range electric field, that charge is zero. Stated differently, because the polarization of the medium completely compensates the charge of the particle, the ‘local charge’ of the particle is zero. On the other hand, if we imagine carrying the charge around a region of magnetic flux. its wave function should acquire a phase proportional to the product of charge times flux. This phase would be observable unless that product were quantized. So to make the flux invisible, it must take a quantized value, and that means the product of charge and pole strength must be quantized. The phase in question is called the Aharonov-Bohm phase [@19], after their proposal that, for arbitrary value of the flux, there would be an observable effect from interference between two parts of a wave, one passing to the right of the flux and the other passing to the left of the flux. Note that this AB phase is unaffected by the presence of electrical screening in the medium through which the charge passes, and hence is a measure of what may be called the ‘Aharonov-Bohm’ charge of the particle, in other words the charge at the core, unaffected by the screening supplied by the medium. Thus, even if the local charge measured by the net electric flux out of the particle vanishes because of screening, the AB charge is unaffected, and continues to be observable.
After all this, we should return to the original Proca mass term, and ask if it really would give different results. The Proca mass also can only attenuate electric fields by, effectively, supplying screening charge. It cannot attenuate the magnetic field of a monopole, because even with the Proca term there is no divergence of magnetic fields, and hence no possibility of screening magnetic pole strength. Expressed differently, the Proca term (or for that matter the Higgs coupling) [*could*]{} attenuate the circulating magnetic field around a wire, but not the radial field of a monopole. This makes it tempting to say that the gauge-invariance-violating Proca mass would give the same result as the Higgs field, i.e., the Dirac condition. Let’s investigate this.
Imagine once again that the magnetic flux of the monopole were restricted to a tube coming out of the pole. In the absence of the charged Higgs field, a constant photon mass $\mu$ would produce exponential decay of the field with radius about the center of the tube. However, because the divergence of the magnetic field vanishes, the total magnetic flux must be the same through a sphere of any radius as for the massless case. Thus, to have an everywhere non-singular vector potential one must again introduce the Wu-Yang construction [@11], and the Wu-Yang gauge transformation can only be a pure gauge transformation if the product of the magnetic charge and any electric charge obeys $4\pi qg=2n\pi$. This conclusion is independent of whether the magnetic flux is isotropic about the monopole, or concentrated in a tube originating at the pole.
Thus, the conclusions we obtained by thinking in terms of a Higgs field work just as well for a Proca mass. The primacy of gauge invariance in modern theoretical physics is strikingly verified by these considerations, and in particular insures the Dirac quantization condition, with or without nonzero photon mass. To summarize, no matter how the flux out of the monopole is distributed, its total value through any closed surface centered on the monopole is $4\pi g$. For the vector potential to be nonsingular on that surface, there must be a closed curve on the surface across which the Wu-Yang gauge transformation is implemented. This can only be a gauge transformation on all charged-particle wave functions if the Dirac quantization condition holds. Of course, though Dirac’s string construction is singular, it also gives a valid description of the gauge field, and the string also must extend as far as the flux, so that formally there is no net flux through any surface surrounding the pole.
This work is dedicated to Professor C.N. Yang on his 95th birthday anniversary.
P. A. M. Dirac, [Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **133**, 60 (1931)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1931.0130). A. Einstein, [Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) **322**, 132 (1905)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053220607). M. N. Saha, [Ind. J. Phys. **10**, 145 (1936)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02838849); M. N. Saha, [Phys. Rev. **75**, 309 (1949)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.75.1968). H. A. Wilson, [Phys. Rev. **75**, 308 (1949)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.75.309). A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, [Rev. Mod. Phys. **43**, 277 (1971)](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.43.277).\
Note: The alert reader will observe that this puts the first author of the present paper on both sides of the argument, which means we now are saying there was an error in the discussion by Goldhaber and Nieto. We confirm here the earlier statement that rotational invariance no longer can be used to derive the quantization condition, but the statement that Dirac’s gauge- invariance argument fails was ill-considered, and our analysis here shows that indeed it still works. A. Y. Ignatiev and G. C. Joshi, [Phys. Rev. D **53**, 984 (1996)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.53.984); A. Y. Ignatiev and G. C. Joshi, [Mod. Phys. Lett. A **11**, 2735 (1996)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732396002733). P. W. Higgs, [ Phys. Lett. **12**, 81 (1964)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9); P. W. Higgs, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **13**, 508 (1964)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508). F. Englert and R. Brout, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **13**, 321 (1964)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321). G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **13**, 585 (1964)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585). H. Whitney, [Annals of Mathematics Second Series, **37**, 645 (1936)](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968482). T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, [Phys. Rev. D **12**, 3845 (1975)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.12.3845). A. Proca, [J. Phys. Radium. **7**, 347 (1936)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jphysrad:0193600708034700). E. Adelberger, G. Dvali, and A. Gruzinov, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ****98****, 010402 (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010402). E. C. G. Stückelberg, [Helv. Phys. Acta [**11**]{}, 225 (1938)](http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-110852). Ö. Akarsu, M. Arik, and N. Katirci, [Found. Phys. **47,** 769 (2017)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-016-0059-y). Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, [Phys. Rev. **115**, 485 (1959)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485). A. S. Goldhaber and S. A. Kivelson, [Phys. Lett. B **255**, 445 (1991)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(91)90792-O). H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, [Nucl. Phys. B **61**, 45 (1973)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(73)90350-7); B. Zumino, in *Renormalization and Invariance in Quantum Field Theory*, NATO Adv. Study Institute, Capri, 1973, Ed. R. Caianiello, Plenum 367 (1974). For a review on models of quark confinement, see G.’t Hooft in Proceedings of International Symposium pn$\Lambda$50, *The Jubilee of the Sakata Model*, 2006. Eds M. Harada et al, Progr. Theor. Phys. Suppl. **167**, 144 (2007). A. A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys. JETP **5** 1174 (1957).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The MiniBooNE neutrino oscillation experiment at Fermilab uses 1520 8-inch PMTs: 1197 PMTs are Hamamatsu model R1408 and the rest are model R5912. All of the PMTs were tested to qualify for inclusion in the detector, sorted according to their charge and time resolutions and dark rates. Seven PMTs underwent additional low light level tests. The relative detection efficiency as a function of incident angle for seven additional PMTs was measured. Procedures and results are presented. PACS numbers: 85.60.Ha, 14.60.Pq Keywords: phototube, photomultiplier, MiniBooNE, R1408, R5912'
address: 'Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0708, USA'
author:
- 'Andrew O. Bazarko for the BooNE Collaboration and the MiniBooNE PMT group [@pmt_group]'
title: Phototube tests in the MiniBooNE experiment
---
Introduction
============
The MiniBooNE experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Lab is searching for neutrino oscillations of the type $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ [@boone]. The experiment is designed to confirm or rule out the evidence for such oscillations presented by the LSND experiment, performed at Los Alamos in 1993-1998 [@lsnd01]. MiniBooNE started running in 2002 and expects to continue taking data at least into 2006. The MiniBooNE detector is a 12 m diameter spherical tank of undoped mineral oil. The main tank volume is defined by an optical barrier and is viewed by 1280 phototubes. Outside the barrier is a veto region viewed by an additional 240 tubes. Of the 1520 phototubes in the MiniBooNE detector, 1197 are inherited from the LSND experiment, and the rest were more recently purchased from Hamamatsu. The LSND tubes are 8 inch (20 cm) in diameter, 9 stage, Hamamatsu R1408 PMTs, while those newly purchased are 8 inch, 10 stage, Hamamatsu model R5912 PMTs.
A schematic and photo of the neutrino detector is shown in Fig. \[fig:detector\]. More details on the tests used to characterize phototubes for installation in the detector can be found in Ref. [@fleming], and more on the angular tests can be found in Ref. [@gladstone].
![Schematic of the MiniBooNE detector with cutaway showing the layout of 8-inch phototubes in the black main region and in the white veto region. The photograph of the two regions was taken while the detector was under construction.[]{data-label="fig:detector"}](boone_tank.ps){width="80mm"}
PMT qualification and characterization
======================================
Prior to installation in the MiniBooNE detector, all PMTs were tested to measure: dark current, time jitter, charge resolution, double pulsing, and pulse shape. Using these characteristics the PMTs were qualified for installation, and grouped into four categories according to time and charge resolution. Each PMT category was randomly distributed in the detector. Those with the worst time resolution but low dark rate were placed in the veto region.
A schematic of a single tube in the test setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:led\]. The bulk of the measurements were performed in a dark room that could accommodate up to 46 phototubes at a time. Tubes were conditioned under high voltage in the dark for 12-24 hours before testing. Dark rates were recorded at a range of operating voltages with no light source. Light from an LED pulser was distributed to each tube with optical fibers, with the end of each fiber positioned about 20 cm from PMT face. The LED wavelength was 450 nm and it flashed with 1 ns pulses at a rate of 1 kHz, producing light levels ranging from 0.5 to 2 photoelectrons (PE) per pulse.
![Schematic of the PMT test setup.[]{data-label="fig:led"}](pmt_test_setup.ps){width="80mm"}
{width="87mm"}
\[fig:global2\]
Operating voltage was selected to obtain a gain of $1.6\times 10^7$ electrons/PE. The gain was determined by dividing the average response — the total charge for all pulses with response above threshold divided by the number of such responses — by the average number of PEs for the given light level, which was determined from the number of null responses.
![Charge and time resolutions of R1408 (LSND) and R5912 (“new”) PMTs prior to selection for installation in MiniBooNE.[]{data-label="fig:global1"}](global_test_1.ps){width="87mm"}
Charge resolution was determined from the width of the one photoelectron peak. Time resolution was taken as the width of the distribution of the time the PMT pulse crossed half maximum of its response to the LED pulse. In studying post-pulsing behavior, the type of most concern for MiniBooNE is so-called early post-pulsing, when the second pulse occurs 8-60 ns after the primary pulse — because data in the experiment are recorded in 100 ns intervals. Such post-pulsing can occur when an electron from the primary cascade is ejected from the first dynode and moves inside the PMT dome before settling back on the first dynode to initiate a secondary cascade. Tubes were found to have such double pulse rates of a few percent. Distributions of these measurements are shown in Figs. \[fig:global2\] and \[fig:global1\].
Low light level tests
=====================
Seven phototubes (three R5912 and four R1408) were measured using very low light levels. The same apparatus as described above was used with the addition of neutral density filters so that the probability for producing 2 PE or more was less than 0.001, or equivalently less than 45 visible PMT response waveforms per 1000 LED triggers.
The two types of PMTs show differences in single photoelectron response. The integrated charge distributions from one R1408 PMT and one R5912 PMT are shown in Figure \[fig:low\_light\]. The three measured R5912 tubes had average charge response of 2.26 pC and average charge distribution width of 0.89 pC, while the four R1408 tubes had average charge of 1.96 pC and average charge width of 1.32 pC. The R1408 tubes have a pronounced high charge tail.
![Integrated charge distributions for single photoelectron response for one R1408 (dc40) and one R5912 (sa1027) PMTs .[]{data-label="fig:low_light"}](int_charge.ps){width="80mm"}
Incident angle dependence
=========================
The apparatus used to measure the dependence of the PMT response on the angle of the incident light consisted of a 150 liter tank with walls coated with the same black paint used in MiniBooNE. A 26 cm diameter window allowed light from outside to illuminate a PMT housed inside the tank, and the PMT could be rotated in pitch and yaw with externally-coupled mechanical controls. An LED light source was directed toward the window from a distance of 3 m so that the entire face of the tube was approximately uniformly illuminated with parallel light. Ambient magnetic fields were suppressed by a $\mu$-metal shield outside the tank. Measurements were performed with and without mineral oil in the tank.
![Top: Response versus incident angle for seven PMTs in mineral oil. Each tube’s response is shown relative to its maximum response, which is assumed to occur at incident angle zero. The symmetric polynomial fit to these data is also shown. Bottom: The percentage deviation of each tube’s response from the fit. []{data-label="fig:angle_1"}](angle_res_1.ps){width="70mm"}
![Response versus incident angle relative to the maximum at zero incidence angle. The prediction based solely on the PMT geometrical shape is compared with the MiniBooNE measurement in oil (tube 19s3 shown) and measurements in air and water from SNO.[]{data-label="fig:angle_4"}](air_water.ps){width="70mm"}
Response measurements were performed by varying the pitch angle from $-180^\circ$ to $+180^\circ$ in $5^\circ$ steps, and four R1408 and three R5912 tubes were tested. Each phototube is rotationally symmetric about its central vertical axis, except for its dynode structure. The R1408 tubes have “venetian blind” dynodes and the R5912 tubes have “box and line” dynodes. No significant differences were observed when the dynodes were oriented horizontally, vertically, or at $45^\circ$ relative to the pitch angle scan. In addition, one tube’s response as a function of yaw angle was compared to its response in pitch angle and no significant difference was observed.
Maximum response was assumed to occur at zero incident angle, and the relative response measured in oil for seven phototubes is shown in Fig. \[fig:angle\_1\]. A symmetric polynomial fits these data well.
The relative response is predominantly due simply to the solid angle subtended by the tube as a function of incident angle. The curve labeled “Hamamatsu PMT drawing” in Fig. \[fig:angle\_4\] indicates the relative response predicted using the PMT shape specified in the Hamamatsu technical drawing, which is nearly hemispherical but a bit more bulbous. The medium surrounding the tube also plays a role: Fig. \[fig:angle\_4\] shows that the relative response progressively increases for air, water, and mineral oil, which is due to the progressively better matching of the medium’s refractive index with that of the PMT glass. (The air and water measurements shown are from the SNO experiment[@sno], which employs R1408 tubes. MiniBooNE’s air measurements agree with those from SNO.) Finally, Fig. \[fig:angle\_4\] indicates the difference that remains between the measured relative response in oil and that predicted due to the PMT geometry. This information is used to model the PMT response in the MiniBooNE detector simulation.
[9]{}
MiniBooNE PMT group: S.J. Brice, L. Bugel, J.M. Conrad, B. Fleming, L. Gladstone, E. Hawker, P. Killewald, J. May, S. McKenney, P. Nienaber, B. Roe, V. Sandberg, D. Smith, M. Wysocki S.J.Brice et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 143 (2005) 115. Neutrino 2004, Paris. LSND, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 112007. B.T. Fleming et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 49 (2002) 984-988. S.J. Brice et al., in preparation. M.T. Lyon, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford 59 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
A [*kernel by properly colored paths*]{} of an arc-colored digraph $D$ is a set $S$ of vertices of $D$ such that (i) no two vertices of $S$ are connected by a properly colored directed path in $D$, and (ii) every vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by a properly colored directed path in $D$. In this paper, we conjecture that every arc-colored digraph with all cycles properly colored has such a kernel and verify the conjecture for unicyclic digraphs, semi-complete digraphs and bipartite tournaments, respectively. Moreover, weaker conditions for the latter two classes of digraphs are given.
[**Keywords:**]{} kernel; kernel by monochromatic (properly colored, rainbow) paths
author:
- |
Yandong Bai $^{a,}$[^1], Shinya Fujita $^{b}$, Shenggui Zhang $^{a}$\
$^{a}$ Department of Applied Mathematics, Northwestern Polytechnical University,\
Xi’an 710129, China\
$^{b}$ International College of Arts and Sciences, Yokohama City University,\
Yokohama 236-0027, Japan
title: 'Kernels by properly colored paths in arc-colored digraphs [^2]'
---
[1.2]{}
Introduction
============
All graphs (digraphs) considered in this paper are finite and simple, i.e., without loops or multiple edges (arcs). For terminology and notation not defined here, we refer the reader to Bang-Jensen and Gutin [@BG2008].
A path (cycle) in a digraph always means a [*directed*]{} path (cycle) and a [*$k$-cycle $C_{k}$*]{} means a cycle of length $k$, where $k\geq 2$ is an integer. For a digraph $D$, define its [*kernel*]{} to be a set $S$ of vertices of $D$ such that (i) no two vertices of $S$ are connected by an arc in $D$, and (ii) every vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by an arc in $D$. This notion was originally introduced by von Neumann and Morgenster [@VM1944] in 1944. Since it has many applications in both cooperative games and logic (see [@Berge1977; @Berge1984]), its existence has been the focus of extensive study, both from the algorithmic perspective and the sufficient condition perspective. Among them, the following results are of special importance. For more results on kernels, we refer the reader to the survey paper [@BG2006] by Boros and Gurvich.
\[thm: finding a kernel is npc\] It is NP-complete to recognize whether a digraph has a kernel or not.
\[thm: kernels in digraphs\] Let $D$ be a digraph. Then the following statements hold:\
$(i)$ if $D$ has no cycle, then $D$ has a unique kernel;\
$(ii)$ if $D$ has no odd cycle, then $D$ has at least one kernel;\
$(iii)$ if $D$ has no even cycle, then $D$ has at most one kernel.
An arc $uv\in A(D)$ is called [*symmetrical*]{} if $vu\in A(D)$. For a cycle $(u_{0},u_{1},\ldots,u_{k-1},u_{0})$, we call two arcs $u_{i}u_{i+2}$ and $u_{i+1}u_{i+3}$ [*crossing consecutive*]{}, where addition is modulo $k$. The following theorem has been proved.
\[thm: kernels under some constraits for odd cycles\] A digraph $D$ has a kernel if one of the following conditions holds:\
$(i)$ each cycle has a symmetrical arc;\
$(ii)$ each odd cycle has two crossing consecutive arcs;\
$(iii)$ each odd cycle has two chords whose heads are adjacent vertices.
It is worth noting that if we replace Condition (ii) in the definition of kernels by every vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by an arc or a path of length 2, then such a vertex subset, named [*quasi-kernel*]{}, always exists. This was proved by Chvátal and Lovász [@CL1974] in 1974. Jacob and Meyniel [@JM1996] furthermore showed in 1996 that every digraph has either a kernel or three quasi-kernels. For more results on quasi-kernels, see [@BC2012; @GPR1991; @HH2008].
Let $D$ be a digraph and $m$ a positive integer. Call $D$ an [*$m$-colored digraph*]{} if its arcs are colored with at most $m$ colors. Denote by $c(uv)$ the color assigned to the arc $uv$. A subdigraph $H$ of an arc-colored digraph $D$ is called [*monochromatic*]{} if all arcs of $H$ receive the same color, and is called [*rainbow*]{} if any two arcs of $H$ receive two distinct colors. Define a [*kernel by monochromatic paths*]{} (or an [*MP-kernel*]{} for short) of an arc-colored digraph $D$ to be a set $S$ of vertices of $D$ such that (i) no two vertices of $S$ are connected by a monochromatic path in $D$, and (ii) each vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by a monochromatic path in $D$.
The concept of MP-kernels in an arc-colored digraph was introduced by Sands, Sauer and Woodrow [@SSW1982] in 1982. They showed that every 2-colored digraph has an MP-kernel. In particular, as a corollary, they showed that every 2-colored tournament has a one-vertex MP-kernel. Here note that each MP-kernel of an arc-colored tournament consists of one vertex. They also proposed the problem that whether a 3-colored tournament with no rainbow triangles has a one-vertex MP-kernel. This problem still remains open and has attracted many authors to investigate sufficient conditions for the existence of MP-kernels in arc-colored tournaments. Shen [@Shen1988] showed in 1988 that for $m\geq 3$ every $m$-colored tournament with no rainbow triangles and no rainbow transitive triangles has a one-vertex MP-kernel, and also showed that the condition “with no rainbow triangles and no rainbow transitive triangles" cannot be improved for $m\geq 5$. In 2004, Galeana-Sánchez and Rojas-Monroythe [@GR2004] showed, by constructing a family of counterexamples, that the condition of Shen cannot be improved for $m=4$, either. Galeana-Sánchez [@Galeana1996] showed in 1996 that every arc-colored tournament such that the arcs, with at most one exception, of each cycle of length at most four are assigned the same color has a one-vertex MP-kernel. Besides, Galeana-Sánchez and Rojas-Monroythe [@GR2004285] showed in 2004 that every arc-colored bipartite tournament with all 4-cycles monochromatic has an MP-kernel. For more results on MP-kernels, we refer to the survey paper [@Galeana1998] by Galeana-Sánchez.
A subdigraph $H$ of an arc-colored digraph $D$ is called [*properly colored*]{} if any two consecutive arcs of $H$ receive distinct colors. Define a [*kernel by properly colored paths*]{} (or a [*PCP-kernel*]{} for short) of an arc-colored digraph $D$ to be a set $S$ of vertices of $D$ such that (i) no two vertices of $S$ are connected by a properly colored path in $D$, and (ii) each vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by a properly colored path in $D$.
By the definitions of kernels, MP-kernels and PCP-kernels, one can see in some sense that both MP-kernels and PCP-kernels generalize the concept of kernels in digraphs.
\[observation: three kernels\] Let $D=(V(D),A(D))$ be a digraph. Then the following three statements are equivalent.\
$(i)$ $D$ has a kernel;\
$(ii)$ $|A(D)|$-colored $D$ has an MP-kernel;\
$(iii)$ $1$-colored $D$ has a PCP-kernel.
In this paper we concentrate on providing some sufficient conditions for the existence PCP-kernels in arc-colored digraphs. For convenience, we write “PC path" for “properly colored path" in the following. Define the [*closure*]{} $\mathscr{C}(D)$ of an arc-colored digraph $D$ to be a digraph with vertex set $V(\mathscr{C}(D))=V(D)$ and arc set $A(\mathscr{C}(D))=\{uv:$ there is a PC $(u,v)$-path in $D\}$. It is not difficult to see that the following simple (but useful) result holds.
\[observation: kernels in D and its closure\] An arc-colored digraph $D$ has a PCP-kernel if and only if $\mathscr{C}(D)$ has a kernel.
Main results
============
We first consider the computational complexity of finding a PCP-kernel in an arc-colored digraph.
\[proposition: finding a pcp-kernel is np-hard\] It is NP-hard to recognize whether an arc-colored digraph has a PCP-kernel or not.
Let $D$ be a digraph and $V^{*}$ a set of vertices with $V^{*}\cap V(D)=\emptyset$. Let $D'$ be the digraph with $V(D')=V(D)\cup V^{*}$ and $A(D')=A(D)\cup \{uv:~u\in V^{*}, v\in V(D)\}$, i.e., adding a set $V^{*}$ of new vertices to $D$ together with all possible arcs from $V^{*}$ to $V(D)$. We can always choose a $V^{*}$ with $|\{uv:~u\in V^{*}, v\in V(D)\}|\geq m$. Color $D'$ by using $m$ colors in such a way that the subdigraph $D$ is monochromatic and the arc set $\{uv:~u\in V^{*}, v\in V(D)\}$ is $m$-colored. It is not difficult to see that the $m$-colored $D'$ has a PCP-kernel if and only if $D$ has a kernel. By Theorem \[thm: finding a kernel is npc\] the computational complexity of the latter problem is NP-complete. The desired result then follows directly.
Now we present the following result.
\[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] An arc-colored digraph $D$ has a PCP-kernel if one of the following conditions holds:\
$(i)$ $D$ has no cycle;\
$(ii)$ the coloring of $D$ is proper (consecutive arcs receive distinct colors);\
$(iii)$ $D$ is properly-connected (each vertex can reach all other vertices by a PC path).
Note that $\mathscr{C}(D)$ has a cycle if and only if $D$ has a cycle. The statement (i) therefore follows directly from Theorem \[thm: kernels in digraphs\] (i) and Observation \[observation: kernels in D and its closure\]. Assume that the coloring of $D$ is proper. If $D$ is strongly connected, then each vertex forms a PCP-kernel. If $D$ is not strongly connected, then the set of sinks is a PCP-kernel. If $D$ is properly-connected, then by the definition of PCP-kernels each vertex forms a PCP-kernel.
By Proposition \[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] (i), every arc-colored digraph containing no cycle has a PCP-kernel. It is natural to ask what is the analogous answer for a digraph $D$ containing cycles. For the simplest case, i.e., $D$ is a cycle, we get the following result.
\[thm: pcp-kernels in cycles\] An arc-colored cycle has a PCP-kernel if and only if it is not a monochromatic odd cycle.
Call a digraph [*unicyclic*]{} if it contains exactly one cycle. Note that every cycle is unicyclic. For general arc-colored unicyclic digraphs, furthermore, for general digraphs containing cycles, a number of examples (see for example the arc-colored digraphs in Figures \[figure: a 2-colored digraph with no pcp-kernel\] and \[figure: a 3-colored bipartite tournament with no PCP-kernel\]) show that additional conditions are needed to guarantee the existence of PCP-kernels. But what kind of conditions do we need? By Proposition \[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] (ii) and (iii), if the coloring is proper or “close" to proper (roughly speaking), then it has a PCP-kernel. By Proposition \[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] (i), the existence of cycles influences the existence of PCP-kernels. This yields a natural question to ask whether the condition “all cycles are properly colored" suffices or not. Based on this consideration, we propose the following conjecture.
\[conj: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] Every arc-colored digraph with all cycles properly colored has a PCP-kernel.
**Remark 1.** If Conjecture \[conj: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] is true, then it is best possible in view of the two arc-colored digraphs in Figure \[figure: a 2-colored digraph with no pcp-kernel\], in which solid arcs, dotted arcs and dashed arcs represent arcs colored by three distinct colors respectively. It is not difficult to check that neither of them has a PCP-kernel. For any even integer $n\geq 6$ (resp. odd integer $n\geq 7$), the sharpness of Conjecture \[conj: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] can be shown by replacing the path $(v_{6},v_{1},v_{2})$ (resp. $(u_{9},u_{1},u_{2})$) of the left digraph (resp. the right digraph) by a monochromatic path of length $n-4$ (resp. length $n-7$) using the color assigned to the previous short path. One can check that neither of the two new constructed digraphs has a PCP-kernel.
=\[circle,inner sep=2pt, minimum size=0.1pt\]
(a)\[fill\] at (-5,0)\[label=left:$v_{1}$\]; (b)\[fill\] at (-4,1.5)\[label=above:$v_{2}$\]; (c)\[fill\] at (-2,1.5)\[label=above:$v_{3}$\]; (d)\[fill\] at (-1,0)\[label=right:$v_{4}$\]; (e)\[fill\] at (-2,-1.5)\[label=below:$v_{5}$\]; (f)\[fill\] at (-4,-1.5)\[label=below:$v_{6}$\];
(g)\[fill\] at (1,0)\[label=left:$u_{1}$\]; (h)\[fill\] at (2,1.5)\[label=above:$u_{2}$\]; (i)\[fill\] at (4,1.5)\[label=above:$u_{3}$\]; (j)\[fill\] at (5,1)\[label=right:$u_{4}$\]; (k)\[fill\] at (4,0.5)\[label=left:$u_{5}$\]; (l)\[fill\] at (4,-0.5)\[label=left:$u_{6}$\]; (m)\[fill\] at (5,-1)\[label=right:$u_{7}$\]; (n)\[fill\] at (4,-1.5)\[label=below:$u_{8}$\]; (o)\[fill\] at (2,-1.5)\[label=below:$u_{9}$\];
(a)–(b); (b)–(c); (c)–(d); (e)–(f); (f)–(a);
(c)–(e); (e)–(d);
(g)–(h); (h)–(i); (i)–(j); (k)–(l); (l)–(m); (n)–(o); (o)–(g);
(i)–(k); (k)–(j);
(l)–(n); (n)–(m);
A digraph $D$ is [*semi-complete*]{} if for every two vertices there exists at least one arc between them. A [*tournament*]{} ([*bipartite tournament*]{}) is an orientation of a complete graph (complete bipartite graph). Note that each tournament is semi-complete. Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in cycles\] shows that Conjecture \[conj: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] holds for cycles. We will also show that Conjecture \[conj: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] holds for general unicyclic digraphs, semi-complete digraphs and bipartite tournaments. In fact, for the latter two classes of digraphs, weaker conditions have been obtained, respectively.
\[thm: pcp-kernels in unicyclic digraphs\] Every arc-colored unicyclic digraph with the unique cycle properly colored has a PCP-kernel.
**Remark 2.** We see from the two unicyclic arc-colored digraphs in Figure \[figure: a 2-colored digraph with no pcp-kernel\] that the condition “the unique cycle is properly colored" cannot be dropped in Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in unicyclic digraphs\].
Note that every two vertices in a semi-complete digraph are adjacent and thus every PCP-kernel in such a digraph consists of one vertex. We obtain the following result whose proof idea is similar to that in [@Shen1988].
\[thm: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\] Every arc-colored semi-complete digraph with no monochromatic triangles has a vertex $v$ such that all other vertices can reach $v$ by a PC path of length at most 3.
\[corollary: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\] Every arc-colored semi-complete digraph with no monochromatic triangles has a PCP-kernel.
**Remark 3.** The condition “with no monochromatic triangles" in Theorem \[thm: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\] and Corollary \[corollary: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\] cannot be dropped. Recall that every tournament is semi-complete and one can verify that the 2-colored tournament shown in Figure \[figure: a 2-colored tournament\] has no PCP-kernels and no vertex defined in Theorem \[thm: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\], in which solid arcs and dotted arcs represent arcs colored by two distinct colors, respectively. Larger $m$-colored tournaments containing no PCP-kernel for general $m$ can be constructed by adding new vertices together with new colors to the new added arcs such that $T^{*}$ has no outneighbors in the set of new added vertices.
=\[circle,inner sep=2pt, minimum size=0.1pt\] (a)\[fill\] at (0,2) \[label=above:[$v_{1}$]{}\];
(b)\[fill\] at (0,0) \[label=left:[$v_{2}$]{}\];
(c)\[fill\] at (-1.732,-1) \[label=left:[$v_{3}$]{}\];
(d)\[fill\] at (1.732,-1) \[label=right:[$v_{4}$]{}\]; (b) edge\[dotted\] (c); (c) edge\[dotted\] (d); (d) edge\[dotted\] (b); (a) edge\[\] (b); (a) edge\[\] (c); (a) edge\[\] (d);
\[thm: pcp-kernels in bipartite tournaments\] Every arc-colored bipartite tournament $D=(X,Y;A)$ with $(i)$ all $4$-cycles and $6$-cycles properly colored, or $(ii)$ $\min\{|X|,|Y|\}\leq 2$, has a PCP-kernel.
**Remark 4.** The conditions in Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in bipartite tournaments\] cannot be dropped in view of the 3-colored bipartite tournament $D_{6}=(X,Y;A)$ shown in Figure \[figure: a 3-colored bipartite tournament with no PCP-kernel\], in which solid arcs, dotted arcs and dashed arcs represent arcs colored by three distinct colors, respectively. One can see that $\min\{|X|,|Y|\}=3$ and $D_{6}$ contains neither PC 4-cycles nor PC 6-cycles. One can also see that the closure $\mathscr{C}(D_{6})$ of $D_{6}$ is semi-complete, in which the new added arcs are represented by thick dashed lines. Note that a semi-complete digraph has a kernel if and only if it has a vertex $v$ such that all other vertices can reach $v$ by an arc. One can see that $\mathscr{C}(D_{6})$ does not contain such a vertex, so by Observation \[observation: kernels in D and its closure\] we get that $D_{6}$ has no PCP-kernels. Furthermore, we can construct infinite family of bipartite tournaments which can show that the conditions in Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in bipartite tournaments\] cannot be dropped. Let $D_{n-6}$ be an arbitrary $m$-colored bipartite tournament with $n>6$. Define $D$ to be the union of $D_{6}$ and $D_{n-6}$ as follows: take all possible arcs between $D_{n-6}$ and $D_{6}$ going from $D_{n-6}$ to $D_{6}$ and denote this set of arcs by $A^{*}$, let $V(D)=V(D_{6})\cup V(D_{n-6})$ and $A(D)=A(D_{6})\cup A(D_{n-6})\cup A^{*}$, let the colors on $D_{n-6}$ and $D_{6}$ remain the same and let the coloring of $A^{*}$ be arbitrary. Then $D$ has no PCP-kernel since the proposition that $D$ has a PCP-kernel implies that $D_{6}$ has a PCP-kernel.
(x1)\[fill\] at (-10,2) \[label=above:[$x_{1}$]{}\]; (x2)\[fill\] at (-6,2) \[label=above:[$x_{2}$]{}\]; (x3)\[fill\] at (-2,2) \[label=above:[$x_{3}$]{}\];
(y1) at (-10,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{1}$]{}\]; (y2) at (-6,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{2}$]{}\]; (y3) at (-2,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{3}$]{}\];
(x1) edge\[\] (y1); (y1) edge\[\] (x2); (y2) edge\[\] (x1);
(x2) edge\[dotted\] (y2); (y2) edge\[dotted\] (x3); (y3) edge\[dotted\] (x2);
(x3) edge\[dashed\] (y3); (y1) edge\[dashed\] (x3); (y3) edge\[dashed\] (x1);
(x1’)\[fill\] at (2,2) \[label=above:[$x_{1}$]{}\]; (x2’)\[fill\] at (6,2) \[label=above:[$x_{2}$]{}\]; (x3’)\[fill\] at (10,2) \[label=above:[$x_{3}$]{}\];
(y1’) at (2,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{1}$]{}\]; (y2’) at (6,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{2}$]{}\]; (y3’) at (10,-2) \[label=below:[$y_{3}$]{}\];
(x1’) edge\[\] (y1’); (y1’) edge\[\] (x2’); (y2’) edge\[\] (x1’);
(x2’) edge\[dotted\] (y2’); (y2’) edge\[dotted\] (x3’); (y3’) edge\[dotted\] (x2’);
(x3’) edge\[dashed\] (y3’); (y1’) edge\[dashed\] (x3’); (y3’) edge\[dashed\] (x1’);
(x3’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt\] (x2’); (x2’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt\] (x1’); (x1’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt,bend left=30\] (x3’);
(y1’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt\] (y2’); (y2’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt\] (y3’); (y3’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt,bend left=30\] (y1’); (y1’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt,bend left=30\] (x1’); (y2’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt,bend left=30\] (x2’); (y3’) edge\[dashed,line width=2pt,bend right=30\] (x3’);
In the rest of the paper, we always use $H_{1}-H_{2}$ to denote $H_{1}-V(H_{2})$ for two digraphs $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$; if $H_{2}$ consists of a single vertex $v$, then we denote $H_{1}-\{v\}$ by $H_{1}-v$. For two vertices $u$ and $v$, if $uv$ is an arc then we say $u$ [*dominates*]{} $v$ and sometimes write $u\rightarrow v$.
Proofs of Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in cycles\] and Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in unicyclic digraphs\]
=======================================================================================================
The necessity of Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in cycles\] follows from the fact that each odd cycle has no kernel. For the sufficiency, it is equivalent to show that (i) every arc-colored odd cycle with at least two colors has a PCP-kernel and (ii) every arc-colored even cycle has a PCP-kernel. We prove the result by constructing such a kernel $S$.
Let $C=(v_{0},\ldots,v_{n-1},v_{0})$ be an arc-colored cycle and assume w.l.o.g. that the vertices are located in a clockwise direction. If $C$ is an monochromatic even cycle, then we can let $S=\{v_{0},v_{2},\ldots,v_{n-2}\}$. Now assume that $C$ is an arc-colored cycle with at least two colors. If the coloring is proper, then clearly each vertex forms a PCP-kernel. Now assume that the coloring is not proper and assume w.l.o.g. that $P_{1}=(v_{n_{1}},v_{n_{1}+1},\ldots,v_{n'_{1}}=v_{n-1})$ is a monochromatic path of maximum length (which is at least two). Put $v_{n'_{1}-2},v_{n'_{1}-4},\ldots,v_{n'_{1}-2t_{1}}$ into $S$, where $t_{1}$ is the largest integer such that $n'_{1}-2t_{1}\geq n_{1}$. Here, note that since $C$ is neither a monochromatic odd cycle nor a PC cycle, we have $n_{1}\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-3\}$ and $n'_{1}-2t_{1}=n_{1}$ or $n_{1}+1$. Afterwards, we consider, in a counter-clockwise direction, the first appeared maximal monochromatic path of length at least two in $C-P_{1}$, say $P_{2}=(v_{n_{2}},v_{n_{2}+1},\ldots,v_{n'_{2}})$. Now put $v_{n'_{2}-2},v_{n'_{2}-4},\ldots,v_{n'_{2}-2t_{2}}$ into $S$, where $t_{2}$ is the largest integer such that $n'_{2}-2t_{2}\geq n_{2}$. Continue this procedure until there is no monochromatic path of length at least two and let $P_{r}=(v_{n_{r}},v_{n_{r}+1},\ldots,v_{n'_{r}})$ be the last appeared maximal monochromatic path of length at least two. It follows that $$S=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}\{v_{n'_{i}-2},v_{n'_{i}-4},\ldots,v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}}\},~~\overline{S}=V(C)\backslash S=\overline{S}'\cup \overline{S}'',$$ where $$\overline{S}'=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}\{v_{n'_{i}-3},v_{n'_{i}-5},\ldots,v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}+1}\},$$ $$\overline{S}''=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}\{v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}-1},v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}-2},\ldots,v_{n'_{i+1}},v_{n'_{i+1}-1}\},$$ $n_{r+1}=n_{1}$, $n'_{r+1}=n'_{1}=n-1$ and addition is modulo $n$. It is not difficult to check that no two vertices of $S$ are connected by a PC path in $C$. For each $1\leq i\leq r$, one can also verify that each vertex in $\{v_{n'_{i}-3},v_{n'_{i}-5},\ldots,v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}+1}\}$ can reach some vertex in $\{v_{n'_{i}-2},v_{n'_{i}-4},\ldots,v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}+2}\}$ by a PC path of length one, and each vertex in $\{v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}-1}$, $v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}-2},\ldots,v_{n'_{i+1}},v_{n'_{i+1}-1}\}$ can reach $v_{n'_{i}-2t_{i}}$ by a PC path; in other words, every vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by a PC path in $C$. Therefore, the set $S$ is a PCP-kernel of $C$.
Let $D$ be an arc-colored unicyclic digraph with a PC cycle $C$. Note that the cycle $C$ must be an induced cycle since otherwise two cycles will appear. Note also that each vertex of $C$ forms a PCP-kernel of $C$. If $D$ is strongly connected, then $D$ is a cycle and the desired result follows directly. Now assume that $D$ is not strongly connected. Then there exist strongly connected components $D_{1},\ldots,D_{k}$, $k\geq 2$, of $D$ such that there is no arc from $D_{i}$ to $D_{j}$ for any $i>j$. Let $D_{i}$ be the component containing the cycle $C$. One can see that $D_{i}=C$. One can also see that each $D_{j}\neq D_{i}$ is a single vertex, since otherwise another cycle will appear. We distinguish two cases and show the result by constructing a PCP-kernel $S$.
If $i=k$, then let $v$ be an arbitrary vertex of $D_{k}=C$ and we put $v$ into $S$. Let $j_{1}\in \{1,\ldots,k-1\}$ be the largest integer such that there is no PC $(D_{j_{1}},v)$-path. Put $D_{j_{1}}$ into $S$. Let $j_{2}\in \{1,\ldots,j_{1}-1\}$ be the largest integer such that there is no PC $(D_{j_{2}},\{v,D_{j_{1}}\})$-path. Put $D_{j_{2}}$ into $S$. Continue this procedure until all the remaining vertices in $V(C)\backslash S$ can reach $S$ by a PC path. Let $D_{j_{r}}$ be the last vertex putting into $S$. The terminal vertex set $S=\{v,D_{j_{1}},\ldots,D_{j_{r}}\}$ is clearly a PCP-kernel.
If $i\neq k$, then $D$ contains at least one sink and we put all sinks, say $v_{1},\ldots,v_{p}$, into $S$. By similar procedure above we can put, step by step, the vertices $D_{j_{1}},\ldots,D_{j_{t}}$ with $j_{t}>i$ into $S$. Let $U\subseteq V(D_{i})$ be the set of vertices which cannot reach the current $S=\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{p},D_{j_{1}},\ldots,D_{j_{t}}\}$ by a PC path. If $U\neq \emptyset$, then put an arbitrary vertex of $U$ (instead of all vertices of $U$) into $S$ and continue the procedure. If $U=\emptyset$, then $j_{t+1}<i$ and we can use the same procedure above to get a PCP-kernel $S$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm: PCP kernels in semi-complete digraphs\]
===============================================================
For convenience, in this proof, call a vertex $v$ [*good*]{} if all other vertices can reach $v$ by a PC path of length at most 3. One can see that it suffices to consider the tournament case. Let $T$ be an $m$-colored tournament, where $m$ is a positive integer. For $m=1$, note that each monochromatic tournament with no monochromatic triangles is transitive, then the unique sink is a good vertex. So we may assume that $m\geq 2$ and $T$ is an arc-colored tournament with at least two colors. We prove the result by induction on $|V(T)|$.
Since each arc-colored transitive triangle and each non-monochromatic triangle has a good vertex, the result holds for $|V(T)|=3$. Now assume that $T$ is a minimum counterexample with $|V(T)|=k\geq 4$. It follows that each $m$-colored tournament with no monochromatic triangles and with order less than $k$ has a good vertex. So for each vertex $v$ of $T$ the subtournament $T-v$ has a good vertex. Denote by $v^*$ the good vertex of $T-v$ corresponding to the given coloring of $T$. Then $v^{*}\rightarrow v$, since otherwise $v^{*}$ is a good vertex of $T$. For two distinct vertices $u$ and $v$, we claim that $u^*\neq v^*$. If not, then by the definition of $u^{*}$ there exist a PC $(v,u^{*})$-path in $T-u$ and a PC $(u,u^{*})$-path in $T-v$. It follows immediately that there exist a PC $(v,u^{*})$-path and a PC $(u,u^{*})$-path in $T$. Thus, $u^{*}$ is a good vertex of $T$, a contradiction.
Now consider the subdigraph $H$ induced on the arc set $\{v^{*}v:v\in V(T)\}$. Since each vertex of $H$ has both indegree and outdegree one, then $H$ consists of vertex-disjoint cycles. If $H$ has at least two cycles, then by induction hypothesis the induced subtournament on each cycle has a good vertex, which is obviously a good vertex of $T$, a contradiction. So $H$ consists of one cycle.
Let $H=(v_{0},v_{1},\ldots,v_{n-1},v_{0})$. By the choices of the arcs, there exists no PC $(v_{i},v_{i-1})$-path of length at most 3 in $T$, addition is modulo $n$ in this proof. Consider the three vertices $v_{0},v_{1},v_{2}$, if $v_{2}\rightarrow v_{0}$, then since there exists no monochromatic triangle we have either $(v_{2},v_{0},v_{1})$ is PC $(v_{2},v_{1})$-path of length 2 or $(v_{1},v_{2},v_{0})$ is a PC $(v_{1},v_{0})$-path of length 2, a contradiction. So $v_{0}\rightarrow v_{2}$. In fact, one can see from the simple proof that $v_{i}\rightarrow v_{i+2}$ for any $v_{i}\in V(T)$.
Let $s$ be the minimum integer such that $v_{s}\rightarrow v_{0}$ and $v_{0}\rightarrow v_{i}$ for any $i\leq s-1$. Such an integer $s$ exists by the fact that $v_{n-1}\rightarrow v_{0}$. We may assume that $v_{i}\rightarrow v_{j}$ for any $1\leq i<j\leq s$. Since there exists no PC $(v_{s},v_{s-1})$-path of length 2, we have $c(v_{s}v_{0})=c(v_{0}v_{s-1})$, say $c(v_{s}v_{0})=c(v_{0}v_{s-1})=1$. By assumption, there exists no monochromatic triangle, we have $c(v_{s-1}v_{s})\neq c(v_{s}v_{0})$. Since there exists no PC $(v_{s-1},v_{s-2})$-path of length 3, we have $c(v_{0}v_{s-2})=c(v_{s}v_{0})=1$. Since $(v_{0},v_{s-2},v_{s},v_{0})$ is not a monochromatic triangle, we have $c(v_{s-2}v_{s})\neq 1$. Similarly, we can show that $c(v_{0}v_{i})=1$ and $c(v_{i}v_{s})\neq 1$ for any $1\leq i\leq s-1$. This implies that $c(v_{1}v_{s})\neq c(v_{s}v_{0})=1$ and a PC $(v_{1},v_{0})$-path $(v_{1},v_{s},v_{0})$ of length 2 appears, a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem \[thm: pcp-kernels in bipartite tournaments\]
==============================================================
For the 1-colored case, by Observation \[observation: three kernels\], it suffices to consider the existence of a kernel. We claim that either $X$ or $Y$ is a kernel. If $X$ is not a kernel, then there exists $y\in Y$ such that each vertex of $X$ is an inneighbor of $y$, implying that $Y$ is a kernel. So every 1-colored bipartite tournament has a PCP-kernel (not necessary to satisfy the required condition). In the following we assume $m\geq 2$ and consider PCP-kernels in $m$-colored bipartite tournaments with at least two colors.
We write $u\sim v$ if $u\rightarrow v$ or $v\rightarrow u$. It is not difficult to verify, see also in [@GR2004285], that the following lemma holds. We need to keep in mind of this lemma in the forthcoming proof.
\[lemma: walks in bipartite tournaments\] Let $D$ be an arc-colored bipartite tournament. Then\
$(i)$ for each directed walk $(u_{0},u_{1},\ldots,u_{k})$ in $D$ we have $u_{i}\sim u_{j}$ iff $j-i\equiv 1$ (mod 2);\
$(ii)$ every closed directed walk of length at most 6 is a cycle in $D$.
For two vertices $u$ and $v$ in $D$, denote by $dist(u,v)$ the distance from $u$ to $v$. The following lemma will play a key role in the proof.
\[lemma: any path to a 2-path\] If there exists a PC $(u,v)$-path but exists no PC $(v,u)$-path in $D$, then $dist(u,v)\leq 2$.
Let $P=(u_{0},u_{1},\ldots,u_{k})$ be a shortest PC $(u,v)$-path, where $u=u_{0}$ and $v=u_{k}$. The result holds clearly for $k\leq 2$. Now let $k\geq 3$ and assume the opposite that each $(u,v)$-path has length at least 3.
\[claim: uk dominates the first k-2 vertices\] There exists no arc from $\{u_{0},u_{1},\ldots,u_{k-3}\}$ to $u_{k}$.
The statement holds directly for $k\leq 4$. Assume that $k\geq 5$. Let $i^{*}=\min \{i:u_{i}\rightarrow u_{k},0\leq i\leq k-3\}$. Then $i^{*}\in \{u_{2},u_{3},\ldots,u_{k-3}\}$ and $u_{k}\rightarrow u_{i^{*}-2}$. Now $(u_{k},u_{i^{*}-2},u_{i^{*}-1}$, $u_{i^{*}},u_{k})$ is a 4-cycle and by assumption it is properly colored. So $c(u_{i^{*}-1}u_{i^{*}})\neq c(u_{i^{*}}u_{k})$ and $u_{0}Pu_{i^{*}}u_{k}$ is a PC $(u,v)$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction.
There exists $i\in \{0,1,\ldots,k-3\}$ such that $u_{i}\rightarrow u_{i+3}$.
Assume the opposite that $u_{i+3}\rightarrow u_{i}$ for each $i\in \{0,1,\ldots,k-3\}$. If $k$ is odd, then $u_{0}\sim u_{k}$ and either there exists a $(u,v)$-path of length 1 or there exists a PC $(v,u)$-path of length 1, a contradiction. So $k$ is even. Recall that $k\geq 3$. If $k=4$, then $(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},u_{0})$ and $(u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},u_{4},u_{1})$ are PC 4-cycles. So $(u_{4},u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},u_{0})$ is a PC $(v,u)$-path, a contradiction. If $k=6$, then $u_{5}\rightarrow u_{0}$ since otherwise $(u_{0},u_{5},u_{6})$ is a $(u,v)$-path of length 2. Now $(u_{3},u_{4},u_{5},u_{6},u_{3})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{5}u_{0}$ is a PC 6-cycle. Thus, $u_{6}u_{3}Pu_{5}u_{0}$ is a PC $(v,u)$-path, a contradiction. If $k=8$, then $u_{7}\rightarrow u_{0}$ and $u_{8}\rightarrow u_{1}$ since otherwise either $(u_{0},u_{7},u_{8})$ or $(u_{0},u_{1},u_{8})$ is a $(u,v)$-path of length 2. Besides, we have $u_{5}\rightarrow u_{0}$ since otherwise $(u_{0},u_{5},u_{6},u_{7},u_{0})$ and $(u_{5},u_{6},u_{7},u_{8},u_{5})$ are PC 4-cycles and $(u_{8},u_{5},u_{6},u_{7},u_{0})$ is a PC $(v,u)$-path. We also can show that $u_{8}\rightarrow u_{3}$. If not, then $(u_{3},u_{8},u_{1},u_{2},u_{3})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},u_{8})$ is a PC $(u,v)$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. Then there exist two PC 6-cycles $(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},u_{3},u_{4},u_{5},u_{0})$ and $(u_{3},u_{4},u_{5},u_{6},u_{7},u_{8},u_{3})$. It follows that $u_{8}u_{3}Pu_{5}u_{0}$ is a PC $(v,u)$-path, a contradiction. So from now on assume that $k\geq 10$.
We claim first that $u_{k}\rightarrow u_{k-5}$. If not, then $(u_{k},u_{k-3},u_{k-6},u_{k-5},u_{k})$ is a PC 4-cycle and thus $u_{0}Pu_{k-5}u_{k}$ is a PC $(u,v)$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. We also claim that $u_{k-3}\rightarrow u_{k-8}$. If not, then since $(u_{k-9},u_{k-8},u_{k-3},u_{k-6},u_{k-9})$ and $(u_{k-8},u_{k-3},u_{k-2},u_{k-1},u_{k},u_{k-5},u_{k-8})$ are PC cycles we have $c(u_{k-9}u_{k-8})\neq c(u_{k-8}u_{k-3})$ and $c(u_{k-8}u_{k-3})\neq c(u_{k-3}u_{k-2})$. It follows that $u_{0}Pu_{k-8}u_{k-3}Pu_{k}$ is a PC $(u,v)$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction.
Recall that $u_{i+3}\rightarrow u_{i}$ for each $i\in \{0,1,\ldots,k-3\}$ and all 4-cycles and 6-cycles are properly colored. Thus, $$u_{k}u_{k-5}Pu_{k-3}u_{k-8}u_{k-7}u_{k-10}\cdots u_{k-2i}u_{k-2i-1}u_{k-2i+2}\cdots u_{0}$$ is a PC $(v,u)$-path, contradicting the assumption in Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\].
Let $i$ be the minimum integer in $\{0,1,\ldots,k-3\}$ such that $u_{i}\rightarrow u_{i+3}$ and let $j^{*}=\max \{j:u_{i}\rightarrow u_{j},i+3\leq j\leq k\}$. By Claim \[claim: uk dominates the first k-2 vertices\], we have $j^{*}\neq k$. If $j^{*}=k-1$, then $i\neq 0$; otherwise, $(u_{0},u_{k-1},u_{k})$ is a $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length 2. By Claim \[claim: uk dominates the first k-2 vertices\], we also have $u_{k}\rightarrow u_{i-1}$. Since $(u_{i-1},u_{i},u_{k-1},u_{k},u_{i-1})$ is a PC 4-cycle, we get that $u_{0}Pu_{i}u_{k-1}u_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. So we have $j^{*}\leq k-2$.
By the choice of $j^{*}$, we have $u_{j^{*}+2}\rightarrow u_{i}$ and $(u_{i},u_{j^{*}},u_{j^{*}+1},u_{j^{*}+2},u_{i})$ is a PC 4-cycle. Hence $c(u_{i}u_{j^{*}})\neq c(u_{j^{*}}u_{j^{*}+1})$. If $i=0$, then $u_{0}u_{j^{*}}Pu_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. So $i\geq 1$.
By the minimality of $i$ we have $u_{i+2}\rightarrow u_{i-1}$. Since $u_{i}\sim u_{j^{*}}$, we have $u_{i+2}\sim u_{j^{*}+2}$. If $u_{j^{*}+2}\rightarrow u_{i+2}$, then $(u_{j^{*}+2},u_{i+2},u_{i-1},u_{i},u_{j^{*}},u_{j^{*}+1},u_{j^{*}+2})$ is a PC 6-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{i}u_{j^{*}}Pu_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. So $u_{i+2}\rightarrow u_{j^{*}+2}$.
If $j^{*}\leq k-4$, then by the choice of $j^{*}$ we have $u_{j^{*}+4}\rightarrow u_{i}$. Now $(u_{i},u_{i+1},u_{i+2},u_{j^{*}+2}$, $u_{j^{*}+3},u_{j^{*}+4},u_{i})$ is a PC 6-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{i+2}u_{j^{*}+2}Pu_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. So $j^{*}\in \{k-2,k-3\}$. If $j^{*}=k-2$, then $(u_{i},u_{i+1},u_{i+2},u_{j^{*}+2},u_{i})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{i+2}u_{j^{*}+2}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. So $j^{*}=k-3$ and $u_{j^{*}+3}=u_{k}$.
Now we claim that $u_{i+1}\rightarrow u_{k}$. If not, then $(u_{i+1},u_{i+2},u_{j^{*}+2},u_{k},u_{i+1})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{i+2}u_{j^{*}+2}u_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. We may also claim that $u_{i-1}\rightarrow u_{k}$. If not, then $(u_{i-1},u_{i},u_{i+1},u_{k},u_{i-1})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $u_{0}Pu_{i+1}u_{k}$ is a PC $(u_{0},u_{k})$-path of length less than $k$, a contradiction. Similarly, we can show that $u_{i-s}\rightarrow u_{k}$ for any odd $s$ with $1\leq s\leq i$. Clearly, there will be a $(u,v)$-path of length at most 2.
The proof of Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\] is complete.
In view of Theorem \[thm: kernels under some constraits for odd cycles\] (i), it suffices to show that every cycle of $\mathscr{C}(D)$ has a symmetrical arc. Assume the opposite that there exists a cycle $C$ in $\mathscr{C}(D)$ containing no symmetrical arc and denote it by $$C=(u_{0},u_{1},\ldots, u_{l},u_{0}).$$ We will get a contradiction by showing that $C$ has a symmetrical arc. Here we distinguish two cases.
$l=2$.
Since a bipartite tournament contains no odd cycle, there exists an arc of $C$ in $A(\mathscr{C}(D))\backslash A(D)$, say $u_{0}u_{1}$. By Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\], there exists a $(u_{0},u_{1})$-path of length 2 in $D$, say $(u_{0},x_{0},u_{1})$.
If $u_{1}u_{2},u_{2}u_{0} \in A(D)$, then $(u_{0},x_{0},u_{1},u_{2},u_{0})$ is a (properly colored) 4-cycle in $D$ and $u_{1}u_{0}\in \mathscr{C}(D)$. This implies that $C$ has a symmetrical arc $u_{0}u_{1}$, a contradiction.
If $|\{u_{1}u_{2},u_{2}u_{0}\}\cap A(D)|=1$, then by Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\] and Lemma \[lemma: walks in bipartite tournaments\] (ii) there will be a 5-cycle which contradicts the well-known fact that a bipartite tournament contains no odd cycle.
Now let $u_{1}u_{2},u_{2}u_{0} \notin A(D)$. Then by Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\], there exist a $(u_{1},u_{2})$-path of length 2 and a $(u_{2},u_{0})$-path of length 2 in $D$, say $(u_{1},x_{1},u_{2})$ and $(u_{2},x_{2},u_{0})$. By Lemma \[lemma: walks in bipartite tournaments\] (ii) and our assumption we get that $(u_{0},x_{0},u_{1},x_{1},u_{2},x_{2},u_{0})$ is a PC 6-cycle. This implies that each arc in $C$ is a symmetrical arc, a contradiction.
$l\geq 3$.
In view of Lemma \[lemma: any path to a 2-path\], there exists a $(u_{i},u_{i+1})$-path of length at most 2 for each $0\leq i\leq l$ in $D$, where $u_{l+1}=u_{0}$. Let $P_{i}$ be the shortest $(u_{i},u_{i+1})$-path in $D$ and let $C^{*}=\cup_{i=0}^{l}P_{i}$. Then $C^{*}$ is a closed directed walk in $D$. For convenience, denote this closed walk by $$C^{*}=(x_{0},x_{1},\ldots, x_{s},x_{0}),$$ where $x_{0}=u_{0}$ and $s\geq l$.
If $x_{3}x_{0}\in A(D)$, then $(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{0})$ is a PC 4-cycle and $x_{1}x_{0},x_{2}x_{0}\in A(\mathscr{C}(D))$. Note that either $x_{0}x_{1}\in A(C)$ or $x_{0}x_{2}\in A(C)$. This implies that $C$ has a symmetrical arc, a contradiction. Similarly, if $x_{0}x_{s-2}\in A(D)$, then we can show that either $x_{s}x_{0}$ or $x_{s-1}x_{0}$ is a symmetrical arc of $C$, a contradiction.
Now assume that $x_{0}x_{3},x_{s-2}x_{0}\in A(D)$. Let $i$ be the minimum integer such that $x_{0}x_{i},x_{i+2}x_{0}\in A(D)$. Then $(x_{0},x_{i},x_{i+1},x_{i+2},x_{0})$ is a PC 4-cycle in $D$ and $x_{i+1}x_{i},x_{i+2}x_{i}\in A(\mathscr{C}(D))$. If $x_{i}\in V(C)$, then $\{x_{i}x_{i+1},x_{i}x_{i+2}\}\cap A(C)\neq \emptyset$ and thus either $x_{i+1}x_{i}$ or $x_{i+2}x_{i}$ is a symmetrical arc in $C$, a contradiction. So $x_{i}\notin V(C)$ and $x_{i-1}x_{i+1}\in A(C)$. By the choice of $i$, we have $x_{0}x_{i-2}\in A(D)$. Then $(u_{0},u_{i-2},u_{i-1},u_{i},u_{i+1},u_{i+2},u_{0})$ is a PC 6-cycle and there exists a PC $(x_{i+1},x_{i-1})$-path. So $x_{i-1}x_{i+1}$ is a symmetrical arc in $C$, a contradiction.
If $\min \{|X|,|Y|\}=1$, then $D$ has no cycle and the result follows from Proposition \[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] (i). So we can assume w.l.o.g. that $|X|=\min \{|X|,|Y|\}=2$. By contradiction, suppose the opposite that $D$ has no PCP-kernel. By Proposition \[proposition: pcp-kernels in digraphs\] we can assume that $D$ has a cycle. It is not difficult to check that if $y\in Y$ is a source then $D$ has a PCP-kernel if and only if $D-y$ has a PCP-kernel. So we assume also that $D$ has no source in $Y$. Let $X=\{x_{1},x_{2}\}$ and let
$Y_{0}=\{y\in Y:~x_{1}\rightarrow y,~x_{2}\rightarrow y\},$
$Y_{1}=\{y\in Y\backslash Y_{0}:~there~exists~a~PC~(y,Y_{0})$-path in $D$$\},$
$Y_{2}=Y\backslash (Y_{0}\cup Y_{1})$.
If $Y_{2}=\emptyset$, then $Y_{0}$ is a PCP-kernel. So we assume that $Y_{2}\neq \emptyset$. Two vertices $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$ are called [*contractible*]{} if for any vertices $u$ and $w$ we have $v_{1}\rightarrow u$ iff $v_{2}\rightarrow u$, $w\rightarrow v_{1}$ iff $w\rightarrow v_{2}$, and $c(v_{1}u)=c(v_{2}u),c(wv_{1})=c(wv_{2})$ whenever $v_{1}u,v_{2}u,wv_{1},wv_{2}\in A(D)$. Recall that all digraphs we consider here are simple, that is, contain no loops. So there exists no arc between any two contractible vertices. We now show the following claim.
\[lemma: no two contractible vertices\] Let $v_{1},v_{2}$ be two contractible vertices in an arc-colored digraph $D'$. Then $D'$ has a PCP-kernel if and only if $D'-v_{2}$ has a PCP-kernel.
For the necessity, let $S$ be a PCP-kernel of $D'$. If $\{v_{1},v_{2}\}\subseteq S$, then by the definition of contractible vertices $S\backslash v_{2}$ is a PCP-kernel of $D'-v_{2}$. If $v_{2}\in S$ and $v_{1}\notin S$, then $S\cup \{v_{1}\}$ is a PCP-kernel of $D'-v_{2}$. If $\{v_{1},v_{2}\}\cap S=\emptyset$, then $S$ is also a PCP-kernel of $D'-v_{2}$. For the sufficiency, let $S'$ be a PCP-kernel of $D'-v_{2}$. If $v_{1}\notin S'$, then $S'$ is a PCP-kernel of $D'$. Now assume that $v_{1}\in S'$. If there exists a PC $(v_{2},v_{1})$-path, then $S'$ is a PCP-kernel of $D'$. Otherwise, there exists no PC $(v_{1},v_{2})$-path and $S'\cup \{v_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel of $D'$.
Now we assume that $D$ does not contain two contractible vertices and distinguish two cases in the following.
$Y_{0}\neq \emptyset$.
Since $D$ has no source in $Y$, each vertex in $Y\backslash Y_{0}$ has one outneighbor and one inneighbor in $\{x_{1},x_{2}\}$. For a vertex $x\in X$ which has at least one inneighbor in $Y_{2}$, since there exists no PC path from $Y_{2}$ to $Y_{0}$, we have $c(xy'_{0})=c(xy''_{0})$ for any $y'_{0},y''_{0}\in Y_{0}$; otherwise, for each $y\in Y_{2}$ with $y\rightarrow x$ there exists $y_{0}\in Y_{0}$ with $c(yx)\neq c(xy_{0})$, which yields a PC path $(y,x,y_{0})$ from $Y_{2}$ to $Y_{0}$, a contradiction. For convenience, denote by $c(xY_{0})$ the common color assigned for the arcs from $x$ to $Y_{0}$. By the definition of $Y_{2}$, the following claim holds.
\[claim: two vertices in Y2\] For two vertices $y',y''\in Y_{2}$, if $\{y',y''\}\rightarrow x$ for some $x\in X$, then $c(y'x)=c(y''x)=c(xY_{0})$.
Let $S'$ be a maximal subset of $Y_{2}$ such that no two vertices of $S'$ are connected by a PC path. If $S'=Y_{2}$, then $Y_{0}\cup S'$ is a PCP-kernel. Assume that $S'\neq Y_{2}$. Let
$R=\{y\in Y_{2}\backslash S'$: there exists no PC $(y,S')$-path in $D$$\}$.
If $R=\emptyset$, then $Y_{0}\cup S'$ is a PCP-kernel. So assume that $R\neq \emptyset$. Let $r$ be an arbitrary vertex in $R$. Then by the definitions of $S'$ and $R$, there exists a PC $(s',r)$-path for some $s'\in S'$.
Every PC $(s',r)$-path has length 2.
By contradiction, assume w.l.o.g. that there exists a PC $(s',r)$-path of length 4, say $(s',x_{1},y,x_{2},r)$, where $y\in Y\backslash Y_{0}$. Since $s'\notin Y_{1}$, we have $c(s'x_{1})=c(x_{1}Y_{0})$ and $c(yx_{2})=c(x_{2}Y_{0})$. We show that there exists a PC $(z,r)$-path for any $z\in Y_{2}-\{s',r\}$. If $z=y$, then $(z,x_{2},r)$ is a desired path. Now let $z\neq y$. Since $z\notin Y_{0}$, we have either $z\rightarrow x_{1}$ or $z\rightarrow x_{2}$. If $z\rightarrow x_{1}$, then since $z\in Y_{2}$ we have $c(zx_{1})=c(x_{1}Y_{0})=c(s'x_{1})$ and $(z,x_{1},y,x_{2},r)$ is a desired path. If $z\rightarrow x_{2}$, then similarly $c(zx_{2})=c(x_{2}Y_{0})=c(yx_{2})$ and $(z,x_{2},r)$ is a desired path. It follows that $Y_{0}\cup \{r\}$ is a PCP-kernel, a contradiction.
Now we can assume w.l.o.g. that $(s',x_{1},r)$ is a PC $(s',r)$-path. Remark that $c(s'x_{1})\neq c(x_{1}r)$ and, by Claim \[claim: two vertices in Y2\], each vertex $y\in Y_{2}$ with $y\rightarrow x_{1}$ can reach $r$ by a PC path $(y,x_{1},r)$. Let
$Q=\{y\in Y_{2}\backslash r:~x_{1}\rightarrow y\}.$
If $Q=\emptyset$, then $Y_{0}\cup \{r\}$ is a PCP-kernel, a contradiction. So assume that $Q\neq \emptyset$.
\[claim: no pc path from r to Q\] There exists no PC $(r,Q)$-path.
Assume the opposite that there exists a PC $(r,Q)$-path, say $(r,x_{2},y,x_{1},q)$, for some $q\in Q$. Then $c(yx_{1})=c(x_{1}Y_{0})$ since otherwise $(r,x_{2},y,x_{1},y_{0})$ is a PC $(r,y_{0})$-path for each $y_{0}\in Y_{0}$, contradicting that $r\in Y_{2}$. Now we show that $Y_{0}\cup \{q\}$ is a PCP-kernel. Since $Q\cup \{r\}\subseteq Y_{2}$, we have $c(qx_{2})=c(rx_{2})=c(x_{2}Y_{0})$ for each $q\in Q$. So $(q',x_{2},y,x_{1},q)$ is a PC $(q',q)$ path for each $q'\in Q\backslash q$. For each $y'\in Y_{2}\backslash Q$, note that $y'\rightarrow x_{1}$, since $y'\in Y_{2}$, we have $c(y'x_{1})=c(x_{1}Y_{0})=c(yx_{1})$. Then $(y',x_{1},q)$ is a PC $(y',q)$-path. It therefore follows that $Y_{0}\cup \{q\}$ is a PCP-kernel.
\[claim: no PC path connecting 2 vertices of Q\] There exists no PC path connecting two vertices of $Q$.
By symmetry, assume that $(q',x_{2},y,x_{1},q'')$ is a PC path for some two vertices $q',q''\in Q$. Note that $y\neq r$, otherwise, there exists a PC $(r,Q)$-path $(y,x_{1},q'')$, contradicting Claim \[claim: no pc path from r to Q\]. Since $c(rx_{2})=c(q'x_{2})$, we get that $(r,x_{2},y,x_{1},q'')$ a PC $(r,q'')$-path, a contradiction.
Let $Q'\subseteq Q$ be the set of vertices which cannot reach $r$ by a PC path. By Claims \[claim: no pc path from r to Q\] and \[claim: no PC path connecting 2 vertices of Q\], no two vertices of $Q'\cup \{r\}$ are connected by a PC path. It follows that $Y_{0}\cup Q'\cup \{r\}$ is a PCP-kernel, a contradiction.
$Y_{0}=\emptyset$.
Recall that $D$ has no source in $Y$. By the assumption we have that every vertex in $Y$ has one outneighbor and one inneighbor in $\{x_{1},x_{2}\}$. Let $$Y'=\{y\in Y:~x_{1}\rightarrow y,~y\rightarrow x_{2}\},~~Y''=Y\backslash Y'=\{y\in Y:~x_{2}\rightarrow y,~y\rightarrow x_{1}\},$$ $$Y^{*}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)\neq c(yx_{2})\},~~Y^{**}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)\neq c(yx_{1})\}.$$ In the following proof we need to keep in mind that each vertex in $Y'$ can reach $x_{2}$ by a PC path and each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $x_{1}$ by a PC path. If $Y^{*}\cup Y^{**}=\emptyset$, i.e., there exists no PC path connecting $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$, then clearly $\{x_{1},x_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel. Now let $Y^{*}\cup Y^{**}\neq \emptyset$ and assume w.o.l.g. that $Y^{*}\neq \emptyset$. If there exist $y'_{1},y'_{2}\in Y^{*}$ with $c(x_{1}y'_{1})\neq c(x_{1}y'_{2})$, then since each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $x_{2}$ by a PC path passing through either $\{x_{1},y'_{1}\}$ or $\{x_{1},y'_{2}\}$ we get that $\{x_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel. So we can assume that $c(x_{1}y')=\alpha$ for each $y'\in Y^{*}$. Let $$Y'_{\alpha}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)=c(yx_{2})=\alpha\},~~Y''_{\alpha}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)=c(yx_{1})=\alpha\}.$$ We now claim that $Y^{**}\neq \emptyset$. Assume the opposite that $Y^{**}=\emptyset$. If $Y''_{\alpha}=\emptyset$, then since each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $x_{2}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ and an arbitrary vertex in $Y^{*}$ we get that $\{x_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y''_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha}=\emptyset$, then since each vertex in $Y'$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$, and each vertex in $Y''\backslash Y''_{\alpha}$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ together with an arbitrary vertex in $Y^{*}$ and $x_{2}$, we can get that $Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y''_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$, then by a similar analysis and the observation that no two vertices of $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path we have that $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. So $Y^{**}\neq \emptyset$.
If there exist $y''_{1},y''_{2}\in Y^{**}$ with $c(x_{2}y''_{1})\neq c(x_{2}y''_{2})$, then similar to the analysis for $Y^{*}$ we have that $\{x_{1}\}$ is a PCP-kernel. Thus, we can assume that $c(x_{2}y'')=\beta$ for each $y''\in Y^{**}$. For the sake of a better presentation, define the following vertex sets, see also in Figure \[figure: an arc-colored BT with no sink and no source\] in which a vertex encircled may represent a set of vertices, and solid arcs, dotted arcs, dashed arcs represent respectively the arcs colored by $\alpha$, $\beta$ and a color not in $\{\alpha,\beta\}$. $$Y'_{\beta}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)=c(yx_{2})=\beta\},~~Y''_{\beta}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)=c(yx_{1})=\beta\},$$ $$Y'_{\gamma}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)=c(yx_{2})\notin \{\alpha,\beta\}\},~~Y''_{\gamma}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)=c(yx_{1})\notin \{\alpha,\beta\}\},$$ $$Y'_{\alpha\beta}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)=\alpha,~c(yx_{2})=\beta\},~~Y'_{\alpha\gamma}=\{y\in Y':~c(x_{1}y)=\alpha,~c(yx_{2})\notin \{\alpha,\beta\}\},$$ $$Y''_{\beta\alpha}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)=\beta,~c(yx_{1})=\alpha\},~~Y'_{\beta\gamma}=\{y\in Y'':~c(x_{2}y)=\beta,~c(yx_{1})\notin \{\alpha,\beta\}\}.$$
\[figure: an arc-colored BT with no sink and no source\]
(-6,0) circle (0.2); (6,0) circle (0.2); (-4.5,0) circle (0.2); (4.5,0) circle (0.2);
(x1) at (0,3) \[label=above:[$x_{1}$]{}\]; (x2) at (0,-3) \[label=below:[$x_{2}$]{}\];
(y1)\[fill\] at (-6,0) \[label=left:[$Y'_{\gamma}$]{}\]; (y2)\[fill\] at (-4.5,0) \[label=left:[$Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$]{}\]; (y3)\[fill\] at (-3.0,0) \[label=left:[$Y'_{\alpha\beta}$]{}\]; (y4)\[fill\] at (-1.8,0) \[label=left:[$Y'_{\beta}$]{}\]; (y5)\[fill\] at (-0.6,0) \[label=left:[$Y'_{\alpha}$]{}\]; (y6)\[fill\] at (0.6,0) \[label=right:[$Y''_{\alpha}$]{}\]; (y7)\[fill\] at (1.8,0) \[label=right:[$Y''_{\beta}$]{}\]; (y8)\[fill\] at (3.0,0) \[label=right:[$Y''_{\beta\alpha}$]{}\]; (y9)\[fill\] at (4.5,0) \[label=right:[$Y''_{\beta\gamma}$]{}\]; (y10)\[fill\] at (6,0) \[label=right:[$Y''_{\gamma}$]{}\];
(x1) edge\[dashed\] (y1); (x1) edge\[\] (y2); (x1) edge\[\] (y3); (x1) edge\[dotted\] (y4); (x1) edge\[\] (y5);
(y1) edge\[dashed\] (x2); (y2) edge\[dashed\] (x2); (y3) edge\[dotted\] (x2); (y4) edge\[dotted\] (x2); (y5) edge\[\] (x2);
(x2) edge\[\] (y6); (x2) edge\[dotted\] (y7); (x2) edge\[dotted\] (y8); (x2) edge\[dotted\] (y9); (x2) edge\[dashed\] (y10);
(y6) edge\[\] (x1); (y7) edge\[dotted\] (x1); (y8) edge\[\] (x1); (y9) edge\[dashed\] (x1); (y10) edge\[dashed\] (x1);
Since $D$ contains no two contractible vertices, we have $|Y'_{\alpha}|,|Y'_{\beta}|,|Y'_{\alpha\beta}|,|Y''_{\alpha}|,|Y''_{\beta}|,|Y'_{\beta\alpha}|\leq 1$. Note that no two vertices of $Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path in $D$ and also the following holds. $$Y^{*}=Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma}\neq \emptyset,~Y^{**}=Y''_{\beta\alpha}\cup Y'_{\beta\gamma}\neq \emptyset,$$ $$Y'=Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\gamma}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma},~~Y''=Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta}\cup Y''_{\gamma}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}\cup Y'_{\beta\gamma}.$$ We distinguish two subcases.
$\alpha=\beta$.
It follows that $Y'_{\alpha\beta}=Y''_{\beta\alpha}=\emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha\gamma}=Y^{*}\neq \emptyset$. If $Y''_{\alpha}=\emptyset$, then each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $x_{2}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ and an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$, which implies that $\{x_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y''_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$, then since each vertex in $Y'\backslash Y'_{\alpha}$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$, and each vertex in $Y''\backslash Y''_{\alpha}$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ together with an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$ and $x_{2}$, together with the observation that no two vertices in $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path, we can get that $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel.
$\alpha\neq \beta$.
If $Y''_{\alpha}=Y''_{\beta\alpha}=\emptyset$, then since $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma}\neq \emptyset$ we get that each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $x_{2}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ and an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$. It follows that $\{x_{2}\}$ is a PCP-kernel.
If $Y''_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y''_{\beta\alpha}\neq \emptyset$, then each vertex in $Y'$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$, and each vertex in $Y''\backslash (Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha})$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$, an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$ and $x_{2}$. Recall that no two vertices of $Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path in $D$. So $Y''_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel.
If $Y''_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y''_{\beta\alpha}=\emptyset$, then we can show that either $Y''_{\alpha}$ or $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y'_{\alpha}=\emptyset$, then each vertex in $Y'$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$, and each vertex in $Y''\backslash Y''_{\alpha}$ can reach $Y''_{\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$, an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$ and $x_{2}$. It follows that $Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y'_{\alpha}\neq \emptyset$, noting that no two vertices of $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path, then we can similarly show that $Y'_{\alpha}\cup Y''_{\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel.
Now assume that $Y''_{\alpha}=\emptyset$ and $Y''_{\beta\alpha}\neq \emptyset$. If $Y'_{\beta}=Y'_{\alpha\beta}=\emptyset$, then $Y'_{\alpha\gamma}=Y^{*}\neq \emptyset$, each vertex in $Y''\backslash Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ can reach $Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$, an arbitrary vertex in $Y'_{\alpha\gamma}$ and $x_{2}$, and clearly every vertex in $Y'$ can reach $Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$. It follows that $Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y'_{\beta}=\emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\neq \emptyset$, then each vertex in $Y''\backslash Y''_{\alpha\beta}$ can reach $Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ and each vertex in $Y'\backslash Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ can reach $Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$. Recall that no two vertices of $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ are connected by a PC path. Then $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\cup Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y'_{\beta}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha\beta}\neq \emptyset$, noting that no two vertices of $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ are connected by a PC path, then since each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$ and each vertex in $Y'\backslash (Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta})$ can reach $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2}$, $Y''_{\beta\alpha}$ and $x_{1}$, we can obtain that $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y'_{\alpha\beta}$ is a PCP-kernel. Now let $Y'_{\beta}\neq \emptyset$ and $Y'_{\alpha\beta}=\emptyset$. If $Y''_{\beta}=\emptyset$, then since each vertex in $Y'\backslash Y'_{\beta}$ can reach $Y'_{\beta}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{2},Y''_{\beta\alpha},x_{1}$, and each vertex in $Y''$ can reach $Y'_{\beta}$ by a PC path passing through $x_{1}$, we can get that $Y'_{\beta}$ is a PCP-kernel. If $Y''_{\beta}\neq \emptyset$, then by observing that no two vertices of $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y''_{\beta}$ are connected by a PC path we can similarly show that $Y'_{\beta}\cup Y''_{\beta}$ is a PCP-kernel.
An extension
============
Recall that an arc-colored digraph is rainbow if any two arcs receive two distinct colors. Another interesting topic deserving further consideration is the existence of a [*kernel by rainbow paths*]{} in an arc-colored digraph $D$, which is defined, similar to the definition of MP-kernels or PCP-kernels, as a set $S$ of vertices of $D$ such that (i) no two vertices of $S$ are connected by a rainbow path in $D$, and (ii) every vertex outside $S$ can reach $S$ by a rainbow path in $D$. Similar to the proof of Proposition \[proposition: finding a pcp-kernel is np-hard\], we can get the computational complexity of finding a kernel by rainbow paths in an arc-colored digraph.
It is NP-hard to recognize whether an arc-colored digraph has a kernel by rainbow paths or not.
Let $D$ and $D'$ be defined as in Proposition \[proposition: finding a pcp-kernel is np-hard\]. Color $D'$ by using $m$ colors in such a way that the subdigraph $D$ is monochromatic and the arc set $\{uv:~u\in V^{*}, v\in V(D)\}$ is $m$-colored. Then one can see that the $m$-colored $D'$ has a kernel by rainbow paths if and only if $D$ has a kernel. By Theorem \[thm: finding a kernel is npc\] the desired result holds.
[0]{}
J. Bang-Jensen and G. Gutin, Digraphs: Theory, Algorithms and Applications, Springer Verlag, London, 2008.
C. Berge, Nouvelles extensions du noyau d¡¯un graphe et ses applications et theorie des jeux, Publ. Econometriques 6, 1977.
C. Berge, Minimax theorems for normal hypergraphs and balanced hypergraphs-a survey, Annals of Discrete Math. 21 (1984) 3-19.
E. Boros, V. Gurvich, Perfect graphs, kernels, and cores of cooperative games, Discrete Math. 306 (2006) 2336-2354.
S. Bowser, C. Cable, At least three minimal quasi-kernels, Discrete Applied Math. 160 (2012) 673-675.
V. Chvátal, On the computational complexity of finding a kernel, Report No. CRM-300, Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal, 1973.
V. Chvátal, L. Lovász, Every directed graph has a semi-kernel, Lecture Notes in Math. 411 (1974) 175.
P. Duchet, Graphes noyau-parfaits, Combinatorics 79 (Proceedings of the Colloquium, University of Montréal, Montreal, Que., 1979), Part II, Annals of Discrete Math. 9 (1980) 93-101.
P. Duchet, H. Meyniel, Une jeneralization du theoreme de Richardson sur l¡¯existence de noyaux dans les graphes orientes, Discrete Math. 43 (1) (1983) 21-27.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, On monochromatic paths and monochromatic cycles in edge coloured tournaments, Discrete Math. 156 (1996) 103-112.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, Kernels in edge-colored digraphs, Discrete Math. 184 (1998) 87-99.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, V. Neumann-Lara, On kernels and semikernels of digraphs, Discrete Math. 48 (1) (1984) 67-76.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, L. Pastrana-Ramírez, H. A. Rincón-Mejía, Semikernels, quasi kernels, and grundy functions in the line digraphs, SIAM Discrete Math. 4 (1) (1991) 80-83.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, R. Rojas-Monroy, A counterexample to a conjecture on edge-coloured tournaments, Discrete Math. 282 (2004) 275-276.
H. Galeana-Sánchez, R. Rojas-Monroy, On monochromatic paths and monochromatic 4-cycles in edge coloured bipartite tournaments, Discrete Math. 285 (2004) 313-318.
S. Heard, J. Huang, Disjoint quasi-kernels in digraphs, J. Graph Theory 58 (2008) 251-260.
H. Jacob, H. Meyniel, About quasi-kernels in a digraph, Discrete Math. 154 (1996) 279-280.
M. Richardson, Solutions of irreflexible relations, Annals of Math. 58 (1953) 573-590.
B. Sands, N. Sauer, R. Woodrow, On monochromatic paths in edge-coloured digraphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 33 (1982) 271-275.
M. Shen, On monochromatic paths in $m$-colored tournaments, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 45 (1988) 108-111.
J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944.
[^1]: Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: bai@nwpu.edu.cn (Y. Bai), shinya.fujita.ph.d@gmail.com (S. Fujita), sgzhang@nwpu.edu.cn (S. Zhang).
[^2]: The first author is supported by NSFC (Nos. 11601430 and 11671320), NPU (No. 2016KY0101) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2016M590969); the second author is supported by JSPS KAKENHI (No. 15K04979); and the third author is supported by NSFC (Nos. 11571135 and 11671320). Part of this work was done while the first and the third author were visiting Yokohama City University and the hospitality was appreciated.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $(Z,d,\mu)$ be a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric space with $Q>1$. Using a hyperbolic filling of $Z$, we define the notions of the $p$-capacity between certain subsets of $Z$ and of the weak covering $p$-capacity of path families $\Gamma$ in $Z$. We show comparability results and quasisymmetric invariance. As an application of our methods we deduce a result due to Tyson on the geometric quasiconformality of quasisymmetric maps between compact, connected Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric spaces.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, Box 95155, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1555, USA'
author:
- Jeff Lindquist
title: Weak capacity and modulus comparability in Ahlfors regular metric spaces
---
Introduction
============
Modulus of path families has become an important tool in studying metric spaces with a rich supply of rectifiable paths. The existence of sufficiently many rectifiable paths, however, is not guaranteed. For instance, starting from a metric space $(X,d)$, one sees the “snowflaked” metric space $(X,d^\alpha)$ with $\alpha \in (0,1)$ carries no nonconstant rectifiable paths. Accordingly, traditional modulus techniques are insufficient in many cases.
In this paper we will study metric measure spaces $(Z, d, \mu)$ which are compact, connected, and Ahlfors $Q$-regular with $Q>1$. This means $(Z,d)$ is a separable metric space and $\mu$ is Borel regular. The last condition is one on the volume growth of balls: specifically, a ball $B$ of radius $r$ has $\mu$-measure comparable to $r^Q$.
We develop two rough extensions of modulus to a “hyperbolic filling” associated with a given metric space. A hyperbolic filling $X = (V,E)$ of $(Z,d,\mu)$ is a graph with vertices that correspond to metric balls and an edge structure which mirrors the combinatorial structure of our metric space. For a useful picture to have in mind consider the unit disk model of the hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^2$. Here the outer circle $S^1$ plays the role of our metric measure space $Z$ and the hyperbolic filling can be interpreted as a graph representing a Whitney cube decomposition of the interior. In this setting, cubes correspond to vertices and are connected by edges if they intersect. Hyperbolic fillings are Gromov hyperbolic metric spaces when endowed with the graph metric. Moreover, our original space can be identified as the boundary at infinity $\partial_\infty X= Z$ following a standard construction found in [@BuS Chapter 2].
Hyperbolic fillings are well defined up to a scaling parameter and a choice of a vertex set at each scale. The extensions of modulus presented below are essentially quasi-isometrically invariant; changing the given hyperbolic filling will change the quantities by a controlled multiplicative amount. This multiplicative ambiguity also appears in the modulus comparison results and hence no generality is lost by working with a fixed hyperbolic filling for each metric space. The general construction of hyperbolic fillings follows [@BP] and [@BuS] and is detailed in Section \[Sec Hyp Fill\] along with some of the useful properties of such fillings.
Generalizations of modulus are not new; in [@P1] and [@P2] Pansu develops a generalized modulus which is adapted in [@Ty]. One key advantage of these generalized notions of modulus, as here, is that proving quasisymmetric invariance is relatively straightforward after setting up the appropriate definitions.
In our definitions we will need the notion of the weak $\ell^p$-norm of a function with a countable domain. Let $X$ be a countable space and $f \colon X \to {\mathbb{C}}$. We define ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ as the infimum of all constants $C>0$ such that $$\# \{x : |f(x)| > \lambda \} \leq \frac{C^p}{\lambda^p}$$ for all $\lambda > 0$. We note that in general ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ is not a norm but for $p>1$ it is comparable to a norm (see [@BoS Section 2]). We freely interchange the two and refer to ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ as the weak $\ell^p$-norm of $f$. The use of the weak norm in the following definitions is motivated by [@BoS].
We now define one of the two quantities used in this paper. We work with a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure space $(Z,d,\mu)$ with hyperbolic filling $X = (V,E)$. Both quantities are defined in a similar manner as modulus: certain functions defined on the hyperbolic filling are admissible if they give enough length to an appropriate collection of paths. Then to define the quantity in question we infimize over the $p$-th power of the weak $\ell^p$-norm of all admissible functions.
The first quantity, weak $p$-capacity ($\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$), is defined both for pairs of open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ and for disjoint continua. A continuum is a compact, connected set that consists of more than one point. We use the notation $$\operatorname{dist}(A,B) = \inf\{d(a,b):a\in A, b\in B\}$$ for the distance between $A$ and $B$. The main idea is that instead of connecting two such sets by paths lying in $Z$, we look at the (necessarily infinite) paths connecting $A$ and $B$ in the hyperbolic filling. More precisely, given $A,B \subseteq Z$ we call a function $\tau \colon E \to [0,\infty]$ admissible for $A$ and $B$ if for all infinite paths $\gamma \subseteq E$ with nontangential limits in $A$ and $B$ we have $\sum_{e \in \gamma}{\tau(e)}\geq 1$ (see Section \[Sec Hyp Fill\] for boundaries at infinity of hyperbolic fillings and what it means for a path to have nontangential limits). If $A$ and $B$ are understood we just call $\tau$ admissible.
Given open sets $A, B \subseteq Z$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B)>0$ or disjoint continua $A,B \subseteq Z$, we define the weak $p$-capacity $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)$ between $A$ and $B$ as $$\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) = \inf \{ {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}^p : \tau \ \text{is admissible for $A$ and $B$} \}.$$
Proposition \[positivity pcap\] states that when this is defined for open sets, $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)>0$. It is also true that for fixed sets $A$ and $B$ we have $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) \to 0$ as $p \to \infty$.
We remark again here that in the definition of $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ there is an implicit choice of a fixed hyperbolic filling and that by changing the hyperbolic filling we may change the value of $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ by a multiplicative constant. That is, if $\operatorname{wcap}'_p$ is defined as $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ with a different hyperbolic filling, then there are constants $c,C > 0$ such that for all open $A$ and $B$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ and disjoint continua, one has $$c \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) \leq \operatorname{wcap}'_p(A,B) \leq C \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B).$$ This follows from the proof of Theorem \[QS inv qcap\] as hyperbolic fillings of the same metric space are quasi-isometric. For this reason we ignore the dependence on the hyperbolic filling in the statements of the theorems below.
Our first main result shows that in general $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ is larger than the $Q$-modulus of the path family connecting $A$ and $B$ (denoted $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$; for the definition of $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}$ of a path family, see Section \[Sec Preliminaries\]).
\[qmod < qcap\] Let $Q>1$ and let $(Z,d,\mu)$ be a compact, connected Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric space. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $Q$ and the hyperbolic filling parameters with the following property: whenever $A,B \subseteq Z$ are either open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ or disjoint continua, $$\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \leq C\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B).$$
For a Loewner space (see Section \[Sec Preliminaries\] or [@He Chapter 8] for the precise definition), $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ is comparable to this modulus.
\[qcap < qmod\] Let $Q>1$ and let $(Z,d,\mu)$ be a compact, connected Ahlfors Q-regular metric space which is also a Q-Loewner space. Then there exist constants $c,C>0$ depending only on $Q$ and the hyperbolic filling parameters with the following property: whenever $A,B \subseteq Z$ are either open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ or disjoint continua, $$c \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \leq \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \leq C \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B).$$
Hence $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ is a quantity that agrees with $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}$ up to a multiplicative constant, at least for path families connecting appropriate sets, on spaces with a large supply of rectifiable paths. We also prove $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ satisfies a quasisymmetric invariance property. Given a homeomorphism $\eta: [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$, a map $\varphi \colon Z \to W$ is called an $\eta$-quasisymmetry if whenever $z, z', z'' \in Z$ satisfy $|z-z'| \leq t |z - z''|$, we have $|\varphi(z) - \varphi(z')| \leq \eta(t)|\varphi(z) - \varphi(z'')|$ where we have used the notation $|\cdot - \cdot|$ to denote distance in the appropriate metric spaces.
\[QS inv qcap\] Let $Z$ and $W$ be compact, connected, Ahlfors regular metric spaces and let $p > 1$. If $\varphi \colon Z \to W$ is an $\eta$-quasisymmetric homeomorphism, then there exist $c,C>0$ depending only on $\eta$ and the hyperbolic filling parameters with the following property: whenever $A,B \subseteq Z$ are either open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ or disjoint continua, $$c\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(A),\varphi(B)) \leq \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) \leq C\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(A), \varphi(B)).$$
We note here that the $p$ above need not match the Ahlfors regularity dimension of neither $Z$ nor $W$ and that $Z$ and $W$ might have different Ahlfors regularity dimensions. The quasisymmetric invariance result relies on the fact that a quasisymmetry on compact, connected, metric measure spaces induces a quasi-isometry on corresponding hyperbolic fillings. A map $F$ between two metric spaces $X$ and $Y$ is said to be a quasi-isometry if there are constants $c, C>0$ such that for all $x, x' \in X$, we have $$\label{QI def eq}
\frac{1}{C} |x - x'| - c \leq |f(x) - f(x')| \leq C|x - x'| + c$$ and there is a constant $D > 0$ such that for all $y \in Y$, there is an $x \in X$ such that $|f(x) - y| \leq D$.
We now define the second quantity: weak covering $p$-capacity ($\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$). As before, there is a choice of hyperbolic filling required that introduces a multiplicative ambiguity but which poses no issues for the statements of the theorems. Unlike $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$, the quantity $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$ is defined for all path families in a given metric space.
The vertices $V$ in our hyperbolic filling correspond to balls in $Z$: we let $B_v$ denote the ball corresponding to the vertex $v \in V$. A subset $S \subseteq V$ is said to cover $Z$ if $Z \subseteq \cup_{v \in S}{B_v}$. Let $\mathscr{S} = \{S_n\}$ where each $S_n\subseteq V$ is finite and covers $Z$. We call such an $\mathscr{S}$ a sequence of covers. We say $\mathscr{S}$ is expanding if for every finite $A \subseteq V$, we have $S_n \cap A = \emptyset$ for all large enough $n$.
For a given subset $S \subseteq V$ that covers $Z$ and a path $\gamma \colon [0,1] \to Z$ we define a projection $P \colon [0,1] \to V$ onto $S$ as a partition $0=t_0 < t_1 < \dots < t_m = 1$ of $[0,1]$ and a sequence $v_1, \dots v_m \in S$ such that for all $k$, $\gamma([t_{k-1}, t_k]) \subseteq B_{v_k}$.
Given $\tau \colon V \to [0,\infty]$, we define the $\tau$-length of a projection $P$ of $\gamma$ on $S$ as $\ell_{\tau,P,S} (\gamma) = \sum_k \tau(v_k)$.
Now, let $\mathscr{S} = \{S_n\}$ be an expanding sequence of covers. Given a rectifiable path $\gamma \colon [0,1] \to Z$, we say $\tau$ is admissible for $\gamma$ relative to $\mathscr{S}$ if $$\liminf_{n \to \infty} ( \inf_{P} \ell_{\tau,P,S_n} (\gamma) ) \geq 1$$ where the infimum $\inf_P$ is over all projections of $\gamma$ onto $S_n$. We say $\tau$ is admissible for $\gamma$ if $\tau$ is admissible relative to $\mathscr{S}$ for all such $\mathscr{S}$. We remark that, for a given $\gamma$, changing the parameterization does not affect the subsequent projected $\tau$-length and we will frequently view rectifiable $\gamma$ as parameterized by arclength.
The main idea is to use subsets (the covers above) of vertices of the hyperbolic filling to approximate $Z$ in finer and finer resolution. Path families now lie on the boundary $Z$ and are projected onto these covers in order to test admissibility of functions defined within. By infimising over all projections onto a given cover and then letting the covers “expand” to become more and more like $Z$, we arrive at the rough length a given function defined on the filling gives a particular path. Demanding admissibility for all rectifiable paths as with $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}$ and using the weak norm as with $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ leads us to our definition.
Given a collection of paths $\Gamma$ in $Z$, we define the weak covering $p$-capacity $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$ as $$\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma) = \inf \{ {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}^p : \tau \ \text{is admissible for all } \gamma \in \Gamma \}.$$
With this quantity we have comparability even without the Loewner condition.
\[wcqcap = qmod\] Let $Q>1$ and let $(Z,d,\mu)$ be a compact, connected Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric space. Then there exist constants $c,C>0$ depending only on $Q$ and the hyperbolic filling parameters such that for all path families $\Gamma$, $$c\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) \leq \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) \leq C\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma).$$
Similarly to $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$, the quantity $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$ has a quasisymmetric invariance property.
\[QS inv wcqcap\] Let $Z$ and $W$ be compact, connected, Ahlfors regular metric spaces and let $p > 1$. If $\varphi \colon Z \to W$ is an $\eta$-quasisymmetric homeomorphism, then there exist constants $c,C>0$ depending only on $p$, $\eta$, and the hyperbolic filling parameters such that for all path families $\Gamma$ in $Z$ we have $$c\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma) \leq \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(\Gamma)) \leq C\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma).$$
This quasisymmetric invariance property implies a result due to Tyson [@Ty].
Let $Z$ and $W$ be compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric spaces with $Q>1$ and let $\varphi \colon Z \to W$ be an $\eta$-quasisymmetric homeomorphism. Then there exists constants $c,C>0$ depending only on $\eta$, $Q$, and the hyperbolic filling parameters such that $$c \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) \leq \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\varphi(\Gamma)) \leq C \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma)$$ for all path families $\Gamma$ in $Z$.
Indeed, this follows immediately from combining Theorem \[wcqcap = qmod\] and Theorem \[QS inv wcqcap\] above. Tyson [@Ty] shows this result for locally compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric spaces, but our framework with hyperbolic fillings is adapted to compact metric spaces. Williams [@Wi] also derives this result; his Remark $4.3$ relates the conditions in the corollary above to his condition (III) which leads to the conclusion.
Lastly we outline the structure of the paper. In Section \[Sec Preliminaries\] we review some preliminaries including the definition of modulus and the statement of a weak $\ell^p$-norm comparison result. In Section \[Sec Hyp Fill\] we construct hyperbolic fillings and prove some of their basic properties. In particular, we sketch the proof that a quasisymmetry between boundary spaces induces a quasi-isometry between the corresponding hyperbolic fillings. In Section \[Sec qcap\] we prove the results related to $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$, namely Theorems \[qmod < qcap\], \[qcap < qmod\], and \[QS inv qcap\]. In Section \[Cdmin\] we relate $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$ to Ahlfors regular conformal dimension. In Section \[Sec wcqcap\] we prove the results corresponding to $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$, namely Theorems \[wcqcap = qmod\] and \[QS inv wcqcap\].
The author thanks Mario Bonk for countless interesting discussions related to the contents of this paper; his input and guidance have been immensely valuable. The author also thanks Peter Ha[ï]{}ssinsky and Kyle Kinneberg for stimulating conversations on the subject matter.
Preliminaries {#Sec Preliminaries}
=============
First we define the notion of modulus of path families. Let $(Z, d, \mu)$ be a metric measure space. By a path in $Z$ we mean a continuous function $\gamma: I \to Z$ where $I \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ is an interval. We will use $\gamma$ to refer to both the path and the image of the path. For a path family $\Gamma$, we say a Borel function $\rho \colon Z \to [0,\infty]$ is admissible for $\Gamma$ if for all rectifiable $\gamma \in \Gamma$ we have $$\int_\gamma \rho \geq 1.$$ Here and elsewhere path integrals are assumed to be with respect to the arclength parameterization. We define the $p$-modulus of the path family $\Gamma$ to be $$\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma) = \inf \left\{ \int_Z \rho^p \right \}$$ where the infimum is taken over all $\rho$ admissible for $\Gamma$ and the integral is against the measure $\mu$. In the following we will also suppress $d \mu$ from the notation.
One may think of $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}$ as an outer measure on path families which is supported on rectifiable paths. The quantity $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}$ is meaningless in spaces without rectifiable paths such as the snowflaked metric spaces discussed in the introduction. Nonetheless, where rectifiable paths abound $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}$ is closely related to conformality and quasiconformality. Indeed, a conformal diffeomorphism $f$ between two Riemannian manifolds $M$ and $N$ of dimension $n$ preserves the $n$-modulus of path families [@He Theorem 7.10]. This invariance principle can be used to give an equivalent definition of quasiconformal homeomorphisms between appropriate spaces [@He Definition 7.12] which, while difficult to check, is quite strong. Many basic properties of modulus are detailed in [@He Chapter 7].
Often for clarity and brevity we will make use of the symbols $\lesssim$ and $\simeq$. For two quantities $A$ and $B$, that may depend on some ambient parameters, we write $A \lesssim B$ to indicate that there is a constant $C>0$ depending only on these parameters such that $A \leq CB$. We also write $A \simeq B$ to indicate that there are constants $c, C>0$ depending only on these parameters such that $cB \leq A \leq CB$. The exact dependencies of these constants will be clear from the context.
For some results we will make use of [@BoS Lemma 2.2]. For convenience we include the statement here.
\[BoS Lemma\] Let $H$ and $K$ be countable sets. Let $p > 1$ and $J \subseteq H \times K$ be such that all sets of the forms $J_h = \{k \in K : (h,k) \in J\}$ and $J^k = \{h \in H : (h,k) \in J\}$ have at most $N$ elements. Then there is a constant $C(p,N)>0$ with the following weak $\ell^p$ bound property: if $s = \{s_h\}$ and $t = \{t_k\}$ are sets of real numbers indexed by $H$ and $K$ respectively and $$\label{BoS Lemma sum condition}
|s_h| \leq \sum_{k \in J_h} |t_k|$$ for all $h$, then ${\left\lVerts\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \leq C(p,N) {\left\lVertt\right\rVert}_{p, \infty}$.
One useful notion for a metric space to have many rectifiable paths is the Loewner condition. This relates the modulus of path families connecting nonintersecting continua, say $A$ and $B$, with their relative distance $$\Delta(A,B) = \frac{\operatorname{dist}(A,B)}{\min\{\operatorname{diam}(A), \operatorname{diam}(B)\}}.$$ We let $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$ denote the modulus of the path family connecting $A$ to $B$. We say a metric measure space $(Z, d, \mu)$ is a $Q$-Loewner space if there is a decreasing function $\phi_Q \colon (0,\infty) \to (0,\infty)$ such that for all such $A$ and $B$ we have $$\phi_Q (\Delta(A,B)) \leq \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B).$$ See [@He Chapter 8] for this definition and more information on Loewner spaces.
The main intuition here is that the path family connecting two continua with positive relative distance is large enough to carry positive $Q$-modulus; that is, there are many rectifiable paths connecting the two sets. This condition cannot be omitted from Theorem \[qcap < qmod\]: by the quasisymmetric invariance principle for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ (Theorem \[QS inv qcap\]) we can snowflake a $Q$-Loewner space to construct spaces where disjoint open sets have positive $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ but the modulus of any path family is 0.
Given a function $u$ on a metric measure space $(Z,d,\mu)$, we say that a Borel function $\rho \colon Z \to [0,\infty]$ is an upper gradient for $u$ if whenever $z,z' \in Z$ and $\gamma$ is a rectifiable path connecting $z$ and $z'$, we have $$|u(z) - u(z')| \leq \int_\gamma \rho.$$ We use the notation that if $B = B(x,r)$, then $\lambda B = B(x, \lambda r)$. For a given ball $B$ and a locally integrable function $u$ we set $u_B = \frac{1}{\mu(B)} \int_B u = \dashint_B{u}$; this is the average value of $u$ over the ball $B$. We say $(Z, d, \mu)$ admits a $p$-Poincaré inequality if there are constants $C>0$ and $\lambda \geq 1$ such that $$\label{Poincare Inequality}
\dashint_{B} |u - u_{B}| \leq C (\operatorname{diam}B)\left( \dashint_{\lambda B} \rho^p \right)^{1/p}$$ for all open balls $B$ in $Z$, for every locally integrable function $u \colon Z \to {\mathbb{R}}$, and every upper gradient $\rho$ of $u$ in $Z$. This definition and a subsequent discussion can be found in [@HKST Chapter 8]. The $Q$-Poincaré inequality is a regularity condition on our space which will follow from the $Q$-Loewner space hypothesis present in some of the theorems.
We make use of Hausdorff content and Hausdorff measure. Given an exponent $\alpha \geq 0$ and a set $E$, the $\alpha$-Hausdorff content of $E$ is defined as $$\mathscr{H}_\infty^\alpha(E) = \inf \{ \sum_{A \in \mathscr{A}} \operatorname{diam}(A)^\alpha : \mathscr{A} \text{ is a cover of } E \text{ by balls } A\}.$$ The $\alpha$-Hausdorff measure of $E$ is defined as $\mathscr{H}^\alpha(E) = \lim_{\delta \to 0} \mathscr{H}_\delta^\alpha(E)$ where $$\mathscr{H}_\delta^\alpha(E) = \inf \{ \sum_{A \in \mathscr{A}} \operatorname{diam}(A)^\alpha : \mathscr{A} \text{ is a cover of } E \text{ by balls A with } \operatorname{diam}(A) < \delta \}.$$ The Hausdorff dimension of $E$ is defined as $\operatorname{dim_{{\mathscr{H}}}}(E) = \inf\{\alpha : \mathscr{H}^\alpha(E) = 0\}$.
Hyperbolic fillings {#Sec Hyp Fill}
===================
Here we detail the construction of the hyperbolic fillings used to define $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ and $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}$. The main idea is to construct a graph that encodes the combinatorial data of $Z$ in finer and finer detail. As remarked in the introduction, it is useful to keep a Whitney cube decomposition of the unit disk model of the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^2$ in mind with the vertices corresponding to the Whitney cubes and with edges existing between intersecting cubes.
Recall we work in a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure space $(Z,d,\mu)$. Our construction of and proofs of properties involving the hyperbolic fillings of $Z$ follows [@BP Section 2.1] almost exactly. There is a minor problem with their construction, however, which we fix by using doubled radii balls inspired a similar construction in [@BuS Section 6.1]. For completeness we include the entire construction here.
By rescaling, we may assume $\operatorname{diam}Z < 1$. Let $s>1$ and, for each $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$, let $P_k \subseteq Z$ be an $s^{-k}$ separated set that is maximal relative to inclusion. We call $s$ the parameter of the hyperbolic filling. To each $p \in P_k$, we associate the ball $v = B(p, 2s^{-k})$ which we will use as our vertices in our graph. We refer to $k$ as the level of $v$ and write this as $\ell(v)$. We also write $V_k$ for the set of vertices with level $k$. Note as $\operatorname{diam}(Z) < 1$, there is a unique vertex in $V_0$ which we will denote $O$. We often write $v$ as $B_v$ or $B(v)$ where the level $k$ and the center $p$ are understood. We will occasionally make an abuse of notation, however, and write $B(v,2s^{-k})$ referring to $v$ as both the vertex and the center of the ball. We also use the notation $r(B)$ for the radius of a ball.
We form a graph $X=(V,E)$ where the vertex set $V$ is the disjoint union of the $V_k$ and we connect two distinct $v,w \in V$ by an edge if and only if $|\ell(v) - \ell(w)| \leq 1$, and $\overline{B_v} \cap \overline{B_w} \neq \emptyset$. We endow $X$ with the unique path metric in which each edge is isometric to an interval of length 1.
For $v,w \in V$, we let $(v,w)$ denote the Gromov product given by $$(v,w) = \frac{1}{2}(|O - v| + |O - w| - |v - w|),$$ where $O$ is the unique vertex with $\ell(O) = 0$ and $|v - w|$ is the graph distance between $v$ and $w$. Intuitively, $(v,w)$ is roughly the distance between $O$ and any geodesic connecting $v$ to $w$.
\[Gromov Comp\] For $v,w \in V$, we have $s^{-(v,w)} \simeq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w)$.
We find $x \in V$ with $\operatorname{diam}(B_x) \simeq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w)$ and $B_v, B_w \subseteq B_x$. To do this, we note that there is a number $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $s^{-k-1} \leq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w) \leq s^{-k}$. Then by construction there is a vertex $x$ on level $k$ such that $\frac{1}{2}B_x \cap B_v \neq \emptyset$; this follows from the choice of an $s^{-k}$ separated set for the centers of the balls corresponding to the vertices on level $k$. As $\operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w) \leq s^{-k}$, we see $B_v \cup B_w \subseteq B_x$. Without the extra radius factor this inclusion need not be true; this is the minor oversight in [@BP Section 2.1]. We choose geodesics $[Ov]$ and $[Ow]$ containing $x$. We see $(v,w) \geq |O-x|$ as $$\begin{split}
(v,w) - |O-x| &= \frac{1}{2}( |O-v| - |O-x| + |O-w| - |O-x| - |v-w|) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} (|v-x| + |w-x| - |v-w|)
\end{split}$$ which is nonnegative by the triangle inequality. Thus, $$s^{-(v,w)} \leq s^{-|O-x|} = \frac{1}{2}r(B_x) \simeq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w).$$ For the other direction, we follow the notation in [@BP Lemma 2.2] and set $|v-w|=\ell, |O-v|=m,$ and $|O-w|=n$. Let $[vw]$ be a geodesic segment, which is formed from a sequence of balls $B_k$ for $k \in {0,\dots,\ell}$ with $B_0 = B_v$ and $$s^{-1}r(B_i) \leq r(B_{i+1}) \leq s r(B_i)$$ for all $i$. Hence, for $k \in {0,\dots,\ell}$, we have $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w) &\leq \sum_{i=0}^\ell \operatorname{diam}(B_i) \\
&= \sum_{i=0}^k \operatorname{diam}(B_i) + \sum_{j=0}^{\ell - k - 1} \operatorname{diam}(B_{\ell - j})\\
&\leq 4 \sum_{i=0}^k s^{-m+i} + 4 \sum_{j=0}^{\ell - k - 1} s^{-n+j}\\
&= \frac{4}{s-1} (s^{-m+k+1} - s^{-m} + s^{-n+\ell-k} - s^{-n} ) \\
&\leq \frac{4s}{s-1}(s^{-m+k} + s^{-n+\ell-k}).
\end{split}$$ Setting $k = \frac{1}{2}(\ell+m-n)$ (or $k = \frac{1}{2}(\ell+m-n + 1)$ for a comparable bound if this is not an integer), this becomes $$\operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w) \leq \frac{8s}{s-1} s^{\frac{1}{2} (\ell - m - n)} = \frac{8s}{s-1} s^{-(v,w)}.
\qedhere$$
The following lemma involves Gromov hyperbolic metric spaces. For definitions we refer the reader to [@BuS Section 2.1].
$X$ equipped with the graph metric is a Gromov hyperbolic space.
Let $v,w,x \in V$. Then $$\operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w) \leq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_x) + \operatorname{diam}(B_x \cup B_w),$$ so by the above lemma there is a constant $D>0$ independent of $v,w,$ and $x$ such that $$s^{-(v,w)} \leq D (s^{-(v,x)} + s^{-(x,w)}) \leq 2D \max(s^{-(v,x)}, s^{-(x,w)}).$$ Hence, $$-(v,w) \leq \log_s(2D) + \max(-(v,x),-(x,w))$$ and so $$(v,w) \geq \min((v,x),(x,w)) - \log_s(2D)$$ which is the inequality required in the definition of a Gromov hyperbolic space.
We will also work with the boundary at infinity of our hyperbolic fillings. For completeness we include the standard construction of the boundary at infinity of a Gromov hyperbolic space here and refer the reader to [@BuS Chapter 2] for some of the details as well as more background.
For our given Gromov hyperbolic space $X$, the points of the boundary at infinity $\partial_\infty X$ are equivalence classes of sequences of points “diverging to infinity”. More precisely, we say a sequence of points $\{ x_n \}$ diverges to infinity if $$\lim_{m,n \to \infty} (x_n, x_m) = \infty.$$ Two sequences $\{ x_n \}$ and $\{ y_m \}$ are equivalent if $$\lim_{m,n \to \infty} (x_n, y_m) = \infty.$$ One then may extend the Gromov product to the boundary as in [@BuS]. From this one defines a metric $d$ on $\partial_\infty X$ to be a visual metric if there are constants $c, C>0$ and $a>1$ such that for all $z, z' \in \partial_\infty X$ we have $$ca^{-(z, z')} \leq d(z,z') \leq Ca^{-(z,z')}.$$
We now relate this construction to $X$ and $Z$.
With our constructed $X$ above, we can identify $\partial_\infty X$ with $Z$ where the original metric on $Z$ is a visual metric.
We use $$\label{s sim diam eq}
s^{-(v,w)} \simeq \operatorname{diam}(B_v \cup B_w).$$ We see $\{v_n\}$ is a sequence of vertices diverging to infinity if and only if $$\operatorname{diam}(B_{v_n} \cup B_{v_m}) \to 0$$ and so not only do the diameters satisfy $\operatorname{diam}(B_{v_n}) \to 0$ but the centers $p_n$ of the balls corresponding to $v_n$ also converge to a single point in $z \in Z$. This shows we can view $\partial_\infty X$ as a subset of $Z$ by identifying a sequence of vertices diverging to infinity with the limit point of the centers of the corresponding balls. The other inclusion follows by considering that for each $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ the set of balls $\{B_v : v \in V_k\}$ covers $Z$. Hence, for fixed $z \in Z$ for each $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ we may choose a vertex $v_k$ with level $k$ such that $z \in B_{v_k}$. This creates a sequence in $X$ diverging to infinity that corresponds to $z$. Relation above also shows our original metric on $Z$ is in fact a visual metric with respect to $X$.
The metric paths in $X$ that we are interested in travel through many vertices and are often infinite. For this reason we define a path in $X$ as a (possibly finite) sequence of vertices ${v_k}$ such that for all $k$, the vertices $v_k$ and $v_{k+1}$ are connected by an edge. Alternatively we may view a path as a sequence of edges ${e_k}$ such that for all $k$, the edges $e_k$ and $e_{k+1}$ share a common vertex; the point of view will be clear from context.
We now specify what it means for a sequence of vertices $v_n$ to converge to $z \in Z$: if $v_n$ is represented by $B(p_n, r_n)$ then $v_n \to z$ if and only if $p_n \to z$ and $r_n \to 0$. From this we also see what it means for a path (given by a sequence of vertices $\{v_k\}_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ or edges $\{e_k\}_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ as discussed above) to converge to a point in $Z$.
In our definitions we will work with nontangential limits. Intuitively, a path approaches the boundary nontangentially if it stays within bounded distance of a geodesic. In our setting this means that the smaller the radii corresponding to vertices on a path are, the closer the centers corresponding to those vertices need to be to the limit point. We state this more precisely as a definition.
\[nontangential limits\] A path in $X$ with vertices $v_n$ represented by $B(p_n, r_n)$ converges nontangentially to $z \in Z$ if $p_n \to z$ and $r_n \to 0$ and there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $\operatorname{dist}(z,p_n) \leq C r_n$.
For the next lemma, we define the valence of a vertex $v$ in a graph $(V,E)$ as the number of edges having $v$ as a vertex. To say a graph has bounded valence then means that there is a uniform constant $C$ such that every vertex $v\in V$ has valence at most $C$.
\[bounded valence\] The hyperbolic filling $X$ of a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure space has bounded valence.
Let $v$ be a vertex with level $n > 1$. Let $W$ be the vertices with level $n$ that intersect $v$. We bound $|W|$, the cardinality of the set $W$. Bounds on the number of vertices adjacent to $v$ with levels $n-1$ and $n+1$ follow similarly and yield the result.
Here we abuse notation and use $v$, $w$ as the centers of the balls corresponding to these vertices. We note $\cup_{w \in W}B(w,\frac{1}{3}s^{-n})$ is a disjoint collection of balls by the separation of vertices on level $n$. Moreover, this collection is contained in $B(v,4s^{-n})$. By Ahlfors regularity there are constants $c,C$ such that for all $z \in Z$ and $r \in (0, \operatorname{diam}(Z)]$ we have $$cr^{Q} \leq \mu(B(z,r)) \leq Cr^{Q}.$$ Hence, we see $$c |W| \frac{1}{3^Q} s^{-nQ} \leq C 4^Q s^{-nQ}$$ and so $|W|$ is uniformly bounded above.
Our final lemma is a construction which extends a quasisymmetric homeomorphism $f$ between two compact, connected, metric measure spaces $Z$ and $W$ to a quasi-isometric map $F$ between corresponding hyperbolic fillings $X$ and $Y$. As we make use of this construction explicitly in Theorem \[QS inv wcqcap\], we record the result here as a lemma as well as a sketch of the proof. The full proof can be found in [@BuS Theorem 7.2.1].
\[QI induces QS\] Let $Z$ and $W$ be compact, connected, metric measure spaces with corresponding hyperbolic fillings $X$ and $Y$. Let $f \colon Z \to W$ be a quasisymmetric homeomorphism. Then there is a quasi-isometry $F \colon X \to Y$ which extends to $f$ on the boundary.
It suffices to define $F$ as a map between vertices. Given $x \in X$, we see $f(B_x) \subset W$ and so there is at least one vertex $y \in Y$ of minimal radius (i.e. highest level) that contains $f(B_x)$. We set $F(x) = y$. We show $F$ is a quasi-isometry. For the upper bound in (\[QI def eq\]) we show that for vertices $x, x' \in X$ with $|x-x'| \leq 1$, we have uniform control over $|F(x) - F(x')|$. If not, then we have a sequence of such $x,x'$ such that $|F(x) - F(x')|$ gets arbitarily large. With this, we note $\overline{B}_{F(x)} \cap \overline{B}_{F(x')} \neq \emptyset$ and from this deduce that the levels between, and hence the ratio of the radii of the balls $B_{F(x)}$ and $B_{F(x')}$, must become arbitrarily large. Using a common point in $\overline{B}_{F(x)} \cap \overline{B}_{F(x')}$ and the quasisymmetry condition, we arrive at a contradiction. For the lower bound one considers $G \colon Y \to X$ defined as above but using $f^{-1}$ in place of $f$. One then shows that the compositions $G \circ F$ and $F \circ G$ are within a bounded distance from the identity in each case (i.e. there is a $D > 0$ such that for all $x \in X$ one has $|x - (G \circ F)(x)| < D$ and likewise for $F \circ G$). The fact that $F(X)$ is at a bounded distance from any point in $y$ also follows from the compositions being within a bounded distance from the identity.
Weak capacity {#Sec qcap}
=============
Here we prove some basic properties and then the main theorems about $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$.
The quantity $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}$ has the following properties:\
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $A \subseteq A'$ and $B \subseteq B'$, then $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \leq \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A',B')$\
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $A_k$ and $B$ are disjoint with $\operatorname{dist}(\cup A_k,B) > 0$, then
$$\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\cup A_k, B) \leq \sum \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_k, B).$$
Property (i) follows as any function admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A',B')$ is also admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$. Property (ii) follows as if $\tau_k$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_k,B)$, then $\sup_k \tau_k$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\cup A_k, B)$.
Now we prove the main results involving weak capacity: Theorems \[qmod < qcap\], \[qcap < qmod\], and \[QS inv qcap\]. Recall we consider compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure spaces $(Z,d,\mu)$. After the proofs of the main theorems we prove that for open $A,B \subseteq Z$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ we always have $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) > 0$. We prove Theorem \[qmod < qcap\] for disjoint continua first. For this we need a technical lemma.
\[short path lemma\] Let $p \geq 1$, let $f \in \ell^p(V)$, and let $A \subseteq Z$ be a continuum. Let $\{B_{v_n}\}$ be a sequence of balls corresponding to vertices $v_n$ with $\ell(v_n) \to \infty$. Suppose that there is a constant $c>0$ such that for all large enough $n$ we have $${\mathscr{H}^1_\infty}(A \cap B_{v_n}) \geq c s^{-\ell(v_n)}.$$ Then for each $\delta > 0$ there is an $N$ such that for all $n \geq N$, there is a vertex path $\sigma_n \subseteq X$ that starts from $v_n$ and has limit in $A$ which satisfies $\sum_{\sigma_n} f(v) \leq \delta$.
We note if $f$ has finite support then the result is immediate. Hence, we assume without loss of generality that $f$ does not have finite support. We also may assume all balls in consideration have radius bounded above by 4 as $\operatorname{diam}(Z) \leq 1$. For $\epsilon > 0$ and fixed $n$ we define $$K_n = K_n(\epsilon) = \{ z \in A \colon \exists v \in X \text{ with } z \in B_v, f(v)^p \geq \epsilon r(B_v) \text{ and } \ell(v) \geq \ell(v_n)\}.$$ We then may cover $K_n$ by $\{B_{v_z}\}_{z \in K_n}$ where $f(v_z)^p \geq \epsilon r(v_z)$. As the balls corresponding to these vertices have uniformly bounded diameter there is a countable subcollection of vertices $\mathscr{G}_n$ such that $$\bigcup_{z \in K_n}B_{v_z} \subseteq \bigcup_{v \in \mathscr{G}_n} 5B_v$$ and such that if $v,w \in \mathscr{G}_n$ are distinct, then $B_v \cap B_w = \emptyset$ (see [@He Theorem 1.2]). Hence, $K_n \subseteq \cup_{v \in \mathscr{G}_n} 5B_v$. Thus, we have $${\mathscr{H}^1_\infty}(K_n) \leq \sum_{\mathscr{G}_n} 10 r(v) \leq 10 \sum_{\mathscr{G}_n} \frac{f(v)^p}{\epsilon} \leq \frac{10}{\epsilon} {\left\lVertf_{\ell(v_n)}\right\rVert}_p^p$$ where $f_j$ is $f$ restricted to vertices of level $j$ and higher.
In the above we use $\epsilon = \epsilon_n$ defined by $$\frac{10}{\epsilon_n} {\left\lVertf_{\ell(v_n)}\right\rVert}_p^p = \frac{1}{2} cs^{-\ell(v_n)}$$ which is possible as ${\left\lVertf_{\ell(v_n)}\right\rVert}_p^p > 0$ for all $n$ as $f$ does not have finite support. We conclude that for large enough $n$ we have $${\mathscr{H}^1_\infty}(K_n) \leq \frac{1}{2} {\mathscr{H}^1_\infty}(A \cap B_{v_n}).$$ Hence, there is a point $z \in (A \cap B_{v_n}) \setminus K_n$.
For this $z$ we form a vertex path $\sigma$ from $v_n$ with limit $z$ by choosing a vertex $w_k$ for each $k > \ell(v_n)$ such that $z \in B_{w_k}$. As $z \notin K_n$, we estimate the sum $$\begin{split}
\sum_\sigma f(v) &\leq (\epsilon_n^{1/p}) \sum_{k=\ell(v_n)}^\infty (2s^{-k})^{1/p} \\
&= (2 \epsilon_n)^{1/p} \sum_{k=\ell(v_n)}^\infty (s^{1/p})^{-k} \\
&\lesssim (2 \epsilon_n)^{1/p} s^{-\ell(v_n)/p} \\
&\lesssim (\epsilon_n s^{-\ell(v_n)})^{1/p}.
\end{split}$$ From our choice of $\epsilon_n$ we have $${\left\lVertf_{\ell(v_n)}\right\rVert}_p^p \simeq \epsilon_n s^{-\ell(v_n)}$$ and as ${\left\lVertf_{\ell(v_n)}\right\rVert}_p^p \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, the result holds.
We begin by showing the result for disjoint continua $A$ and $B$. Let $\tau \colon E \to [0,\infty]$ be an admissible function for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$. Define $f \colon V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $f(v)=\sum_{e \sim v} \tau(e)$ where the sum is over all edges with $v$ as an endpoint.
We note ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q \simeq {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q$ follows from Lemma \[BoS Lemma\]. Indeed, in this case our set $J \subseteq V \times E$ consists of vertex-edge pairs $(v,e)$ with $e$ having $v$ as a boundary vertex where $s_v = f(v)$ and $t_e = \tau(e)$. As $X$ has bounded valence, Lemma \[BoS Lemma\] applies to give us one direction of comparability. By using edge-vertex pairs $(e,v)$ and adjusting the definitions of the $s_v$ and $t_e$ we also get the other bound. We also note that if ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty} < \infty$ this means $f \in \ell^p$ whenever $p > Q$.
Consider the functions $u_n \colon Z \to {\mathbb{R}}$ given by $$\label{un def}
u_n = \sum_{v \in V_n} \frac{f(v)}{r(B_v)}\chi_{2B_v},$$ where we recall $V_n$ are the vertices on level $n$. We claim $2 u_n$ is admissible for $Q$-modulus between $A$ and $B$ for large enough $n$. Suppose this fails for some sequence $n_i$. Then there is a rectifiable path $\gamma_{n_i}$ connecting $A$ and $B$ with $\int_{\gamma_{n_i}} u_{n_i} \leq \frac{1}{2}$. The endpoints of $\gamma_{n_i}$ lie in balls $\frac{1}{2} B_{v_{n_i}^A}$ and $ \frac{1}{2}B_{v_{n_i}^B}$ corresponding to vertices of level ${n_i}$. We now apply Lemma \[short path lemma\] with $\delta = \frac{1}{16}$ to obtain, for all large enough ${n_i}$, paths $\sigma_{n_i}^A$ and $\sigma_{n_i}^B$ with $$\sum_{\sigma_{n_i}^A} f(v) < \frac{1}{16} \text { and }\sum_{\sigma_{n_i}^B} f(v) < \frac{1}{16}.$$ From the definition of $f$ it is clear that summing along the edges of these paths gives a $\tau$-length of less than $\frac{1}{16}$ as well. We note the hypothesis in Lemma \[short path lemma\] follows once $s^{-{n_i}} < \min(\operatorname{diam}(A), \operatorname{diam}(B))$.
We show this violates the admisibility of $\tau$. Indeed, if $v_0,\dots,v_m$ is a path of vertices in $V_{n_i}$ where $\gamma_{n_i}$ passes through each $\frac{1}{2} B_{v_k}$ and $\ell(\gamma_{n_i}) \geq 8s^{-{n_i}}$, then $$\begin{split}
\int_{\gamma_{n_i}}u_{n_i} &\geq \sum_{j=0}^{m} \frac{r(B_{v_j}) f(v_j)}{2r(B_{v_j})} \\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{m} \frac{1}{2}f(v_j) \\
&\geq \sum_{j=1}^{m} \tau(e_j),
\end{split}$$ where $e_j$ denotes the edge connecting $v_{j-1}$ to $v_j$. Choosing such a path with $v_0$ and $v_m$ corresponding to $B_{v_{n_i}^A}$ and $B_{v_{n_i}^B}$ and combining this path with $\sigma_{n_i}^A$ and $\sigma_{n_i}^B$ yields a path in the graph with nontangential boundary limits in $A$ and $B$ with $\sum \tau(e) < 1$, contradicting the admissibility of $\tau$.
We have just shown that for large enough $n$ the function $2u_n$ is admissible for $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A, B)$. It remains to compute ${\left\lVertu_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q$. We have $$\label{u_n bound}
\begin{split}
{\left\lVertu_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q &= \int_Z \left (\sum_{v \in V_n} \frac{f(v)}{r(B_v)} \chi_{2B_v} \right)^Q \\
&\lesssim \int_Z \left (\sum_{v \in V_n} \frac{f(v)^Q}{r(B_v)^Q} \chi_{2B_v} \right) \\
&\lesssim \sum_{v \in V_n} f(v)^Q
\end{split}$$ where we have used the bounded valence of our hyperbolic filling (Lemma \[bounded valence\]) for the first inequality and Ahlfors $Q$-regularity for the second. From [@BoS Proof of Theorem 1.4], for any $N>1$ there is an $n \in [N,2N]$ such that $$\sum_{v \in V_n} f(v)^Q \lesssim {\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q.$$ Thus, for specific large enough $n$, we see that $u_n$ is admissible for the modulus between $A$ and $B$ and satisfies ${\left\lVertu_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q$. Infimizing over admissible $\tau$ yields the result for continua.
Now, for open sets $A$ and $B$ we use the same technique, but the setup is more involved: we need to work safely inside the open sets to be able to satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[short path lemma\]. For $\lambda > 0$ define $ A_\lambda = \{a \in A : d(a, Z \setminus A) > \lambda \}$ and define $B_\lambda$ similarly. Fix $\lambda>0$ such that $A_\lambda$ and $B_\lambda$ are nonempty (all small enough $\lambda$ will satisfy this). We claim for such $\lambda$ we have $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_\lambda,B_\lambda) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A, B)$ with an implicit constant independent of $\lambda$. Indeed, as above we claim $2u_n$ is admissible for $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_\lambda, B_\lambda)$ for large enough $n$, where we recall $u_n$ is defined in equation (\[un def\]).
If $2u_n$ is not admissible, then we may find a path $\gamma_n$ on level $n$ with $\int_{\gamma_n} u_n \leq \frac{1}{2}$. We note for large enough $n$, the endpoints $v_n^A$ and $v_n^B$ of $\gamma_n$ satisfy $B_{v_n^A} \subseteq A$ and $B_{v_n^B} \subseteq B$. We then apply the above procedure to create a short $\tau$-path connecting $A$ and $B$ which contradicts the admissibility of $\tau$. From the norm computation above, by infimizing over admissible $\tau$ we conclude $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_\lambda,B_\lambda) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A, B)$ with an implicit constant independent of $\lambda$.
We show now that this implies $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$. Let $\lambda_n = \frac{1}{n}$ and, for each $n$, let $\sigma_n \geq 0$ be an admissible function for $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A_{\lambda_n},B_{\lambda_n})$ such that ${\left\lVert\sigma_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$.
By Mazur’s Lemma [@HKST p. 19], there exist convex combinations $\rho_n$ of $\sigma_k$ with $k \geq n$ and a limit function $\rho$ such that $\rho_n \to \rho$ in $L^Q$. By Fuglede’s Lemma [@HKST p. 131], after passing to a subsequence of the $\rho_n$, we may assume that for all paths $\gamma$ except in a family $\Gamma_0$ of $Q$-modulus 0, $\int_{\gamma} \rho_n \to \int_{\gamma} \rho$. As the $Q$-modulus of $\Gamma_0$ is $0$, there exists a function $\sigma \geq 0$ with $\int_{\gamma} \sigma = \infty$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma_0$ and $\int_Z \sigma^Q < \infty$.
We show $\rho + c \sigma$ is admissible for $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$ for any $c>0$. Let $\gamma$ be a path connecting $A$ and $B$. If $\gamma \in \Gamma_0$, then $\int_{\gamma} c \sigma = \infty$, so suppose $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$. Then, as $A$ and $B$ are open, $\gamma$ connects $A_{\lambda_n}$ and $B_{\lambda_n}$ for some $n$. As $A_{\lambda_n} \subseteq A_{\lambda_k}$ for $n \leq k$, and likewise for $B$, we see $\int_{\gamma} \sigma_k \geq 1$ whenever $n \leq k$. Hence, $\int_{\gamma} \rho_m \geq 1$ for all $m \geq n$, and so $\int_{\gamma} \rho \geq 1$. Thus, $\rho + c \sigma$ is admissible for $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$. Now, $$\begin{split}
{\left\lVert\rho + c \sigma\right\rVert}_Q^Q &\lesssim {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q + {\left\lVertc \sigma\right\rVert}_Q^Q \\
&\lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) + {\left\lVertc \sigma\right\rVert}_Q^Q
\end{split}$$ and as $c$ may be taken arbitrarily small we have $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$.
Recall that for this direction, in addition to working in a compact, connected Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure space $(Z,d,\mu)$ we also assume that $Z$ is a $Q$-Loewner space. We first assume $A$ and $B$ are open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$. For the continua case the proof will be the same except for one detail. This is noted in the following proof and the required modifications will follow from Lemma \[continuum near 0\].
If $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)=\infty$ there is nothing to prove so suppose $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) < \infty$. Let $\rho \colon Z \to [0,\infty]$ be $Q$-integrable and admissible for modulus. Define $v \colon Z \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\label{v function def}
v(z) = \inf \left \{\int_{\gamma}{\rho}: \gamma \in \Gamma_z \right \}$$ where $\Gamma_z$ is the set of all rectifiable paths with one endpoint in $A$ and the other endpoint equal to $z$. It is clear that $\rho$ is an upper gradient for $v$; that is, given $y,z \in Z$, we have $|v(y)-v(z)| \leq \int_{\gamma} \rho$ whenever $\gamma$ is a rectifiable path connecting $y$ and $z$. Hence, as $\rho$ is $Q$-integrable, it follows from [@HKST Theorem 9.3.4] that $v$ is measurable. Set $u = \min\{v,1\}$. We see $\rho$ is an upper gradient for $u$ as well. Clearly $u(a)=0$ whenever $a\in A$ and, as $\rho$ is admissible for $Q$-modulus, we see $u(b) = 1$ whenever $b\in B$.
By [@HK Theorem 5.12], we note that $Z$ supports a $Q$-Poincaré inequality for continuous functions. This is equivalent to a $Q$-Poincaré inequality for locally integrable functions by [@HKST Theorem 8.4.1]. Following [@HKST Theorem 12.3.9], first seen in [@KZ], this promotes to a $p$-Poincaré inequality for functions which are integrable on balls for $p$ slightly smaller than $Q$.
Now, consider the function $\tau \colon E\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\tau (e)= r(e_+)\biggl (\dashint_{K e_+} \rho^p \biggr )^{1/p} + r(e_-) \biggl (\dashint_{Ke_-} \rho^p \biggr)^{1/p}$$ with $K$ to be chosen and $e_+, e_-$ the balls representing the vertices of $e$. As before, $Ke_+$ denotes the ball with the same center and as $e_+$ and with radius $K r(e_+)$. We claim with appropriate $K$ that $\tau$ is admissible. We note that for intersecting balls $B'$ and $B''$ with a constant $k \geq 1$ such that $B' \subseteq kB''$ and $B'' \subseteq kB'$, we have $$\begin{split}
|u_{B''} - u_{kB'}| &= \left | \frac{1}{|B''|} \int_{B''} u - \frac{1}{|B''|} \int_{B''} u_{kB'} \right | \\
&\leq \frac{1}{|B''|} \int_{B''} |u - u_{kB'}| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{|B''|} \int_{kB'} |u - u_{kB'}| \\
&= \frac{|kB'|}{|B''|} \dashint_{kB'} |u - u_{kB'}| \\
& \lesssim \dashint_{kB'} |u - u_{kB'}|
\end{split}$$ and similarly $|u_{B'} - u_{kB'}| \lesssim \dashint_{kB'} |u_{kB'} - u|$. Hence, by the triangle inequality, $$|u_{B'} - u_{B''}| \lesssim \dashint_{kB'} |u - u_{kB'}|$$ and so $$|u_{B'}- u_{B''}| \lesssim \dashint_{kB'} |u - u_{kB'}| + \dashint_{kB''} |u- u_{kB''}|.$$ In our graph, there is a uniform $k$ such that the above holds whenever $B'$ and $B''$ are vertices for a given edge. Thus, using the above notation where $e$ is an edge with $e_+$ and $e_-$ as the balls representing the vertices of $e$, we have $$\begin{split}
|u_{e_+}-u_{e_-}| &\lesssim \dashint_{k e_+}|u-u_{ke_+}| + \dashint_{k e_-}|u-u_{ke_-}| \\
&\lesssim r(e_+) \biggl (\dashint_{K e_+} \rho^p \biggr )^{1/p} + r(e_-) \biggl (\dashint_{K e_-} \rho^p \biggr )^{1/p} \\
&=\tau(e),
\end{split}$$ where $K = \lambda k$ arises from the Poincaré inequality (inequality ). Thus, if $\gamma$ is a path in the hyperbolic filling with limits in $A$ and $B$ we have, summing over the edges $e$ in $\gamma$, $$\label{tau admissible telescope condition}
\sum_{\gamma}|u_{e_+}-u_{e_-}| \lesssim \sum_{\gamma}\tau(e).$$ Now, $\gamma$ has boundary limits in $A$ and $B$. We recall that if a sequence of vertices $B_n$ along a path approaches a limit $z \in Z = \partial_\infty X$, then the centers $p_n$ of the $B_n$ satisfy $p_n \to z$. Thus, as $A$ and $B$ are open, for edges sufficiently close to $A$ we have $u_{e_+} = 0$ and for edges sufficiently close to $B$ we have $u_{e_+} = 1$. We remark here that this fact is not true in the case that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint continua; this is where we will use Lemma \[continuum near 0\]. Hence, $1 \lesssim \sum_{\gamma} \tau(e)$ with constant independent of $\gamma$. Thus, for suitable $c$ depending only on the constants $\lambda$ and $C$ from the Poincaré inequality and $k$ above, $c\tau$ is admissible.
It remains to compute ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}$. We follow a proof similar to [@BoS Proposition 5.3]. We estimate the number of edges $e$ with an endpoint labelled as $v$ that belong to $$V(\alpha) = \{v \in V : r(B_v) \biggl (\dashint_{KB_v}\rho^p \biggr )^{1/p} > \frac{\alpha}{2} \}$$ where $\alpha > 0$. We will bound ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}$ by bounding $\#V(\alpha)$. Now, $$\#V(\alpha) = \int_Z \biggl (\sum_{v \in V(\alpha)} \frac{1}{|B_v|}\chi_{B_v} \biggr )$$ and, by the geometric structure of our graph, we have, for $z \in Z$, $$\sum_{v \in V(\alpha)} \frac{1}{|B_v|} \chi_{B_v}(z) \lesssim \frac{1}{|B_z|}$$ where $B_z$ is the ball in $V(\alpha)$ of smallest radius that contains $z$ (such a ball exists for almost every $z$ as $\rho \in L^p$).
We note that for $v \in V(\alpha)$ and $z\in Kv$ we have $$\biggl (\dashint_{KB_v}\rho^p \biggr)^{1/p} \leq M(\rho^p)(z)^{1/p}$$ where $M$ denotes the (uncentered) Hardy-Littlewood maximal function (see for instance [@He Chapter 2]). Thus, $$r(B_v)M(\rho^p)^{1/p}(z) > \frac{\alpha}{2}$$ for all $z \in KB_v$. For such $v$, we see $$\label{alpha ineq}
\frac{1}{r(B_v)^Q} \leq \frac{2^Q M(\rho^p)(z)^{Q/p}}{\alpha^Q}.$$ Hence, $$\begin{split}
\# V(\alpha) &\lesssim \int_Z \biggl (\sum_{v \in V(\alpha)} \frac{1}{|B_v|}\chi_{B_v} \biggr ) \\
&\lesssim \int_Z \frac{1}{|B_z|} \\
&\lesssim \int_Z \frac{M(\rho^p)(z)^{Q/p}}{\alpha^Q} \\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{\alpha^Q} \int_Z (\rho^p )^{Q/p} \\
&= \frac{1}{\alpha^Q} {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q
\end{split}$$ where we have used Ahlfors regularity with inequality (\[alpha ineq\]) to bound $\frac{1}{|B_z|}$ and the fact that $Q/p > 1$ to bound the maximal function as an operator on $L^{Q/p}(Z)$. Now, if an edge $e$ satisfies $\tau(e) > \alpha$ then at least one of its vertices must belong to $V(\alpha)$. As $X$ has bounded valence, there is an $L>0$ such that each vertex can only occur as the boundary of at most $L$ edges. Thus, $$\#\{e \in E : \tau(e) > \alpha\} \leq L \#V(\alpha) \lesssim \frac{L}{\alpha^Q} {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q$$ From this we see ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q$ and hence $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \lesssim \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$ with a constant depending only on $Z$ and the hyperbolic filling.
We now establish a lemma required to complete the proof of Theorem \[qcap < qmod\] in the case of disjoint continua. We continue to work with an admissible $\rho \in L^Q(Z)$. For this lemma we need the following fact.
\[Cartan\] Let $\eta > 0$ and set $$E = E(\eta, \rho) = \left \{z \in Z: \text{there exists }r > 0 \ \text{with } \int_{B(z,r)} \rho^Q \geq \eta r^Q \right \}.$$ Then ${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \int_Z \rho^Q$.
For each $z \in E$ there is a ball $B_z = B(z, r_z)$ for which $\int_{B_z} \rho^Q \geq \eta {r_z}^Q$. As $Z$ is bounded it is clear we may assume the balls $B_z$ have uniformly bounded radius. Hence, we may find a disjoint collection of these balls $B_{z_i}$ such that $E \subseteq \bigcup_i 5B_{z_i}$. Thus, $${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) \leq \sum_i (10 r_{z_i})^Q = 10^Q \sum_i r_{z_i}^Q \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \sum_i \int_{B_{z_i}} \rho^Q \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \int_Z \rho^Q.
\qedhere$$
We note that $Z$ here may be replaced by an appropriate smaller ambient space $Z'$ as long as we stipulate that we only consider radii $r$ for which $B(z,r) \subseteq Z'$. Indeed, in our case we will apply this to $Z' = c_0B_v = B(z_0, c_0 R)$ with $c_0$ a constant that depends only on our path and the Loewner function. Thus, in this case the conclusion reads ${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \int_{c_0B_v} \rho^Q$.
We also use $u$ from the proof of Theorem \[qcap < qmod\]. Recall this means $u=\min(v,1)$ where $v$ is defined in equation (\[v function def\]). We also will carefully keep track of constants. We will denote the Ahlfors regularity constants as $c_Q$ and $C_Q$. That is, for balls $B'$ with radius $r$ bounded above by $\operatorname{diam}(Z)$ we have $c_Q r^Q \leq \mu(B') \leq C_Q r^Q$.
\[continuum near 0\] Consider a sequence of balls $B_v \to a \in A$ nontangentially. Then $u_{B_v} = \dashint_{B_v} u \to 0$.
A rough outline of the proof is as follows: for a ball $B_v$ in the sequence we consider the set $M_v = \{u \geq \epsilon\} \cap B_v$. For balls close enough to $A$, if $M_v$ is too large in $B_v$ we will use the Loewner condition to construct a path connecting $A$ to $M_v$ with short $\rho$-length. When the $\rho$-length is less than $\epsilon$ this contradicts the definition of $u$.
Let $B_v = B(z_0, R)$ be a ball in the sequence. As our sequence approaches nontangentially, there is a constant $c_1 > 0$ depending only on our sequence such that $\operatorname{dist}(z_0, A) \leq c_1 R$. We assume $B_v$ is close enough to $A$ that $ 4(1 + c_1) R < \operatorname{diam}(A)$. Fix $\epsilon \in (0,1)$. Set $M_v = \{u \geq \epsilon\} \cap B_v$. We then note that by setting $\delta = \frac{\mu(M_v)}{\mu(B_v)}$ we have $$\label{u delta ineq}
u_{B_v} \leq \frac{1}{\mu(B_v)} \bigl(\mu(M_v) + \epsilon\mu(B_v \setminus M_v) \bigr) = \delta + \epsilon(1-\delta).$$ as $u \leq 1$. We assume $\mu(M_v) > 0$ as our conclusion holds if $\mu(M_v) = 0$.
We now relate the measure of $M_v$ with its Hausdorff $Q$-content. Indeed, if $B_i$ is a collection of balls covering $M_v$ with radii $s_i$, we have $\mu(M_v) \leq \sum_i \mu(B_i) \leq C_Q \sum_i s_i^Q$ and infimizing over all such collections yields $\frac{\mu(M_v)}{C_Q} \leq {\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(M_v)$.
Now by applying Lemma \[Cartan\] we see that the Hausdorff $Q$-content of the set $$\begin{split}
E&=E(\eta, v)\\ &= \left \{z \in M_v: \text{there exists } r>0 \text{ such that } B(z,r) \subseteq c_0B_v \text{ and } \int_{B(z,r)} \rho^Q \geq \eta r^Q \right \}
\end{split}$$ satisfies ${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \int_{c_0B_v} \rho^Q$.
If $\int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q = 0$ then we set $\eta = 1$ and otherwise we set $$\label{eta def}
\eta = \frac{2 C_Q 10^Q \int_{c_0B_v} \rho^Q}{\mu(M_v)}.$$ Hence, $${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) \leq \frac{10^Q}{\eta} \int_{c_0B_v} \rho^Q = \frac{\mu(M_v)}{2 C_Q} < \frac{\mu(M_v)}{C_Q} \leq {\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(M_v).$$ It follows from ${\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(E) < {\mathscr{H}^Q_\infty}(M_v)$ that there is an $x \in M_v \setminus E$ such that for all $r>0$ with $B(x,r) \subseteq c_0B_v$ we have $\int_{B(x,r)} \rho^Q < \eta r^Q$.
Recall $\operatorname{dist}(z_0, A) \leq c_1 R$ and so $\operatorname{dist}(x,A) \leq (1+c_1) R$. We set $B_0 = B(x, c_2 R)$ and $B_j = 2^{-j} B_0$ where $c_2 = 2(1+c_1)$. As $4(1 + c_1) R < \operatorname{diam}(A)$ there is a subcontinua $E_0 \subseteq A$ that satisfies $E_0 \subseteq B_0$ and $\operatorname{diam}(E_0) \geq \frac{c_1}{2} R$. Indeed, by possibly removing some of $E_0$ we may also assume $E_0 \subseteq B_0 \setminus B_1$. As $Z$ is a complete and doubling metric measure space that supports a Poincarè inequality, $Z$ is quasiconvex (see [@HKST Theorem 8.3.2]) and hence rectifiably path connected. Thus, there is a rectifiable path $\beta$ connecting $x$ to $E_0$, say $\beta:[0,1] \to Z$ with $\beta(0) = x$ and $\beta(1) \in E_0$. We define continua $E_j$ as follows: given $j >0$, let $t_j^-$ denote the first time after which $\beta$ does not return to $B_{2j+1}$ and let $t_j^+$ denote the first time $\beta$ leaves $B_{2j}$. Then set $E_j = \beta([t_j^-, t_j^+])$. We note that for each $j$ we have $E_j \subseteq B_{2j}$ and $\operatorname{diam}(E_j) \geq \frac{1}{10}\operatorname{diam}(B_{2j})$. Hence, it follows that $$\begin{split}
\Delta(E_j, E_{j+1}) &= \frac{\operatorname{dist}(E_j, E_{j+1})}{\min(\operatorname{diam}(E_j),\operatorname{diam}(E_{j+1}))} \\
&\leq \frac{\operatorname{diam}(B_{2j})}{\frac{1}{10} \operatorname{diam}(B_{2j+2})} \\
&\leq 10 \frac{2 (2^{-(2j)}c_2 R)}{2(2^{-(2j+2)}c_2R)} \\
&= 40.
\end{split}$$ As we are in a $Q$-Loewner space, this means $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(E_j,E_{j+1}) \geq \varphi(40)$, where $\varphi$ is the $Q$-Loewner function associated to $Z$. As $Z$ is Ahlfors $Q$-regular, it follows from [@HKST Proposition 5.3.9] that there is a constant $c_3 > 0$ such that $$\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\overline{B}(x_0,s), Z \setminus B(x_0, S)) \leq c_3 \biggl(\log \frac{S}{s} \biggr)^{1-Q}$$ when $0 < 2s < S$. In particular, we can find a constant $c_4 > 2$ such that if $\Gamma^*(E_j, E_{j+1})$ is the path family of rectifiable paths connecting $E_j$ to $E_{j+1}$ that leaves $c_4 B_{2j}$, we have $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma^*(E_j, E_{j+1})) \leq \frac{\varphi(40)}{2}$. Thus, the $Q$-modulus of the family of rectifiable paths connecting $E_j$ to $E_{j+1}$ which stay inside $c_4 B_{2j}$ is at least $\frac{\varphi(40)}{2}$. In particular, this means for each $j$ that one can find a path $\alpha_j$ that connects $E_j$ and $E_{j+1}$, stays inside $c_4B_{2j}$, and satisfies $$\int_{\alpha_j} \rho \leq \biggl( \frac{4 \int_{c_4 B_{2j}} \rho^Q}{\varphi(40)} \biggr)^{1/Q}.$$ Here if $\int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q = 0$ then instead for each $\nu>0$ we can find $\alpha_j(\nu)$ such that $\int_{\alpha_j} \rho \leq \nu$ and the following argument works by choosing values of $\nu$ that are sufficiently small. Recall we also use $\alpha_j$ to denote the image of $\alpha_j$. Hence, each $\alpha_j$ is a continuum, $$\operatorname{dist}(\alpha_j,\alpha_{j+1}) \leq \operatorname{diam}(E_{j+1}) \leq 2(2^{-(2j+2)})c_2 R,$$ and $$\operatorname{diam}(\alpha_j) \geq \operatorname{dist}(E_j, E_{j+1}) \geq \frac{1}{4} \operatorname{diam}(B_{2j+1}) \geq \frac{1}{2} 2^{-(2j+1)} c_2 R.$$ Thus, we see $$\Delta(\alpha_j, \alpha_{j+1}) \leq \frac{2(2^{-(2j+2)})c_2 R}{\frac{1}{2} (2^{-(2j+3)}) c_2 R} = 8 < 40.$$ Hence we may perform the same procedure as above to find paths $\beta_j$ connecting $\alpha_j$ to $\alpha_{j+1}$ with $$\int_{\beta_j} \rho \leq \biggl( \frac{4 \int_{c_4^2 B_{2j}} \rho^Q}{\varphi(40)} \biggr)^{1/Q}$$ where we note the $c_4^2$ arises as $\alpha_j \subseteq c_4 B_{2j}$. From the way these paths were constructed it is clear we can extract a rectifiable path $\gamma$ from $\bigcup_j (\alpha_j \cup \beta_j)$ connecting $M_v$ to $A$ such that $$\int_\gamma \rho \leq \sum_j \biggl( \frac{4 \int_{c_4 B_{2j}} \rho^Q}{\varphi(40)} \biggr)^{1/Q} + \biggl( \frac{4 \int_{c_4^2 B_{2j}} \rho^Q}{\varphi(40)} \biggr)^{1/Q}.$$ As $x \notin E(\eta)$, we know that $\int_{c B_{2j}} \rho^Q \leq \eta (c 2^{-(2j)} c_2 R)^Q$ for each $c >0 $ with $c B_0 \subseteq c_0 B_v$. We note here that this is the requirement on $c_0$, namely that $B(x, c_4^2 c_2 R) \subseteq c_0 B_v$. Hence, $$\int_{\gamma}\rho \leq \sum_j \biggl(\frac{4}{\varphi(40)} \eta (c_4 2^{-(2j)} c_2 R)^Q \biggr)^{1/Q} + \biggl(\frac{4}{\varphi(40)} \eta (c_4^2 2^{-(2j)} c_2 R)^Q \biggr)^{1/Q} \lesssim \eta^{1/Q} R$$ with constant only depending on $c_4$ and $\varphi(40)$ (in the case that $\int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q = 0$ we can instead make $\int_{\gamma}\rho$ as small as we like). Recall the definition of $\eta$ given by (\[eta def\]) which gives $$\int_{\gamma}\rho \lesssim \biggl( \int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q \biggr)^{1/Q} \biggl(\frac{1}{\mu(M_v)^{1/Q}}\biggr)R.$$ Now, $\delta = \frac{\mu(M_v)}{\mu(B_v)}$ and $\mu(B_v) \geq c_Q R^Q$, from which we conclude $$\int_{\gamma} \rho \lesssim \biggl( \int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q \biggr)^{1/Q} \delta^{-1/Q}.$$ Now, as $x \in M_v$ and $\gamma$ is a path connecting $A$ to $x$, we must have $\int_{\gamma} \rho \geq \epsilon$. Thus, $$\epsilon \delta ^{1/Q} \leq \biggl( \int_{c_0 B_v} \rho^Q \biggr)^{1/Q}.$$ For fixed $\epsilon>0$ the right hand side tends to $0$ as $v \to a \in A$. Thus, we must have $\delta \to 0$ as $v \to a$. Hence, from inequality (\[u delta ineq\]) we conclude $u_{B_v} \to 0$ as $v \to a$.
The above argument can be adapted to show that as $B_v \to B$ we have $u_{B_v} \to 1$. To do this, we would instead use $M_v = \{ u \leq 1 - \epsilon \} \cap B_v$ and argue as above that if $\delta = \frac{\mu(M_v)}{\mu(B_v)}$ was large then there would exist a path from $M$ to $B$ with short $\rho$-length. From the definition of $u$ this would produce a path $\gamma$ connecting $A$ to $B$ with total length less than $1$, contradicting the admissibility of $\rho$.
This completes the proof of the continua case by bounding below the quantity in inequality (\[tau admissible telescope condition\]).
Lastly we prove Theorem \[QS inv qcap\], the quasisymmetric invariance property for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$.
Recall $Z$ and $W$ are compact, connected, Ahlfors regular metric spaces and $\varphi: Z \to W$ is an $\eta$-quasisymmetry. Let $X=(V_X, E_X)$ and $Y=(V_Y, E_Y)$ be corresponding hyperbolic fillings. The proof for open sets and continua is the same, so let $A$ and $B$ either be open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ or disjoint continua. As $\varphi^{-1}$ is an $\eta'$-quasisymmetry with $\eta'$ depending on $\eta$, it suffices to show $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(A),\varphi(B)) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)$. Let $G \colon Y \to X$ be the quasi-isometry induced by $\varphi^{-1}$ as in Lemma \[QI induces QS\]. We note that $G$ maps vertices to vertices. Let $D>0$ be such that for all adjacent vertices $y,w \in Y$, $|G(y) - G(w)| \leq D$.
Let $\tau \geq 0$ be admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)$. We construct $\sigma$ on $E_Y$ as follows: given an edge $e'\in E_Y$ with vertices $e'_+$ and $e'_-$, we set $$\sigma(e') = \sum_{|x - G(e'_+)| \leq D}\biggl( \sum_{e \sim x} \tau(e) \biggr) + \sum_{|x - G(e'_-)| \leq D} \biggl( \sum_{e \sim x} \tau(e) \biggr)$$ where $e \sim x$ means $e$ is an edge that has the vertex $x$ as an endpoint.
We show that $\sigma$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(A),\varphi(B))$. Indeed, if $\gamma$ is a path in $Y$ with limits in $\varphi(A)$ and $\varphi(B)$, then we construct a path in $X$ with limits in $A$ and $B$ that serves as a suitable image of $\gamma$. Each vertex $y \in \gamma$ corresponds to a point $G(y) \in X$. By our choice of $D$, if two vertices $y$ and $y'$ are connected by an edge in $\gamma$, then $|G(y) - G(y')| \leq D$. We choose a path connecting $G(y)$ and $G(y')$ that stays in the ball of radius $D$ centered at $G(y)$. By doing this for all connected vertices in $\gamma$, we produce a path $\gamma_X$ in $X$ with limits in $A$ and $B$. Now, by construction, $$\sum_{e' \in \gamma} \sigma(e') \geq \sum_{y \in \gamma} \biggl( \sum_{|x - G(y)| \leq D} \biggl( \sum_{e \sim x} \tau(e) \biggr) \biggr) \geq \sum_{e \in \gamma_X} \tau(e) \geq 1,$$ where we have viewed $\gamma$ as both a sequence of vertices and a sequence of edges. The last inequality follows as $\tau$ was assumed admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)$.
It remains to show ${\left\lVert\sigma\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$. For this we use Lemma \[BoS Lemma\]. Our set $J \subseteq E_Y \times E_X$ consists of pairs $(e',e)$ for which $e$ appears as a summand in the definition of $\sigma(e')$. Following the notation from Lemma \[BoS Lemma\], for $e' \in E_Y$ the set $J_{e'}$ is the set of edges $e$ that appear as a summand in the definition of $\sigma(e')$. The cardinality $|J_{e'}|$ is bounded independent of $e'$ as $X$ has bounded valence. Similarly, for $e \in E_X$ the set $J^e$ is the set of $e'$ for which $e$ contributes to the sum in the definition of $\sigma(e')$. We show that a given $e$ can only contribute to a bounded number of such $\sigma(e')$. Indeed, if $(e',e) \in J$, then one of the vertices of $e$ must lie in the $D$ radius ball around the image under $G$ of one of the vertices of $e'$. As $G$ is a quasi-isometry, we see there is a constant $C > 0$ such that if $y, y' \in V_Y$ and $|y-y'| > C$, then $|G(y) - G(y')| > 2D + 1$. Hence, for edges $e''$ far enough away from $e'$ in $Y$, we must have $e'' \notin J^e$. As $Y$ has bounded valence by Lemma \[bounded valence\], we see $|J^e|$ is bounded independent of $e$.
We set $s_{e'}=\sigma(e')$ and $t_e=\tau(e)$. Inequality (\[BoS Lemma sum condition\]) in Lemma \[BoS Lemma\] then follows from the definition of $\sigma$. Hence, we conclude ${\left\lVert\sigma\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$.
We now show the positivity of $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}$: whenever $A, B \subseteq Z$ are open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$, we have $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) > 0$. Here only $p \geq 1$ is assumed. Recall we work with a fixed hyperbolic filling $X = (V,E)$ with parameter $s > 1$. To prove this result, Proposition \[positivity pcap\], we first detail a construction. For this we need the following lemma.
\[Vertex splitting lemma\] There exists a constant $M>0$ such that whenever $v \in V$ is a vertex in $X$, there exist two vertices $v_1, v_2$ with levels $\ell(v_j) = \ell(v) + M$, $2 B_{v_1} \cap 2 B_{v_2} = \emptyset$, and $B_{v_1}, B_{v_2} \subseteq B_v$.
We write $B_v = B(z_v, r_v)$. We recall $Z$ is Ahlfors $Q$-regular, so there exist constants $c, C > 0$ such that for all $z \in Z$ and $r \in (0, \operatorname{diam}(Z))$, we have $c r^Q \leq \mu (B(z, r)) \leq C r^Q$. Fix small $k > 0$ such that $(\frac{3/4}{k})^Q > \frac{C}{c}$. Then $$\mu \left(B(z_v, (3/4) r_v) \setminus B(z_v, k r_v) \right) \geq c (3/4)^Q {r_v}^Q - C k^Q {r_v}^Q$$ and by our choice of $k$ we see $$c (3/4)^Q {r_v}^Q - C k^Q {r_v}^Q > 0.$$ Hence, there is a point $z_1 \in B(z_v, (3/4) r_v) \setminus B(z_v, k r_v)$. There is also a point $z_2 \in B(z_v, \frac{k}{2} r_v)$. For example, let $z_2 = z_v$.
Let $M$ be such that $s^{-M} < \frac{k}{16}$, where we recall $s>1$ was a parameter in the construction of the hyperbolic filling. Then as the balls of level $\ell(v) + M$ cover $Z$, there must be balls $B_j$ of radius $2 s^{-(\ell(v) + M)}$ with $z_j \in B_j$. Now, $\operatorname{dist}(z_1, z_2) \geq \frac{k}{2} r_v$ by construction. As $r_v = 2 s^{-\ell(v)}$, this is $\operatorname{dist}(z_1, z_2) \geq k s^{-\ell(v)}$. Hence, the sum of the diameters of the balls $2 B_j$ is bounded by $$16 s^{-(\ell(v) + M)} < 16 s^{-(\ell(v))} \frac{k}{16} = ks^{-(\ell(v))} \leq \operatorname{dist}(z_1, z_2)$$ and so $2B_1 \cap 2B_2 = \emptyset$.
We now construct our path structure. Let $v \in V$. Let $G = \{0, 1\}^*$ be the set of finite sequences of elements of $\{0,1\}$. For an element $g \in G$, we let $g0$ and $g1$ denote the concatenations of the symbols $0$ and $1$ to the right hand side of $g$. We associate elements of $G$ to vertices in $V$ inductively as follows: let $\emptyset$ correspond to $v$ and, given an element $g \in G$ with corresponding vertex $v_g$, apply Lemma \[Vertex splitting lemma\] to $B_{v_g}$ to obtain $B_{v_{g0}}$ and $B_{v_{g1}}$ which correspond to $g0$ and $g1$. We also choose $\gamma_{g0}$ (and likewise $\gamma_{g1}$) to be an edge path connecting $v_g$ to $v_{g0}$ with length $M$. To construct such a path, one can choose a point in $B_{v_{g0}}$ and select vertices corresponding to balls containing that point with levels between those of $v_g$ and $v_{g0}$. To form $\gamma_{g0}$ one then uses the edges between these vertices.
\[2B remark\] We note from the fact that $2B_1 \cap 2B_2 = \emptyset$ in Lemma \[Vertex splitting lemma\] that, if $g, h \in G^N$, then $\gamma_g \cap \gamma_h \neq \emptyset$ can only happen if the first $N-1$ entries of $g$ match those of $h$.
Given a vertex $v \in V$, we call a path structure as constructed above a binary path structure and denote it $T_{v}$.
We call an edge path $\gamma = (e_k)$ ascending if the levels of the endpoints of successive edges is strictly increasing. That is, if $(v_k)$ is the sequence of vertices that $\gamma$ travels through, then $\ell(v_{k+1}) = \ell(v_k) + 1$ for all $k$. We consider functions $\tau: E \to [0, \infty]$ which are admissible on ascending edge paths originating from $v$. That is, for such paths $\gamma$ we require $\sum_\gamma \tau(e_k) \geq 1$. We claim such functions cannot have too small weak $\ell^p$-norm.
Let $\tau: E \to [0, \infty]$ and $v \in V$. Then, there is a constant $S(p) < \infty$ and an ascending edge path $\gamma = (e_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ from $v$ to $\overline{B_v} \subseteq Z$ with $\tau$-length bounded above by ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p)$.
Functions that are admissible on ascending edge paths must give at least $\tau$-length 1 to such paths, so for these functions we have ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \geq 1/S(p)$.
We may assume ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} < \infty$. Let $T_v$ be a binary path structure originating from $v$. For $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $G^N = \{0,1\}^N$ be the set of finite strings of elements of $\{0,1\}$ of length $N$. For $g \in G^N$ and $k<N$, let $g_k$ denote the element of $G^k$ which matches the first $k$ entries of $g$. We also set $\gamma'_g = \bigcup_k \gamma_{g_k}$ to be the ascending edge path formed by concatenating $\gamma_{g_1},\dots,\gamma_{g}$. The average $\tau$-length of the paths $\gamma'_g$, where $g \in G^N$, is given by $$\label{path average}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2^N} \sum_{g \in G^N} \sum_{e \in \gamma'_g} \tau(e) &= \frac{1}{2^N} \sum_{g \in G^N} \sum_{k=1}^N \biggl( \sum_{e \in \gamma_{g_k}} \tau(e) \biggr) \\
&= \frac{1}{2^N} \sum_{k=1}^N 2^{N-k} \sum_{h \in G^k} \biggl( \sum_{e \in \gamma_h} \tau(e) \biggr).
\end{split}$$ We bound this average above using ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$. For ease of notation, let $a = {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$. By definition, we have $$\# \{e : \tau(e) > \lambda \} \leq \frac{a^p}{\lambda^p}.$$ Hence, for $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the function $\tau$ can take values $\tau(e) \geq \frac{a}{j^{(1/p)}}$ for at most $j$ edges $e$. From Remark \[2B remark\] for fixed $k > 1$ there are at least $(2^{(k-1)} - 1) M$ distinct edges contributing to the right hand side of equation (\[path average\]) belonging to paths $\gamma_f$ with $f \in G^\ell$ where $\ell < k$. With the weighting factors $2^{N-k}$ it follows that the average increases the more $\tau$-mass is located on paths with smaller associated $k$ values. Using these observations we conclude that to bound equation (\[path average\]) above, for $k>1$ and $h \in G^k$ we bound the sum $\sum_{e \in \gamma_h} \tau(e)$ above by $$M \frac{a}{((2^{(k-1)} - 1)M)^{(1/p)}}.$$ From this, we obtain the upper bound $$\frac{1}{2} \sum_{h \in G^1} \biggl( \sum_{e \in \gamma_h} \tau(e) \biggr) + \sum_{k=2}^N 2^{-k} \sum_{h \in G^k} M \frac{a}{((2^{(k-1)} - 1)M)^{(1/p)}}.$$ We bound the first term by noting that $\tau(e) \leq a$ for all $e \in E$. As $G^k$ has $2^k$ elements, our bound becomes $$Ma + \sum_{k=2}^N M \frac{a}{((2^{(k-1)} - 1)M)^{(1/p)}}.$$ Setting $$S(p) = M + \sum_{k=2}^\infty M \frac{1}{((2^{(k-1)} - 1)M)^{(1/p)}} < \infty$$ we thus bound (\[path average\]) above by $a S(p) = {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p)$. As this is a bound on the average $\tau$-length of the paths $\gamma'_g$, where $g \in G^N$, we conclude that for each $N$ there is a $g_N \in G^N$ such that $\gamma'_{g_N}$ has $\tau$-length bounded above by ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p)$.
To complete the proof we construct a path $\gamma$ from the paths $\gamma'_{g_N}$. For each $N$ we have $g_N \in \{0, 1\}^N$. Hence, there is a subsequence of the $g_N$ that has the property that all strings in this subsequence have the same first element. From this subsequence, we may extract another subsequence that consists of strings that all have the same first two elements. Continuing in this manner and then diagonalizing produces an infinite sequence $h \in \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ for which, for infinitely many $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the first $k$ elements of $h$ match $g_k$. It is clear how to associate $h$ to an ascending path $\gamma$ which, from the bounds on the $\tau$-lengths of the paths $\gamma'_{g_k}$, satisfies the conclusion of the lemma.
We perform a similar analysis on a path of edges of length $L$. As above, if ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} = b$, then $\tau$ can take values $\tau(e) \geq \frac{b}{j^{(1/p)}}$ at most $j$ times. Thus, the maximum $\tau$-length our line can have is $\sum_{k=1}^L \frac{b} {k^{(1/p)}}$. This is bounded above (for $p > 1$) by $b(\int_0^L \frac{1}{x^{(1/p)}} dx)$, which is $\frac{b L^{1 - (1/p)}}{1 - (1/p)}$. For $p=1$ this is bounded above by $b(1+\log(L))$.
We are now ready to prove positivity.
\[positivity pcap\] Let $p \geq 1$ and let $A,B \subseteq Z$ be open sets with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$. Then, $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) > 0$.
We first assume $p > 1$. Let $v, w$ be vertices such that $\overline{B_v} \subseteq A$ and $\overline{B_w} \subseteq B$ and such that $\ell(v) = \ell(w)$. We connect $v$ and $w$ by an edge path $\gamma$ contained in $\{x \in X: |x-O| \leq \ell(v)\}$, where $O$ is the unique vertex with $\ell(O) = 0$. We let $L$ denote the length of $\gamma$. Recall $T_v$ and $T_w$ denote binary path structures originating from $v$ and $w$. Now, if $\tau$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B)$, then $\tau$ is admissible on paths contained in $T_v \cup T_w \cup \gamma$. Let $\tau_A, \tau_B,\text{ and } \tau_\gamma$ denote the restrictions of $\tau$ to $T_v, T_w, \text{ and } \gamma$. We then must have $${\left\lVert\tau_A\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p) + {\left\lVert\tau_B\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p) + {\left\lVert\tau_\gamma\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \frac{L^{1-(1/p)}}{1-(1/p)} \geq 1.$$ As ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ is larger than the norm of each of these restrictions, we see $${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p) + {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} S(p) + {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \frac{L^{1-(1/p)}}{1-(1/p)} \geq 1.$$ Hence, $${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \geq \frac{1}{2S(p) + \frac{L^{1-(1/p)}}{1-(1/p)}}.$$ The above analysis also applies to the $p=1$ case with the appropriate bound modification. In this case, this bound becomes $${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{1,\infty} \geq \frac{1}{2S(1) + (1+\log(L))}.$$ Both cases thus yield a lower bound on ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ for admissible $\tau$, as desired.
Ahlfors regular conformal dimension {#Cdmin}
===================================
We define a critical exponent relating to $\operatorname{wcap}$ which is motivated by a critical exponent defined in [@BK]. This is not the first attempt to define meaningful critical exponents using hyperbolic fillings. For example, see [@CP].
In [@BK] a critical exponent $Q_M$ is defined as an infimum of values $p$ for which their combinatorial $p$-modulus vanishes in a limiting sense. They relate this to an $\ell^p$ equivalence relation. Let $\ell^p H^1(E)$ denote the set of functions on the vertex set of our hyperbolic filling with corresponding edge derivative $|df(e)| = |f(e_+) - f(e_-)|$ in $\ell^p(E)$. Such functions can be extended to the boundary $Z$; this extension is denoted $f_\infty$. We set $$B_p^0(Z) = \{u\colon Z \to {\mathbb{R}}\text{ continuous} : u = f_\infty \text{ with } [f] \in \ell^p H^1(E)\}.$$ and define the equivalence relation $$x \sim_p y \iff \text{for all } u \in B_p^0(Z), \ u(x) = u(y).$$ From [@BK Proposition 10.1] it follows that the cosets of $\sim_p$ are continua. For approximately self-similar metric spaces, [@BK Corollary 10.5] shows that $p > Q_M$ if and only if $(Z/ \sim_p) = Z$.
Motivated by this, suppose we have two distinct points $x,y \in Z$ and let $A_x$ and $A_y$ be open sets containing $x$ and $y$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A_x, A_y) > 0$. Suppose we had an admissible function $\tau:E \to {\mathbb{R}}$ for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A_x,A_y)$. Then for $q > p$ we have $\tau \in \ell^q(E)$. Define $\sigma: V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\sigma(v) = \inf_{\gamma:v \to A_x} \{\sum_{e \in \gamma} \tau(e)\}$$ where the infimum is taken over all paths $\gamma$ with one endpoint as $v$ and the other end having a nontangential limit in $A_x$. Then $|d\sigma(e)| \leq \tau(e)$ for each edge $e$ and so $\sigma \in \ell^qH^1(E)$. From short connections we should have $\sigma_\infty = 0$ on $A_x$ and from admissibility we should have $\sigma_\infty \geq 1$ on $A_y$. If we knew this and that $\sigma_\infty$ was continuous, then we would have produced an element of $B_p^0(Z)$ separating $x$ and $y$. Hence, if there is an equivalence class $\sim_q$ with more than one element, such an admissible function could not exist. This leads us to our critical exponent definition.
Let $$Q_w = \inf\{p:\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{p}}(A,B) < \infty \text{ for all open } A \text{ and }B \text{ with } \operatorname{dist}(A,B) >0\}.$$
We write $\operatorname{ARCdim}$ for the Ahlfors regular conformal dimension of $Z$. That is, if $$\mathscr{G} = \{\theta: \theta \text{ is a metric on } Z \text{ with } (Z,\theta) \sim_{qs} (Z,d)\},$$ then $\operatorname{ARCdim}= \inf \dim_H (Z,\theta)$ where the infimum is taken over all $\theta \in \mathscr{G}$ such that $(Z,\theta)$ is Ahlfors regular. Here $(Z,\theta) \sim_{qs} (Z,d)$ means that the identity map is a quasisymmetry.
We have $Q_w \leq \operatorname{ARCdim}$.
From quasisymmetric invariance, it suffices to show for any $p > \operatorname{ARCdim}$ and any open sets $A$ and $B$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ we have $\operatorname{wcap}_p(A,B) < \infty$. Fix such parameters and let $\theta$ be an Ahlfors regular metric on $Z$ such that $\dim_H (Z,\theta) \leq p$. Let $X=(V,E)$ be a hyperbolic filling for $(Z,\theta)$ with parameter $s>1$ and consider $f \colon V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$f(v) = \frac{4r(B_v)}{\operatorname{dist}(A,B)}.$$ It follows from $\dim_H (Z,\theta) \leq p$ that the number of vertices on level $n$ is bounded above by $C s^{np}$ for some $C>0$ and so $f \in \ell^{p,\infty}(V)$. Define $\tau \colon E \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $\tau(e) = f(e_+) + f(e_-)$. Hence, ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \lesssim {\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} < \infty$ follows from Lemma \[BoS Lemma\]. Thus, we need only show $\tau$ is admissible.
Now, if $\gamma$ is any finite chain of vertices, say $\{v_0, \dots, v_N\}$ (where $v_k$ is connected to $v_{k+1}$ for all $k$), then $$\sum_\gamma(\tau(e)) \geq \sum_k f(v_k) \geq \frac{2\operatorname{dist}(B_{v_0}, B_{v_N})}{\operatorname{dist}(A,B)}.$$ Thus, as an infinite $\gamma$ with nontangential limits in $A$ and $B$ has a finite subpath $\gamma_0 = \{v_0, \dots, v_N\}$ with $B_{v_0} \cap A \neq \emptyset$ and $B_{v_N} \cap B \neq \emptyset$ and small enough radii so that $2\operatorname{dist}(B_{v_0}, B_{v_N}) \geq \operatorname{dist}(A,B)$, we have $$\sum_\gamma \tau(e) \geq \sum_{\gamma_0} \tau(e) \geq \frac{2\operatorname{dist}(B_{v_0}, B_{v_N})}{\operatorname{dist}(A,B)} \geq 1$$ so $\tau$ is admissible.
In view of this inequality, one question is how does $Q_w$ relate to $\operatorname{ARCdim}$? If $Q_w \neq \operatorname{ARCdim}$, then can one define a similar critical exponent that is $\operatorname{ARCdim}$? The following result shows that for some metric spaces we do have equality.
Let $(Z,d,\mu)$ be a compact, connected metric measure space that is Ahlfors $Q$-regular, $Q > 1$, and such that there exists $1 \leq p \leq Q$ and a family of paths $\Gamma$ with $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma) > 0$. Then there exist open balls $A$ and $B$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B) > 0$ such that for all $q < Q$ we have $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{q}}(A,B) = \infty$.
In such metric spaces [@MT Proposition 4.1.8] shows $\operatorname{ARCdim}(Z,d) = Q$ and so we have $Q_w = \operatorname{ARCdim}$.
From [@MT Proposition 4.1.6 (vii)] it follows that $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) > 0$. By potentially taking subpaths, we may assume every path in $\Gamma$ has distinct end points (i.e. no paths in $\Gamma$ are loops). By writing $\Gamma = \cup(\Gamma_m)$ where $\Gamma_m = \{\gamma \in \Gamma: \ell(\gamma) > \frac{1}{m}\}$, we may assume the paths in $\Gamma$ have lengths uniformly bounded from below (we need $Q>1$ for this, see [@MT Proposition 4.1.6 (iv)]). By covering $Z$ with a finite number balls of small enough radius and writing $\Gamma$ as the union of paths connecting two disjoint balls with positive separation, we may assume $\Gamma$ connects two open balls $A$ and $B$ with $\operatorname{dist}(A,B)>0$. Refining this slightly allows us to assume $\Gamma$ connects $A_\lambda$ and $B_\lambda$ for some $\lambda>0$ as in the proof of Theorem \[qmod < qcap\].
Now suppose $\tau: E \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{q}}(A,B)$ and satisfies ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{q,\infty} < \infty$, where $q < Q$. Define $f: V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $f(v) = \sum_{e \sim v} \tau(e)$ and, as in the proof of Theorem \[qmod < qcap\], set $$u_n = \sum_{v \in V_n} \frac{f(v)}{r(B_v)}\chi_{2B_v}.$$ Then, as before, for large enough $n$ the function $2u_n$ is admissible for $\Gamma$. Our estimate for ${\left\lVertu_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q$ is also the same as in inequality (\[u\_n bound\]): $$\begin{split}
{\left\lVertu_n\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim \sum_{v \in V_n} f(v)^Q.
\end{split}$$ As $f \in \ell^{q,\infty}(V)$, it follows that $f \in \ell^Q(V)$ and so $\sum_{v \in V_n} f(v)^Q \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. This shows $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) = 0$, a contradiction. Hence, no such admissible function exists and $\operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{q}}(A,B) = \infty$.
Weak covering capacity {#Sec wcqcap}
======================
Here we state and prove some basic properties and the main theorems involving $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$. Recall we work on a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric measure space $(Z,d, \mu)$ with $Q > 1$ and with a fixed hyperbolic filling $X=(V_X, E_X)$ of $(Z,d,\mu)$ with scaling parameter $s > 1$. We first prove that if $p \geq Q$, then $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}$ is supported on rectifiable paths.
\[wcpcap nonrectifiable\] Let $p \geq Q$ and let $\Gamma_\infty$ be the set of all infinite-length paths $\gamma \colon [0,1] \to Z$. Then $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma_\infty) = 0$.
We show that for any $\epsilon > 0$, the functions $\tau_\epsilon(v) = r(B_v) \epsilon$ are admissible for $\Gamma_\infty$ and that ${\left\lVert\tau_\epsilon\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. From this it follows that $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma_\infty) = 0$. Fix $\epsilon > 0$. Let $\gamma \in \Gamma_\infty$. Let $t_0 < t_1 < \dots < t_m$ be a partition of $[0,1]$ such that the points $\gamma(t_k)$ are distinct and $\sum_k d(\gamma(t_{k-1}),\gamma(t_k)) > $ 4/$\epsilon$. Set $\gamma_k = \gamma|_{[t_{k-1},t_k]}$. Let $N$ be such that $400s^{-N} \leq \min_k d(\gamma(t_{k-1}),\gamma(t_k))$ and $m 2 \epsilon s^{-N} < 1$. Let $\{S_j\}$ be an expanding sequence of covers. As $\{S_j\}$ is expanding, for large enough $j$ we see that the balls in $S_j$ all have radius bounded above by $2s^{-N}$. Thus, for such a $j$, if $P_k$ is any projection of $\gamma_k$ on $S_j$ with balls $\{B_i\}$ we have $$\label{P_k inequality}
\begin{split}
\ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P_k,S_j}(\gamma_k) &= \sum_i \tau_\epsilon(B_i) \\
&= \sum_i r(B_i) \epsilon \\
&\geq \frac{\epsilon}{2} d(\gamma(t_{k-1}),\gamma(t_k)).
\end{split}$$ Now, let $P$ be any projection of $\gamma$ on $S_j$. By adding the values $t_0, \dots, t_m$ to $P$ we obtain a partition $P'$ from $P$ and subpartitions $P_k$ of $P'$ consisting of the values between $t_{k-1}$ and $t_k$. It is clear that $P'$ has at most $m$ more intervals than $P$. As $\tau(v) \leq 2 \epsilon s^{-N}$ for all $v \in S_j$, it follows that $$\label{P' inequality}
\ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P',S_j}(\gamma) - \ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P,S_j}(\gamma) \leq m 2 \epsilon s^{-N}.$$ We note $\ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P',S_j}(\gamma) = \sum_k \ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P_k,S_j}(\gamma_k)$. Combining this with (\[P\_k inequality\]) and (\[P’ inequality\]) yields $$\begin{split}
\ell_{\tau_\epsilon,P,S_j}(\gamma) &\geq \frac{\epsilon}{2} \left( \sum_k d(\gamma(t_{k-1}),\gamma(t_k)) \right) - m 2 \epsilon s^{-N} \\
&> 2 - m 2 \epsilon s^{-N} \\
&\geq 1.
\end{split}$$ As this holds for all large enough $j$, we conclude that $\tau_\epsilon$ is admissible for each $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and hence for $\Gamma_\infty$.
It remains to show ${\left\lVert\tau_\epsilon\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. As our hyperbolic filling has bounded valence (Lemma \[bounded valence\]), we see the number of vertices with level $n$ is comparable to $s^{nQ}$ up to a fixed multiplicative constant. Thus, for $\lambda = 2\epsilon s^{-n} \leq 1$ we have $$\# \{v \in V : \tau(v) > \lambda\} \lesssim s^{nQ} \lesssim \frac{\epsilon^Q}{\lambda^Q} = \frac{\epsilon^Q \lambda^{p-Q}}{\lambda^p} \lesssim \frac{\epsilon^p}{\lambda^p}$$ with implicit constants independent of $n$. From this the limiting behavior of ${\left\lVert\tau_\epsilon\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ follows.
We remark here that the above result does not hold for $p < Q$. Indeed, by quasisymmetric invariance (Theorem \[QS inv wcqcap\]) there are spaces with path families $\Gamma$ of nonrectifiable curves for which $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma) > 0$ holds for some $p$.
We also note if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are arbitrary path families, then $$\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma_1) \leq \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2) \leq \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma_1) + \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma_2).$$ This follows as if $\tau$ is admissible for $\Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2$, then $\tau$ is admissible for $\Gamma_1$ and if $\tau_1, \tau_2$ are admissible for $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$, then $\max\{\tau_1,\tau_2\}$ is admissible for $\Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2$. With this observation and Lemma \[wcpcap nonrectifiable\] it follows that for any path family $\Gamma$ one has $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) = \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma \setminus \Gamma_\infty)$. Thus, we may assume in the following that all path families $\Gamma$ consist solely of paths with finite length.
Now we prove Theorems \[wcqcap = qmod\] and \[QS inv wcqcap\]. We start with Theorem \[wcqcap = qmod\]. Recall we work in a compact, connected, Ahlfors $Q$-regular metric space $Z$ with hyperbolic filling $X=(V_X, E_X)$. We also work with a fixed path family $\Gamma$ such that every $\gamma \in \Gamma$ has finite length.
Let $\gamma \colon [0,L] \to Z$ be a nonconstant path parameterized by arclength. Then for all $\epsilon > 0$, there is a $\delta > 0$ such that if $I$ is an interval and $B_\delta$ is any ball with radius bounded above by $\delta$ such that $\gamma(I) \subseteq B_\delta$, then $|I| < \epsilon$.
Let $\gamma$ be as above. We note the claim is trivial for $\epsilon > L$, so fix $0 < \epsilon < L$. Consider the function $g \colon [0, L-\epsilon] \to [0,\infty]$ given by $g(x) = \operatorname{diam}\gamma([x, x+\epsilon])$. We see that as $\gamma$ is parameterized by arclength, we actually have $g(x) > 0$ for all $x$. Moreover as $\gamma$ is uniformly continuous it follows that $g$ is continuous. Hence, $g$ attains a minimum, say $\delta'>0$.
Setting $\delta = \frac{1}{3}\delta'$, we see that if $B_\delta$ is a ball with radius bounded above by $\delta$, then $\operatorname{diam}B_\delta \leq 2 \delta < \delta'$. Hence, if $\gamma(I) \subseteq B_\delta$, we must have $|I| < \epsilon$ as otherwise we would have a subinterval $I' \subseteq I$ with $|I| = \epsilon$ and $\operatorname{diam}(\gamma(I')) < \operatorname{diam}(\gamma(I)) < 2 \delta < \delta'$, which contradicts the fact that $\delta'$ is the minimum for $g$.
We first prove $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) \lesssim \operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma)$. Let $\rho \colon Z \to [0,\infty]$ be an admissible function for the $Q$-modulus of $\Gamma$. As $Z$ is compact, we may assume $\rho$ is lower semicontinuous (this follows from the Vitali-Carathéodory theorem, see [@HKST Section 4.2]). Define $\tau \colon V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\tau(v) = r(B_v)\left ( \dashint_{B_v} 10 \rho\right)$$ for $v \in V$. We show that $\tau$ is admissible for covering capacity.
Fix $\gamma \in \Gamma$. We recall we assume $\gamma$ has finite length $\ell(\gamma) > 0$. Set $I = [0, \ell(\gamma)]$; we work with partitions of $I$ and the arclength parameterization of $\gamma$ as in the remark in the introduction. As $\rho$ is lower semicontinuous, there is a sequence of continuous functions $f_n \geq 0$ such that $f_n$ increases pointwise to $\rho$ (see [@HKST Section 4.2]). By the monotone convergence theorem $\int_\gamma 10f_n $ increases to $\int_\gamma 10\rho$ and, as $\int_\gamma 10\rho \geq 10$, there is an $N$ such that for $n \geq N$, we have $\int_\gamma 10f_n \geq 7 $. Set $f = 10 f_N$ and $M = \max_{z\in Z} f(z)$.
Let $\epsilon = \frac{1}{\ell(\gamma) + 1 }$. As $Z$ is compact, $f$ is uniformly continuous. Hence there is a $\delta_1 > 0$ such that if $d(x,y) < \delta_1$, then $|f(x)-f(y)| < \epsilon$.
We find a partition of $[0, \ell(\gamma)]$ given by $0 = x_0 < \dots < x_p = \ell(\gamma)$ with $x_{k+1} - x_k < \delta_1$ and find a $\delta_2 > 0$ such that for each $i$, every $x,y$ in the $\delta_2$ neighborhood of $\gamma_i = \gamma([x_{i-1},x_i])$ satisfies $|f(x)-f(y)| < \epsilon$. The existence of this partition and of $\delta_2$ follow from the uniform continuity of $f$ on $Z$. We also set $m_i$ to be the infimum of the values of $f$ on the $\delta_2$ neighborhood of $\gamma_i$. We further partition each $[x_{i-1},x_i]$ as $x_{i-1} = y^i_0 < \dots < y^i_{q_i} = x_i$ such that $\ell(\gamma_i) - \sum_j d(\gamma(y^i_{j-1}),\gamma(y^i_j)) < \frac{\epsilon}{M p}$. Set $\delta_3 = \frac{1}{10} \min_{i,j}d(\gamma(y^i_{j-1}),\gamma(y^i_j))$ which we may assume is positive by appropriately choosing $y^i_j$.
Set $\delta = \min(\frac{1}{3}\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3)$.
Let $\mathscr{S} = \{S_n\}$ be an expanding sequence of covers. Then, as $\mathscr{S}$ is expanding, for large enough $n$ it follows that $r(B_v) < \delta$ for all $v \in S_n$. We work with one of these covers $S_n$ with large $n$ which we denote $S$. Let $P \colon [0,\ell(\gamma)] \to V$ be a projection of $\gamma$ onto $S$ with $t_0, \dots, t_m$ partitioning $[0,\ell(\gamma)]$ and $v_1,\dots, v_m$ vertices such that $\gamma([t_{k-1}, t_k]) \subseteq B_{v_k}$. We have $$\int_\gamma f = \sum_i \int_{\gamma_i} f$$ and we see $$\left|\sum_i \left(\int_{\gamma_i} f - m_i \ell(\gamma_i)\right) \right| \leq \epsilon \sum_i \ell(\gamma_i) < 1$$ and so $$\sum_i m_i \ell(\gamma_i) \geq 6.$$
Now we group the $t_k$ into $T_1, \dots, T_p$ where $T_i = \{t_k : x_{i-1} \leq t_k \leq x_i \}$ and similarly write $K_i = \{k : t_k \in T_i\}$. By our choice of $\delta$ above, we see for each $i$ that $$|m_i - f(\gamma(t_k))| < \epsilon$$ whenever $k \in K_i$. Using $\ell(\gamma_i) - \sum_j d(\gamma(y^i_{j-1}),\gamma(y^i_j)) < \frac{\epsilon}{M p}$, we deduce $$\sum_i m_i \left( \sum_j d(\gamma(y^i_{j-1}),\gamma(y^i_j)) \right) \geq 6 - \epsilon \geq 4.$$ Now, as $\delta \leq \delta_3$ we may replace $\sum_j d(\gamma(y^i_{j-1}),\gamma(y^i_j))$ in the above sum with twice the sum of the radii of balls $B_v$ from our partition $P$ with corresponding intervals intersecting $\cup_j [y^i_{j-1},y^i_j]$. That is, we have $$\sum_i\sum_{k \in K_i} m_i 2 r (B_{v_k}) \geq 4.$$ Thus, $$\sum_i\sum_{k \in K_i} m_i r (B_{v_k}) \geq 2.$$ We note that for $k \in K_i$ we have $$\left( \dashint_{B_{v_k}} f \right) - m_i \geq 0.$$ From this we conclude $$\sum_i\sum_{k \in K_i} \left( \dashint_{B_{v_k}} f \right) r (B_{v_k}) \geq \sum_i\sum_{k \in K_i} m_i r (B_{v_k}) \geq 2.$$ Lastly we deal with the overestimation possible from having $k \in K_i$ for more than one $i$. This only happens if $t_k = x_i$ for some $i$, which happens at most $p+1$ times (recall our partition is $x_0,\dots,x_p$). We note that $f$ is bounded and that in an expanding sequence of covers we have $r(B_{v_k}) \to 0$ in the above sum. Thus, if $f \leq M$ and $r(B_{v_k}) \leq \nu(n)$, double counting such $k$ adds at most $(p+1) M \nu(n)$ to our estimate. We conclude $$\sum_{k=1}^m \tau(v_k) \geq \sum_{k=1}^m \left( \dashint_{B_{v_k}} f \right) r (B_{v_k}) \geq 2 - (p+1) M \nu(n).$$ From this we see that for large enough $n$ the $\tau$-length of any partition $P$ of $\gamma$ onto $S_n$ is at least 1. That is, $\tau$ is admissible for $\gamma$ relative to $\mathscr{S}$. As $\mathscr{S}$ was arbitrary, it follows that $\tau$ is admissible for $\gamma$.
As this holds for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$ we see $\tau$ is admissible for covering capacity. It remains to show ${\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q$ but this follows as in the proof of Theorem \[qcap < qmod\] with $p=1$.
We now prove the other direction, namely $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}\lesssim \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}$.
Let $\tau \colon V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be admissible for covering capacity. Let $$\sigma_n = 2 \sum_{v \in V_n} \frac{\tau(v)}{r(B_v)}\chi_{2B_v}$$
As in the proof that $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B) \lesssim \operatorname{wcap_\mathnormal{Q}}(A,B)$ for open sets, we note that there is a subsequence $\sigma_{n_i}$ with ${\left\lVert\sigma_{n_i}\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q$. Applying Mazur’s Lemma to this subsequence, as in the proof of Theorem \[qmod < qcap\], we get convex combinations $\rho_k$ of $\sigma_{n_i}$ with $i \geq k$ and a limit function $\rho$ with $\rho_k \to \rho$ in $L^Q$. Similarly to that proof, by applying Fuglede’s Lemma we may pass to a subsequence and assume that for for all paths $\gamma$ except in a family $\Gamma_0$ of $Q$-modulus $0$ we have $\int_\gamma \rho_n \to \int_\gamma \rho$. We note that ${\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{Q,\infty}^Q$.
As the $Q$-modulus of $\Gamma_0$ is 0, there exists a function $\sigma \geq 0$ with $\int_Z \sigma^Q < \infty$ such that for $\gamma \in \Gamma_0$ we have $\int_\gamma \sigma = \infty$. We claim that $\rho + c\sigma$ is admissible for modulus for any $c>0$. For $\gamma \in \Gamma_0$, admissibility is clear, so suppose $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$. We see if $B_{v_1},\dots,B_{v_M}$ is a sequence of balls which $\gamma$ passes through and that $\ell(\gamma \cap 2B_{v_k}) \geq r(B_{v_k})$ for each $v_k$, then $$\begin{split}
\int_\gamma \sigma_n &= 2 \sum_{v \in V_n} \ell(\gamma \cap 2 B_v) \frac{\tau(v)}{r(B_v)} \\
&\geq 2 \sum_{k=1}^M r(B_{v_k}) \frac{\tau(v_k)}{r(B_{v_k})}.
\end{split}$$ Let $S_j = \{v \in V: j \leq \ell(v) \leq 2j \}$ be the set of all vertices with levels between $j$ and $2j$. As $\tau$ is admissible, it is admissible for the expanding sequence of covers $\{S_j\}$ and hence our integral is bounded below by 1 for large enough $n$. Thus, $\int_\gamma \rho = \lim_{n\to \infty} \int_\gamma \rho_n \geq 1$. We conclude that $\rho + c \sigma$ is admissible for modulus and, as ${\left\lVert\rho + c\sigma\right\rVert}_Q^Q \lesssim {\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert}_Q^Q + c{\left\lVert\sigma\right\rVert}_Q^Q$, this shows $\operatorname{mod_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma) \lesssim \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{Q}}(\Gamma)$.
Lastly we prove Theorem \[QS inv wcqcap\].
Recall $Z$ and $W$ are compact, connected, Ahlfors regular metric spaces and $\varphi \colon Z \to W$ is an $\eta$-quasisymmetry. Let $X = (V_X, E_X)$ and $Y = (V_Y, E_Y)$ by corresponding hyperbolic fillings. Fix a path family $\Gamma$ in $Z$. Let $\tau$ be admissible for $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma)$. Let $G \colon Y \to X$ denote the quasi-isometry induced by $\varphi^{-1}$ from Lemma \[QI induces QS\]. We define $\sigma \colon V_Y \to [0,\infty]$ by $\sigma(y) = \tau(G(y))$.
We claim $\sigma$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(\Gamma))$. To prove this, let $\mathscr{S}' = \{S_n'\}$ be an expanding sequence of covers in $Y$. We note that if $\{v_k\}$ is the set of vertices in $S_n'$ then $W \subseteq \bigcup_k B_{v_k}$. Recall that for a vertex $v \in V_Y$ we defined $G(v)$ such that $\varphi^{-1}(B_v) \subseteq B_{G(v)}$. Hence, $$Z = \varphi^{-1}(W) \subseteq \cup_k \varphi^{-1}(B_{v_k}) \subseteq \cup_k B_{G(v_k)}$$ and we see that $\{S_n\} = \{G(S_n')\}$ is an expanding sequence of covers.
We fix a rectifiable $\gamma' = \varphi(\gamma) \in \varphi(\Gamma)$. Now, let $P$ be a projection of $\gamma'$ onto $S_n'$, say with balls $B_{y_1},\dots,B_{y_m}$. From the above, $\varphi^{-1}(B_{y_k}) \subseteq B_{G(y_k)}$ and so the sequence $B_{G(y_k)}$ forms a partition of $\gamma$ using balls in $S_n$. Hence, for large enough $n$, we see $\sum_k \tau(G(y_k)) \geq 1$. As $\tau(G(y_k)) = \sigma(y_k)$, it follows that $\sigma$ is admissible for $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(\Gamma))$.
It remains to show ${\left\lVert\sigma\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ for which we use Lemma \[BoS Lemma\]. To apply Lemma \[BoS Lemma\] we set $J \subseteq V_Y \times V_X$ where $(y,x) \in J$ if $x = G(y)$. We see for $J^x = \{y: (y,x) \in J\}$ we have $$|J^x| = |\{y : x = G(y) \}|.$$ If $x = G(y) = G(y')$ then, as $G$ is a quasi-isometry, it follows that there is a there is a fixed $D'>0$ such that $|y - y'| \leq D'$. From Lemma \[bounded valence\] it follows there is a uniformly bounded number of such $y$; that is, $|J^x|$ is uniformly bounded.
Now, $J_y = \{x: (y,x) \in J\} = \{G(y)\}$ so $|J_y| = 1$. Lastly, we use $s_y = \sigma(y)$ and $t_x = \tau(x)$ for our sequences. We have $$\sigma(y) = \tau(G(y)) = \sum_{x \in J_y} \tau(x)$$ as $G(y) \in J_y$. Thus, ${\left\lVert\sigma\right\rVert}_{p,\infty} \lesssim {\left\lVert\tau\right\rVert}_{p,\infty}$ and so $\operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\varphi(\Gamma)) \lesssim \operatorname{wc-cap_\mathnormal{p}}(\Gamma)$. The other inequality follows from considering $\varphi^{-1}$ in place of $\varphi$.
[aaa]{}
M. Bourdon and B. Kleiner, [*Combinatorial modulus, the combinatorial Loewner property, and Coxeter groups*]{}, Groups Geom. Dyn. 7 (2013), 39–107.
M. Bonk and E. Saksman, [*Sobolev spaces and hyperbolic fillings*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., to appear.
M. Bourdon and H. Pajot, [*Cohomologie $l_p$ et espaces de Besov*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 558 (2003), 85–108.
S. Buyalo and V. Schroeder, [*Elements of asymptotic geometry*]{}, Europ. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2007.
M. Carrasco Piaggio, [*On the conformal gauge of a compact metric space*]{}, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 46 (2013), no. 3, 495–548.
J. Heinonen, [*Lectures on analysis on metric spaces*]{}, Springer, New York, 2001.
J. Heinonen and P. Koskela, [*Quasiconformal maps in metric spaces with controlled geometry*]{}, Acta Math. 181 (1998), 1–61.
J. Heinonen, P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam, and J. Tyson, [*Sobolev spaces on metric measure spaces*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
S. Keith and X. Zhong, [*The Poincaré inequality is an open ended condition*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 167 (2008), 575–599.
J. Mackay and J. Tyson, [*Conformal dimension theory and application*]{}, University Lecture Series, Vol. 54, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2010.
P. Pansu, [*Métriques de Carnot-Carathéodory et quasiisométries des espaces symétriques de rang un*]{}. Ann. of Math. (2) 129 (1989), 1–60.
P. Pansu, [*Dimension conforme et sphère à l’infini des variétés à courbure négative*]{}. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Ser. A I, 14, (1989), 177–212.
J. Tyson, [*Quasiconformality and quasisymmetry in metric measure spaces*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 23 (1998), 525–548.
M. Williams, [*Geometric and analytic quasiconformality in metric measure spaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), 1251–1266.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A transform between functions in $\mathbb{R}$ and functions in $\mathbb{Z}_d$ is used to define the analogue of number and coherent states in the context of finite $d$-dimensional quantum systems. The coherent states are used to define an analytic representation in terms of theta functions. All states are represented by entire functions with growth of order $2$, which have exactly $d$ zeros in each cell. The analytic function of a state is constructed from its zeros. Results about the completeness of finite sets of coherent states within a cell, are derived.'
author:
- |
S. Zhang and A. Vourdas\
Department of Computing,\
University of Bradford,\
Bradford BD7 1DP, United Kingdom
title: '[**Analytic Representation of Finite Quantum Systems**]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum systems with finite Hilbert space have been studied originally by Weyl and Schwinger [@Weyl] and later by many authors [@Auslander; @Vourdas1]. A formalism analogous to the harmonic oscillator can be developed where the dual variables that we call ‘position’ and ‘momentum’ take values in $\mathbb{Z}_d$ (the integers modulo $d$). This area of research is interesting in its own right; and has many applications in areas like quantum optics; quantum computing[@A000]; two-dimensional electron systems in magnetic fields and the magnetic translation group [@A100]; the quantum Hall effect [@A200]; quantum maps [@A300]; hydrodynamics [@A400] mathematical physics; signal processing; etc. For a review see [@Vourdas2].
In this paper we introduce a transform from functions in $\mathbb{R}$ to functions in $\mathbb{Z}_d$. This is related to Zak transform from functions in $\mathbb{R}$ to functions on a circle [@Zak1; @Zak2; @Zak3]; but of course here we have functions in ‘discretized circle’. This transform enables us to transfer some of the harmonic oscillator formalism into the context of finite systems. For example, we define the analogues of number states and coherent states. Coherent states in the context of finite systems have been previously considered in [@L1; @coherent].
Coherent states can be used to define analytic representations. For example, ordinary coherent states of the harmonic oscillator can be used to define the Bargmann analytic representation in the complex plane; $SU(1,1)$ coherent states can be used to define analytic representations in the unit disc (Lobachevsky geometry); $SU(2)$ coherent states can be used to define analytic representations in the extended complex plane (spherical geometry). We use the coherent states in the context of finite systems to define analytic representations. Similar analytic representations have been used in the context of quantum maps in [@L1]. We show that the corresponding analytic functions obey doubly-periodic boundary conditions; and therefore it is sufficient to define them on a square cell $S$. Each of these analytic functions has growth of order $2$ and has exactly $d$ zeros in $S$.
We use the analytic formalism to study the completeness of finite sets of coherent states in the cell $S$. This discussion is the analogue in the present context, of the ‘theory of von Neumann lattice’ for the harmonic oscillator [@V1; @V2; @V3; @V4] , which is based on the theory of the density of zeros of analytic functions [@B].
In section II, we review briefly the basic theory of finite systems and define some quantities for later use. In section III, we introduce the transform between functions in $\mathbb{R}$ and functions in $\mathbb{Z}_d$. Using this transform we define in section IV number states and coherent states in our context of finite systems, and study their properties. In section V, we use the coherent states to define an analytic representation in terms of Theta functions. We show that the order of the growth of these entire functions is $2$. We also study displacements and the Heisenberg-Weyl group in this language. In section VI we study the zeros of the corresponding analytic functions and use them to study the completeness of finite sets of coherent states within a cell. In section VII we construct the analytic representation of a state from its zeros. We conclude in section VIII with the discussion of our results.
Finite quantum systems
======================
Position and momentum states and Fourier transform
--------------------------------------------------
We consider a quantum system with a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. We use the notation $|s \rangle \rangle$ for the states in ${\cal H}$; and we use the notation $|s \rangle $ for the states in the infinite dimensional Hilbert space $H$ associated with the harmonic oscillator. Let $|X;m \rangle \rangle$ be an orthonormal basis in ${\cal H}$, where $m$ belongs to $\mathbb{Z}_d$. We refer to them as ‘position states’. The $X$ in the notation is not a variable but it simply indicates position states.
The finite Fourier transform is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DFT1}
F=d^{-1/2} \sum_{m,n} \omega(mn)|X;m\rangle\rangle \langle\langle X;n|;\;\;\;\;\;
\omega(\alpha)=\exp\left(i \frac{2\pi \alpha}{d}\right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DFT2}
F F^{\dagger}=F^{\dagger} F={\bf 1};\;\;\;\;\;
F^4={\bf 1}\end{aligned}$$ Using the Fourier transform we define another orthonormal basis, the ‘momentum states’, as: $$|P;m\rangle\rangle=F |X;m\rangle\rangle=d^{-1/2} \sum_{n=0}^{d-1} \omega(mn)|X;n\rangle\rangle$$ We also define the ‘position and momentum operators’ $x$ and $p$ as $$\begin{aligned}
x=\sum _{n=0}^{d-1}n|X;n\rangle\rangle \langle\langle X;n|;\;\;\;\;\;\;
p=\sum _{n=0}^{d-1}n|P;n\rangle\rangle \langle\langle P;n|\end{aligned}$$ It is easily seen that $$\begin{aligned}
F x F^{\dagger}=p;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;F p F^{\dagger}=-x\end{aligned}$$
Displacements and the Heisenberg-Weyl group
-------------------------------------------
The displacement operators are defined as: $$Z=\exp \left (i \frac{2\pi}{d}x \right );\;\;\;\;\;
X=\exp \left (-i \frac{2\pi}{d}p \right )$$ $$X^{d}=Z^{d}={\bf 1};\;\;\;\;\;\;
X^\beta Z^\alpha=Z^\alpha X^\beta \omega(-\alpha \beta)$$ where $\alpha$,$\beta$ are integers in $\mathbb{Z}_d$. They perform displacements along the $P$ and $X$ axes in the $X-P$ phase-space. Indeed we can show that: $$\label{movez}
Z^\alpha |P;m \rangle\rangle=|P; m+\alpha \rangle\rangle ;\;\;\;\;\;\;
Z^\alpha|X; m\rangle\rangle= \omega(\alpha m)|X; m\rangle\rangle$$ $$\label{movex}
X^\beta |P; m \rangle\rangle= \omega(-m\beta)|P; m \rangle\rangle ;\;\;\;\;\;
X^\beta|X; m\rangle\rangle=|X; m+\beta\rangle\rangle$$ The $X-P$ phase-space is the toroidal lattice $\mathbb{Z}_d \times \mathbb{Z}_d$.
The general displacement operators are defined as: $$\label{displc}
D(\alpha, \beta)=Z^\alpha X^\beta \omega(-2^{-1}\alpha \beta);\;\;\;\;[D(\alpha, \beta)]^{\dagger}=D(-\alpha, -\beta)$$ It is easy to see $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dispx}
D(\alpha, \beta) |X;m \rangle\rangle &=& \omega (2^{-1}\alpha\beta + \alpha m) |X;m+\beta \rangle\rangle \nonumber\\
D(\alpha, \beta) |P;m \rangle\rangle &=& \omega (-2^{-1}\alpha\beta - \beta m) |P;m+\alpha \rangle\rangle \end{aligned}$$
We next consider an arbitrary (normalized) state $|s \rangle\rangle $ $$\begin{aligned}
|s\rangle\rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} s_m |X;m \rangle\rangle; \;\;\;\; \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} |s_m|^2 =1\end{aligned}$$ and act with the displacement operators to get the states: $$\begin{aligned}
|s;\alpha, \beta \rangle\rangle \equiv D(\alpha, \beta) |s\rangle\rangle
= \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} s_m \omega(2^{-1}\alpha\beta + \alpha m) |X;m \rangle\rangle\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $|s;0,0\rangle\rangle= |s\rangle\rangle$. Using Eq(\[movez\]) and Eq(\[movex\]) we easily show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{genres}
d^{-1} \sum_{\alpha,\beta=0}^{d-1} |s;\alpha, \beta \rangle\rangle \langle \langle s;\alpha, \beta | = \textbf{1}_d\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the states $|s;\alpha, \beta \rangle\rangle $ (for a fixed ‘fiducial’ state $|s\rangle\rangle $ and all $\alpha $, $\beta$ in $\mathbb{Z}_d$ ) form an overcomplete basis of $d^2$ vectors in the d-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. Eq(\[genres\]) is the resolution of the identity.
General transformations
-----------------------
In this section we expand an arbitrary operator $\Omega$, in terms of displacement operators. In order to do this we first define its Weyl function as $$\widetilde W_{\Omega}(\alpha,\beta) = \textrm{Tr} [\Omega D(\alpha,\beta)]$$ The properties of the Weyl function and its relation to the Wigner function is discussed in [@Vourdas2]. We can prove that $$\label{WelyDis}
\Omega = d^{-1} \sum_{\alpha,\beta=0}^{d-1} \widetilde W_{\Omega}(-\alpha,-\beta) D(\alpha,\beta)$$
A transform between functions in $\mathbb{R}$ and functions in $\mathbb{Z}_d$
=============================================================================
In this section we introduce a map between states in the infinite dimensional harmonic oscillator Hilbert space $H$ and the $d$-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. This map is a special case of the Zak transform. We consider a state $|\psi\rangle$ in $H$ with (normalized) wavefunction in the x-representation $\psi (x)=\langle x|\psi\rangle$. The corresponding state $|\psi\rangle \rangle$ in ${\cal H}$ is defined through the map $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_m = \langle\langle X;m| \psi \rangle\rangle = {\cal N}^{-1/2} \sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty}
\psi \left[ x=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda (m+dw) \right];\;\;\;\;\;\;
\psi_{m+d}=\psi_m
\label{mapx}\end{aligned}$$ where $m\in \mathbb{Z}_d$. ${\cal N}$ is a normalization factor so that $\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} |\psi_m|^2 = 1$ which is given in appendix A. The Fourier transform (on the real line) of $\psi (x)$, is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi (p) &=& (2\pi)^{-1/2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi (x) \exp(-ipx) dx. \label{Fho}\end{aligned}$$ Using the map of Eq(\[mapx\]) we define $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi_m = {{\cal N}^\prime}^{-1/2} \sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty}
\tilde\psi \left[ p=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \frac{1}{\lambda} (m+dw) \right]. \label{mapp}\end{aligned}$$ The tilde in $ \tilde\psi$ indicates that the Fourier transform of $\psi (x)$ has been transformed according to Eq.(\[Fho\]). The normalization factor ${\cal N}^\prime$ is given in appendix A where it is shown that ${\cal N}^\prime=\lambda^2 {\cal N}$.
We next prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eigDFT}
\tilde\psi_m= d^{-1/2} \sum_{n=0}^{d-1} \omega(-mn) \psi_n = \langle\langle P;m| \psi \rangle\rangle \end{aligned}$$ This shows that $\tilde \psi_m $ is the finite Fourier transform of $\psi _n$, and therefore the tilde also indicates the above finite Fourier transform. So the tilde in the notation is used for two different Fourier transforms, but they are consistent to each other.
In order to prove Eq.(\[eigDFT\]) we insert Eq.(\[mapx\]) into Eq.(\[eigDFT\]) and use the Poisson formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comb}
\sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \exp (i2\pi wx) =
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta (x-k),\end{aligned}$$ where the right hand side is the ‘comb delta function’; and also the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modelta}
\frac{1}{d} \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} \omega[m(k-\ell)] = \delta(k,\ell);\;\;\;\;k,\ell\in \mathbb{Z}_d\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta(k,k^\prime)$ is a Kronecker delta. These two relations are useful in many proofs in this paper.
The above map is not one-to-one (the Hilbert space $H$ is infinite dimensional while the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ is $d$-dimensional). Therefore, Eq.(\[mapx\]) cannot be inverted. In appendix B, we use the full Zak transform and introduce a family of $d$-dimensional Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ with twisted boundary conditions. We show that the Hilbert space $H$ is isomorphic to the direct integral of all the ${\cal H}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ (with $0\le\sigma_1<1$, $0\le\sigma_2<1$) and then an inverse to the relation (\[mapx\]) can be found. However the formalism of this paper is valid only for ${\cal H}\equiv {\cal H}(0,0)$ (which has periodic boundary conditions).
Quantum states
==============
Number eigenstates
------------------
In the harmonic oscillator, number states are eigenstates of the Fourier operator $\exp (ia^\dagger a)$ where $a, a^\dagger $ are the usual annihilation and creation operators. In this section we apply the transformation of Eq. (\[mapx\]) with $\lambda =1$ and we show that the resulting states are eigenstates of the Fourier operator of Eq.(\[DFT1\]).
We consider the harmonic oscillator number eigenstates $|N\rangle $ whose wavefunction is $$\begin{aligned}
\chi (x,N)= \langle x|N \rangle &=& \left(\frac{1}{\pi^{1/2} 2^N N!}\right)^{1/2} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2}x^2 \right) H_N(x),\end{aligned}$$ It is known that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tr}
\tilde\chi (x, N) &=& i^N \chi (x,N).\end{aligned}$$ Using the transforms of Eq(\[mapx\]) and Eq(\[mapp\]) with $\lambda =1$, we find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{number}
\chi_{m} (N)= \langle\langle X;m|N \rangle\rangle
&=& {{\cal N}_n(N)}^{-1/2} \sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \chi \left[ x=(m+dw)\left( \frac{2\pi}{d}\right)^{1/2} ,N\right],
\label{eigDFx} \\
\tilde\chi_{m}(N)= \langle\langle P;m|N \rangle\rangle
&=& {{\cal N}_n(N)}^{-1/2}\sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde\chi \left[ x=(m+dw)\left( \frac{2\pi}{d}\right)^{1/2} ,N \right], \label{eigDFp}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}_n(N)$ is the normalization factor for number eigenstates, given by Eq(\[norm\]) with $\psi$ replaced by $\chi$. Eq.(\[tr\]) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\chi_{m} (N)&=& i^N \chi_{m} (N)\label{eigrlt}.\end{aligned}$$ Using this in conjunction with Eq(\[eigDFT\]) we prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FN}
d^{-1/2} \sum_{n=0}^{d-1} \omega(-mn) \chi _n(N) &=& i^N\chi_m(N);\;\;\rightarrow \;\; F|N\rangle\rangle = i^N |N\rangle\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the vectors $\chi_m(N)$ are eigenvectors of the Fourier matrix. They have been studied in the context of Signal Processing in [@eigen] Of course, the Fourier matrix is finite and only $d$ of these eigenvectors are linearly independent. Therefore the set of all states $|N\rangle\rangle$ is highly overcomplete. In general the number states $|N\rangle\rangle$ are not orthogonal to each other.
The Fourier matrix has four eigenvalues $i^k$ ($0 \le k \le 3$); and all the states $|N= 4M+k \rangle\rangle$ correspond to the same eigenvalue $i^k$. As an example, we consider the case $d=6$ and using Eq.(\[eigDFx\]) we calculate the six eigenvectors . Results are presented in table I (we note that $|5\rangle\rangle =-|1\rangle\rangle$).
[cccccc]{}\
$|0\rangle\rangle$ & $|1\rangle\rangle$ & $|2\rangle\rangle$ & $|3\rangle\rangle$ & $|4\rangle\rangle$ & $|6\rangle\rangle$\
0.75971 & 0 & -0.52546 & 0 & 0.37040 & -0.31449\
0.45004 & 0.65328 & 0.34071 & -0.27059 & -0.37823 & 0.28578\
0.09373 & 0.27060 & 0.48131 & 0.65328 & 0.37471 & -0.15803\
0.01365 & 0 & 0.16851 & 0 & 0.54393 & 0.82934\
0.09373 & -0.27060 & 0.48131 & -0.65328 & 0.37471 & -0.15803\
0.45004 & -0.65328 & 0.34071 & 0.27059 & -0.37823 & 0.28578\
\
Coherent states
---------------
We consider the harmonic oscillator coherent states $|A \rangle$ whose wavefunction is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,A)= \langle x|A \rangle &=& \pi^{-1/4} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2} x^2 + Ax - \frac{1}{2} A_R A \right), \label{csx}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=A_R +iA_I$. Using the transformation of Eq(\[mapx\]) we introduce coherent states $|A \rangle\rangle $ in the finite Hilbert space as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fcs}
\psi_m(A)&=& \langle\langle X;m|A \rangle\rangle = {{\cal N}_C(A)}^{-1/2} \pi^{-1/4}
\exp \left[ -\frac{\pi \lambda^2 m^2}{d} + A m \lambda \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} - \frac{1}{2}A_R A \right ] \nonumber \\
&& \times \Theta_3 \left [ i\pi m \lambda^2 -i A \lambda \left( \frac{d \pi}{2} \right)^{1/2} ; id \lambda^2 \right ] \nonumber \\
&=& {{\cal N}_C(A)}^{-1/2} \pi^{-1/4} d^{-1/2} \lambda^{-1}
\exp \left( \frac{i}{2}A_IA \right )
\cdot \Theta_3 \left [ \frac{\pi m}{d}-\frac{A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d} \right)^{1/2}; \frac{i}{d \lambda^2} \right ].\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta _3$ are theta functions [@theta], defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_3 (u;\tau) &=& \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \exp(i\pi\tau n^2+i2nu).\end{aligned}$$ and the relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_3 (u;\tau) &=& (-i\tau)^{-1/2} \exp\left(\frac{u^2}{\pi i \tau}\right)
\cdot \Theta_3 \left( \frac{u}{\tau};-\frac{1}{\tau} \right ),\end{aligned}$$ has been used in Eq.(\[fcs\]). The normalization factor is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_C(A) &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-2}
\cdot \left\{ \Theta_3\left[ \frac{A_R}{\lambda} (2\pi d)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ A_I i \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{2 \pi}{d}\right)^{1/2};\frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right]
\right. \nonumber\\
&& + \left. \Theta_2\left[ \frac{A_R}{\lambda} (2\pi d)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_2\left[ A_I i \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{2 \pi}{d}\right)^{1/2};\frac{2i}{d \lambda^2} \right]
\right\}\end{aligned}$$
The $\psi_m(A)$ obeys the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quasi}
\psi_m \left[ A+(2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda \right] &=& \psi_m(A) \exp \left[ i A_I \lambda \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2} \right];\nonumber \\
\psi_m \left[ A+i \frac{(2\pi d)^{1/2}}{\lambda}\right] &=& \psi_m(A) \exp \left[ -i \frac{A_R}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2} \right]. \end{aligned}$$ The zeros of the Theta function $\Theta_3(u;\tau)$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thetazero}
u = (2k+1)\frac{\pi}{2}+(2l+1)\frac{\pi\tau}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $k$,$l$ are integers. Therefore $$\psi_m(A_{kl})= \langle\langle X;m|A _{kl}(m)\rangle\rangle =0;\;\;\;\
A_{kl} (m)= \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \left[ \left( kd+\frac{d}{2}+m \right) \lambda +\frac{(2l+1)i}{2\lambda} \right].$$ It is seen that the states $|A_{kl}(m)\rangle\rangle$ are orthogonal to the position states $|X;m\rangle\rangle$.
The ‘vacuum state’ $|0 \rangle\rangle$ is defined as $$\label{fcs7}
\langle\langle X;m|0 \rangle\rangle = {{\cal N}_C(0)}^{-1/2} \pi^{-1/4} d^{-1/2}
\cdot \Theta_3 \left( \frac{\pi m}{d}; \frac{i}{d \lambda^2 } \right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_C(0) &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-2}
\cdot \left\{ \Theta_3\left[ 0; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ 0;\frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right]
+ \Theta_2\left[ 0; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_2\left[ 0;\frac{2i}{d \lambda^2} \right]
\right\}\end{aligned}$$
The coherent states $|A \rangle\rangle $ satisfy the following resolution of the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{res}
\lambda (2\pi d)^{-1/2}\int _S d^2A
{\cal N}_C(A) |A \rangle\rangle \langle\langle A | = \textbf{1}_d ;\;\;
\;\;\;S=\left[ a, a+(2\pi d)^{1/2}\lambda \right)_R \times \left[ b, b+\frac{(2\pi d)^{1/2}}{\lambda} \right)_I\end{aligned}$$ We integrate here over the cell $S$. The periodicity of Eq.(\[quasi\]) implies that the cell can be shifted everywhere in the complex plane and this is indicated with the arbitrary real numbers $a$, $b$. The proof of Eq(\[res\]) is based on the resolution of the identity for ordinary (harmonic oscillator) coherent states, in conjunction with the map of Eq(\[mapx\]).
The set of all coherent states in the cell $S$ is highly overcomplete. Indeed using Eq.(\[genres\]) we easily show another resolution of identity which involves only $d^2$ coherent states in the cell $S$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{res2}
d^{-1}\sum_{\alpha, \beta =0}^{d-1} \left. \left\vert A+\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}(\beta \lambda + \frac{\alpha}{\lambda} i) \right\rangle \right\rangle
\left \langle \left \langle A+\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}(\beta\lambda + \frac{\alpha}{\lambda} i) \right\vert \right . = \textbf{1}_d\end{aligned}$$
We calculate overlap of two coherent states odd, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\langle A_1|A_2 \rangle\rangle &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-2} {\cal N}_C(A_1)^{-1/2} {\cal N}_C(A_2)^{-1/2}
\exp\left( -\frac{i}{2}A_{1I}A_1^\ast + \frac{i}{2}A_{2I}A_2 \right) \nonumber \\
&& \times \left \{ \Theta_3\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast+A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast-A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&& + \left. \Theta_2\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast+A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_2\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast-A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right] \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ and particularly find that when $d$ is an even number $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\langle A_1|A_2 \rangle\rangle &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-2} {\cal N}_C(A_1)^{-1/2} {\cal N}_C(A_2)^{-1/2}
\exp\left( -\frac{i}{2}A_{1I}A_1^\ast + \frac{i}{2}A_{2I}A_2 \right) \nonumber \\
&& \times \Theta_3\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast+A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{8}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{id}{2\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{A_1^\ast-A_2}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right].\end{aligned}$$ In the case, the first theta function in the above relation is zero when $$\begin{aligned}
A_2-A_1^\ast=\left ( l+ \frac{1}{2} \right) (2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda + i(2k+1)\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and the second is zero when $$\begin{aligned}
A_2+A_1^\ast= \left(\frac{2 \pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda ( 2k+1 )
+ \left(\frac{\pi d}{2} \right)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1} (2l+1)i\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding coherent states in these two cases are orthogonal to each other.
There is a relation between the coherent states in a finite Hilbert space studied in this section and the number states studied earlier: $$\label{nu}
|A\rangle\rangle = \exp \left(-\frac{|A|^2}{2} \right) \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \frac{A^N}{\sqrt{N!}}
\left[ \frac{{\cal N}_n(N)}{{\cal N}_C(A)} \right]^{1/2} |N\rangle\rangle.$$ This is analogous to the relation between coherent states and number states in the infinite dimensional Hilbert space for the harmonic oscillator. We have explained earlier that only $d$ of the number states appearing in the right hand side of Eq. (\[nu\]) are independent.
Introducing the displacement operator defined in Eq(\[displc\]), we can prove that $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha, \beta)|A\rangle \rangle = \left. \left\vert A+\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}(\beta \lambda + \alpha \lambda^{-1} i) \right\rangle \right\rangle
\cdot \exp \left[ -iA_I \lambda \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2} \beta + iA_R \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2} \alpha \right],\end{aligned}$$ where both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are integers. We might be tempted to use the above equation as a definition for displacement operators with real values of $\alpha$, $\beta$. It can be shown that in this case $D$ depends on $A$; and only for integer $\alpha$, $\beta$ the $D$ is independent of $A$.
Analytic Representation
=======================
Quantum states
--------------
Let $|f\rangle\rangle$ be an arbitrary(normalized) state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{st}
|f\rangle\rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} f_m |X;m\rangle\rangle \;\;\;\;\; \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} |f_m|^2 =1.\end{aligned}$$ We shall use the notation $$\begin{aligned}
|f^\ast \rangle\rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} f_m^\ast |X;m\rangle\rangle \nonumber\\
\langle\langle f|=\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} f_m^\ast \langle \langle X;m| \nonumber \\
\langle\langle f^*| = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} f_m \langle \langle X;m|\end{aligned}$$
We define the analytic representation of $|f\rangle\rangle$, as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ana}
f(z) &\equiv & {{\cal N}_C(z)}^{1/2} d^{1/2} \lambda \exp \left(-\frac{i}{2} z_Iz \right) \langle\langle z^\ast |f \rangle\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& \pi^{-1/4} \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} \Theta_3 \left [ \frac{\pi m}{d}-\frac{z}{\lambda}\left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{i}{d\lambda^{2}} \right ] f_m \label{analy}\end{aligned}$$ where $|z\rangle\rangle$ is a coherent state. It is easy to see $$\begin{aligned}
\label{periodicity}
f\left[ z+ (2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda \right] = f(z); \;\;\;
\;\; f\left[ z+ i (2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1} \right] = f(z)\exp \left[ \frac{\pi d}{\lambda^2} - i (2\pi d)^{1/2}z\lambda^{-1} \right].\end{aligned}$$ The $f(z)$ is an entire function. If $M(R)$ is the maximum modulus of $f(z)$ for $|z|=R$,then $$\rho =\lim _{R\to \infty }\sup \frac {\ln \ln M(R)}{\ln R}$$ is the order of the growth of $f(z)$ [@B]. It is easily seen that in our case the order of the growth is $\rho =2$.
Due to the periodicity our discussion below is limited to a single cell $S$ (defined in Eq.(\[res\]) ). The scalar product is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\langle f^\ast| g \rangle\rangle = (2\pi)^{-1/2} d^{-3/2} \lambda^{-1} \int_S d^2z \exp \left( - z_I^2 \right) f(z) g(z^\ast).\end{aligned}$$
As special cases, we derive the analytic representation of the position states: $$\begin{aligned}
|X;m\rangle\rangle \;\; &\rightarrow \;\; & \pi^{-1/4}
\cdot \Theta_3 \left [ \frac{\pi m}{d}-z \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{i}{d \lambda^{2}} \right ] \end{aligned}$$ momentum states: $$\begin{aligned}
|P;m\rangle\rangle \;\; &\rightarrow \;\;& \lambda \pi^{-1/4} \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2}z^2\right)
\cdot \Theta_3 \left [ \frac{\pi m}{d}- \lambda zi\left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{i\lambda^2}{d} \right ] \end{aligned}$$ and the coherent states: $$\begin{aligned}
|A\rangle\rangle \;\; &\rightarrow& \nonumber\\
f(z,A) &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-1} d^{1/2} {\cal N}_C(A)^{-1/2} \exp\left( \frac{i}{2} A_I A\right) \nonumber\\
&& \times \left \{ \Theta_3\left[ \frac{z+A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{z-A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&& + \left. \Theta_2\left[ \frac{z+A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{2}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2id}{\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_2\left[ \frac{z-A}{\lambda} \left(
\frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right]
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, when $d$ is even, it can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
f(z,A) &=& \pi^{-1/2} \lambda^{-1} d^{1/2} {\cal N}_C(A)^{-1/2} \exp\left( \frac{i}{2} A_I A\right) \nonumber\\
&& \times \Theta_3\left[ \frac{z+A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi d}{8}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{id}{2\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{z-A}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d}\right)^{1/2}; \frac{2i}{d\lambda^2} \right];\end{aligned}$$
Displacements and the Heisenberg-Weyl group
-------------------------------------------
In this section we express the displacement operators $X$ and $Z$ in the context of analytic representations. Eqs.(\[movex\]),(\[movez\]) are written as $$\begin{aligned}
Xf(z)=f \left[ z-\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda \right]; \;\;\;\;\;\;
Zf(z)=f\left[ z+i\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1} \right ] \exp\left[iz \lambda^{-1}\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}-\frac{\pi}{d\lambda^{2}}\right]. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore $X$ and $Z$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
X&=&\exp \left[ -\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda \partial_z \right] \nonumber\\
Z&=&\exp \left[ iz \lambda^{-1}\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}-\frac{\pi}{d\lambda^{2}}\right]
\exp \left[ i\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1} \partial_z \right] \end{aligned}$$ and the general displacement operator is: $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha , \beta ) = \omega (-2^{-1/2}\alpha \beta ) \exp\left[i\alpha z \lambda^{-1}\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}-\frac{\alpha^2 \pi}{d\lambda^{2}}\right]
\exp \left[ (i\alpha\lambda^{-1}-\beta\lambda ) \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\partial_z \right] \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha, \beta$ are integers in $\mathbb{Z}_d$. Acting with this operator on the state $|f\rangle\rangle$ of Eq.(\[st\]) represented by the analytic function $f(z)$ of eq(\[ana\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha , \beta ) f(z) &=& \pi^{-1/4} \exp \left[ i\alpha z \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}
- \frac{\alpha^2 \pi}{d\lambda^2} - \frac{2^{1/2} \alpha \beta \pi i}{d} \right] \nonumber \\
&& \times \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} f_m \Theta_3 \left[ \frac{\pi m}{d} - \frac{z}{\lambda} \left( \frac{\pi}{2d} \right)^{1/2}
- \frac{\alpha \pi i}{d\lambda} + \frac{\beta \pi}{d}; \frac{i}{d\lambda^{2}} \right]. \end{aligned}$$
General transformations
-----------------------
We have seen in Eq.(\[WelyDis\]) that an arbitrary operator $\Omega$ can be expanded in terms of displacement operators and using this we can express $\Omega$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega &=& d^{-1} \sum_{\alpha, \beta=0}^{d-1} \omega (-2^{-1/2}\alpha \beta ) \widetilde W_{\Omega}(-\alpha, -\beta)
\exp\left[i\alpha z \lambda^{-1} \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}-\frac{\alpha^2 \pi}{d\lambda^2}\right] \nonumber \\
&& \exp \left[ (i\alpha \lambda^{-1}-\beta \lambda ) \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\partial_z \right] \end{aligned}$$
Alternatively the operator $\Omega = \sum_{m,n} \Omega_{mn}|X;m\rangle\rangle \langle\langle X;n|$ can be represented with the kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(z,\zeta^*) &\equiv& {{\cal N}_C(\zeta)}^{1/2}{{\cal N}_C(z)}^{1/2} \lambda^2
\exp \left( -\frac{i}{2}z_I z + \frac{i}{2}\zeta_I \zeta^* \right)
\langle\langle z^* |\Omega| \zeta^* \rangle\rangle \\
&=& \pi^{-1/2}d^{-1} \sum_{m,n=0}^{d-1} \Omega_{mn}
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{\pi m}{d}-\frac{z}{\lambda}\left( \frac{\pi}{2d} \right)^{1/2}; \frac{i}{d\lambda^2} \right]
\Theta_3\left[ \frac{\pi n}{d}-\frac{\zeta^*}{\lambda}\left( \frac{\pi}{2d} \right)^{1/2}; \frac{i}{d\lambda^2} \right]\end{aligned}$$ and we easily prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega | f\rangle\rangle\rightarrow (2\pi d)^{-1/2} \lambda^{-1} \int_S d^2 \zeta \exp \left( -{\zeta_I}^* \right)
\Omega (z,\zeta^*) f(\zeta) \end{aligned}$$ It is easily seen that $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega[z+(2\pi d)^{-1/2}\lambda \alpha,\zeta^*+(2\pi d)^{-1/2}\lambda \beta]&=& \Omega[z,\zeta^*] \nonumber\\
\Omega[z+i(2\pi d)^{-1/2}\lambda^{-1} \alpha,\zeta^*] &=& \Omega[z,\zeta^*]
\exp \left[ \frac{\pi d}{\lambda^2}\alpha^2 -i(2\pi d)^{1/2}z\alpha \lambda^{-1} \right] \nonumber\\
\Omega[z,\zeta^*+i(2\pi d)^{-1/2}\lambda^{-1} \beta] &=& \Omega[z,\zeta^*]
\exp \left[ \frac{\pi d}{\lambda^2}\beta^2 -i(2\pi d)^{1/2}\zeta^*\beta \lambda^{-1} \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are integers.
Zeros of the analytic representation and their physical meaning
===============================================================
If $z_0$ is a zero of the analytic representation $f(z)$, then Eq.(\[analy\]) shows that the coherent state $|z_0\rangle\rangle$ is orthogonal to the state $|f\rangle\rangle$.
Using the periodicity of Eq(\[periodicity\]) we easily prove that $$\label{1}
\frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_\Gamma \frac{f^\prime(z)}{f(z)} \; \textrm{d}z = d ,$$ where $\Gamma$ is the boundary of the cell $S$. The above integral is in general equal to the number of zeros minus the number of poles of the function $f(z)$ inside $\Gamma$. Since our functions have no poles, we conclude that the analytic representation of any state has exactly $d$ zeros in the square $S$ (zeros will be counted with their multiplicities). The area of $S$ is $2\pi d$, and therefore there is an average of one zero per $2\pi$ area of the complex plane, in this analytic representation. As an example we show in Fig.1 the zeros of the coherent states $|0 \rangle \rangle$ and $|1+i \rangle \rangle$ for the case $d=4$.
![The zeros within a cell of the coherent states $|0 \rangle \rangle$ (circles) and $|1+i \rangle \rangle$ (triangles) for the case $d=4$.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figleg.eps)
A direct consequence of this result is the fact that any set of $d+1$ coherent states in the cell $S$ is at least complete. Indeed if it is not complete, then there exists some state which is orthogonal to all these coherent states. But such a state would have $d+1$ zeros, which is not possible. A set of $d+1$ states in a $d$-dimensional space which is at least complete is in fact overcomplete; in the sense that there exist a state which we can take out and be left with a complete set of $d$ states. We note that if we take out an arbitrary state we might be left with an undercomplete set of $d$ states.
A set of $d-1$ coherent states is clearly undercomplete, because our Hilbert space is $d$-dimensional.
A set of $d$ distinct coherent states $\{|z_i\rangle\rangle; i=1,...,d \}$ will be complete or undercomplete depending on whether it violates or satisfies the constraint $$\label{sumz}
\sum _{i=1}^dz_i= \left( \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{1/2} d^{3/2} (\lambda+i\lambda^{-1})
+(2\pi d)^{1/2}(M\lambda+iN\lambda^{-1}).$$ where $M,N$ are integers. In order to prove this we use the periodicity of Eq(\[periodicity\]) to prove that $$\label{sumzero}
\frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_\Gamma \frac{z f^\prime(z)}{f(z)} \; \textrm{d}z = \left( \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{1/2} d^{3/2} (\lambda+i\lambda^{-1})
+(2\pi d)^{1/2}(M\lambda+iN \lambda^{-1}).$$ The above integral is in general equal to the sum of zeros minus the sum of poles (with the multiplicities taken into account) of the function $f(z)$ inside $\Gamma$. Since our functions have no poles, we conclude that the sum of zeros is equal to the right hand side of Eq(\[sumzero\]). Eqs(\[1\]),(\[sumzero\]) have also been given in [@L1].
If the $d$ coherent states considered violate Eq.(\[sumz\]), then clearly they form a complete set because there exists no state which is orthogonal to all of them. If however they do satisfy the constraint (\[sumz\]), then there exists a state which is orthogonal to all of them. To construct such a state we simply take the first $d-1$ coherent states $\{|z_1\rangle\rangle,...,|z_{d-1}\rangle\rangle\}$ (which form an undercomplete set because the space is $d$ -dimensional) and find a state $|g\rangle\rangle$ which is orthogonal to them. The corresponding analytic function $g(z)$ will have $d$ zeros which will be the $z_1,...,z_{d-1}$ and an extra one which has to obey the constraint (\[sumz\]) and therefore has to be $z_d$. Therefore $|g\rangle\rangle$ will be orthogonal to $|z_d\rangle\rangle$ also, and consequently the set of $\{|z_1\rangle\rangle,...,|z_d\rangle\rangle\}$ is undercomplete.
Construction of the analytic representation of a state from its zeros
=====================================================================
We have proved in the last section that for an arbitrary state $|f\rangle\rangle$, the analytic representation $f(z)$ has $d$ zeros in the cell $S$ of Eq.(\[res\]). In this section we assume that the zeros $z_1,z_2,...z_d$ in the cell $S$, are given (subject to the constraint of Eq(\[sumz\])) and we will construct the function $f(z)$. We note that some of the zeros might be equal to each other.
We first consider the product $$Q(z) = \prod_{j=1}^d \Theta_3 \left[ (z-z_j+w) \left( \frac{\pi}{2d} \right)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1}; \frac{i}{\lambda^2} \right]
;\;\;\;\;\;w= \left( \frac{\pi d}{2} \right)^{1/2} (\lambda+\lambda^{-1}i)$$ It is easily seen that $Q(z)$ has the given zeros. The ratio $f(z)/Q(z)$ is entire function with no zeros and therefore it is the exponential of an entire function: $$f(z)=Q(z)\exp (P(z))$$ Taking into account the periodicity constraints of Eq.(\[periodicity\]) we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{periodicity1}
P\left[ z+ (2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda \right]& = &P(z)+i2\pi K\nonumber\\
P\left[ z+ i (2\pi d)^{1/2} \lambda^{-1} \right] & = &P(z)+\frac {2\pi N}{\lambda ^2}+i2\pi \Lambda.\end{aligned}$$ Here $N$ is the integer entering the constraint of Eq.(\[sumz\]); and $K$,$\Lambda$ are arbitrary integers. We have explained earlier that the growth of $f(z)$ is of order $2$. The order of $Q(z)$ is $2$; therefore the $P(z)$ is a polynomial of maximum possible degree $2$. Eq.(\[periodicity1\]) shows that in fact $P(z)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
P(z) = -\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} N \lambda^{-1}z i +C.\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{500}
f(z) = C' \cdot \exp \left[ -\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2} N \lambda^{-1}z i \right]Q(z).\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C'$ is determined by the normalization condition.
Discussion
==========
The harmonic oscillator formalism with phase space $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$ has been studied extensively in the literature. Equally interesting is quantum mechanics on a circle, with phase space $\mathbb{S} \times \mathbb{Z}$[@cir1; @cir2]; and finite quantum systems, with phase space $ \mathbb{Z}_d \times \mathbb{Z}_d $. Most of the results for physical systems on a circle or circular lattice (which is the case here), are intimately related to Theta functions; and well known mathematical results for Theta functions can be used to derive interesting physical results for these systems.
In this paper we have introduced the transform of Eq.(\[mapx\]) between functions in $\mathbb{R}$ and functions in $\mathbb{Z}_d$. The aim is to create a harmonic oscillator-like formalism in the context of finite systems. We have defined the analogue of number states for finite quantum systems in Eq.(\[number\]); and of coherent states in Eq.(\[fcs\]). The properties of these states have been discussed.
Using the coherent states we have defined the analytic representation of Eq.(\[ana\]) in terms of Theta functions. In this language we have studied displacements and the Heisenberg-Weyl group; and also more general transformations. Symplectic transformations are also important for these systems. Especially in the case where $d$ is the power of a prime number, there are strong results (e.g., [@Vourdas2]). Further work is needed in order to express these results in the language of analytic representations used in this paper.
The analytic functions (\[ana\]) have growth of order $2$ and they have exactly $d$ zeros in each cell $S$. If the zeros are given we can construct the analytic representation of the state using Eq.(\[500\]). Therefore we can describe the time evolution of a system through the paths of the $d$ zeros of its analytic representation, in the cell $S$.
Based on the theory of zeros of analytic functions we have shown that a set of $d+1$ coherent states in the cell $S$ is overcomplete; and a set of $d-1$ coherent states is undercomplete. A set of $d$ coherent states in the cell $S$, is complete if the constraint of Eq.(\[sumz\]) is violated; and undercomplete if the constraint of Eq.(\[sumz\]) is obeyed. These results are analogous to the ‘ theory of von Neumann lattice’ in our context of finite quantum systems.
Our results use the powerful techniques associated to analytic representations in the context of finite systems.
Appendix A
==========
The normalization factor appearing in Eq.(\[mapx\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N} = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1} \left \{ \sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \psi^\ast \left[ x=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\lambda(m+dw) \right]
\right \} \left \{
\sum_{w^\prime=-\infty}^{\infty} \psi \left[ x=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\lambda(m+dw^\prime) \right]
\right \}\label{norm}\end{aligned}$$ The normalization factor appearing in Eq.(\[mapp\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^\prime = \sum_{m=0}^{d-1}
\left \{ \sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde\psi^\ast \left[ p=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\lambda^{-1}(m+dw) \right] \right \}
\left \{ \sum_{w^\prime=-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde\psi \left[ p=\left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right)^{1/2}\lambda^{-1}(m+dw^\prime) \right] \right \}
\label{normp}\end{aligned}$$ We insert Eq(\[Fho\]) into Eq(\[normp\]), and use Eqs(\[comb\]), (\[modelta\]) to prove that ${\cal N}^\prime=\lambda^{2}{\cal N}$.
Appendix B
==========
In this appendix we use the full Zak transform to introduce a family of $d$-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ (with ${\cal H}\equiv {\cal H}(0,0)$). We generalize Eq.(\[mapx\]) into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{genmap}
\psi_m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2) =
[{\cal N}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)]^{-1/2}
\sum_{w=-\infty}^{\infty} \exp(-2\pi i \sigma_1 w) \psi \left[ \left( \frac{2\pi}{d} \right )^{1/2} \lambda
(m+\sigma_2 + dw) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ is a normalization factor. The Hilbert space ${\cal H}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ is spanned by the states corresponding to $\psi_m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$. These spaces and the corresponding twisted boundary conditions of the wavefunctions, have been studied in [@L2]. The Hilbert space $H$ is isomorphic to the direct integral of all the ${\cal H}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ (with $0\le\sigma_1<1$, $0\le\sigma_2<1$). In this case Eq.(\[mapx\]) can be inverted as follows: $$\psi \left[ x= \left( \frac{2\pi}{d}\right)^{1/2} \lambda (m+\sigma_2 + dw) \right] = \int_{0}^{1} [{\cal N}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)]^{1/2}
\psi_m(\sigma_1,\sigma_2) \exp(2\pi i \sigma_1 w) \textrm{d}\sigma_1.$$ The formalism of this paper is valid for the space ${\cal H}\equiv {\cal H}(0,0)$.
[99]{}
H. Weyl, Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics (Dover, New York, 1950);\
J. Schwinger, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 46, 570 (1960); Quantum Kinematics and Dynamics (Benjamin, New York, 1970).
L. Auslander, R. Tolimieri Bull. Am. Math.Soc. 1, 847 (1979)\
J. Hannay, M.V. Berry, Physica D 1, 267 (1980)\
R. Balian and C. Itzykson, C.R. Acad. Sci. 303, 773 (1986)\
W.K. Wootters and B.D. Fields, Ann. Phys (N.Y) 191, 363 (1989)\
M.L. Mehta, J.Math. Phys. 28, 781 (1987)\
V.S. Varadarajan, Lett. Math. Phys. 34, 319 (1995)\
U. Leonhardt, Phys. Rev. A53, 2998 (1996)
A. Vourdas, Phys. Rev. A41, 1653 (1990); A43, 1564 (1991)\
A. Vourdas, C. Bendjaballah, Phys.Rev. A47, 3523 (1993)
E.M. Rains, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theo., 45, 1827 (1999)\
D. Gottesman, Chaos, Solitons, Fractals, 10, 1749 (1999)\
D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)\
A. Vourdas, Phys. Rev. A65, 042321 (2002)\
S.D. Bartlett, H. de Guise, B.C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A65, 052316 (2002)
E. Brown, Phys. Rev. A133 (1964) 1038\
J. Zak, Phys. Rev. A134 (1964) 1602\
J. Zak, Phys. Rev. B39 (1998) 694
D.P. Arovas, R.N. Bhatt, F.D.M. Haldane, P.B. Littlewood,R. Rammal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, (1988) 619\
X.G. Wen, Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B41 (1990) 9377\
J. Martinez, M. Stone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B7 (1993) 4389
M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. A473, 183 (1987)\
N.L. Balazs, A. Voros, Phys. Rep. C143, 109 (1986)\
P. Leboeuf, J. Kurchan, M. Feingold, D.P. Arovas, Chaos, 2, 125 (1992)\
F. Vivaldi, Nonlinearity 5, 133 (1992)\
J.P. Keating, J. Phys. A27, 6605 (1994)\
G.G. Athanasiu, E. Floratos, S. Nicolis, J. Phys. A29, 6737 (1996)
H. Abarbanel, A. Rouhi, Phys. Rev. E48 (1994) 3643
A. Vourdas, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67, 267 (2004)
J.Zak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1385 (1967)\
J.Zak, Phys. Rev. 168, 686 (1968)\
A.J.E.M.Janssen, Philips J. Res. 43, 23 (1988)
A.Weil, Acta Math., 111, 143 (1964)
C.C. Chong, A.Vourdas, C.Bendjaballah, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 18, 2478 (2001)\
S.Zhang, A.Vourdas, J. Math. Phys., 44, 5084 (2003)
P. Leboeuf, A. Voros, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23, 1765 (1990)
G.G. Athanasiu, E.G. Floratos, Nucl. Phys. B425, 343 (1994)\
H. de Guise, M. Bertola, J.Math. Phys. 43, 3425 (2002)
V.Bargmann, P.Butera, L.Girardello, J.R.Klauder, Rep. Math. Phys. 2, 211 (1971)\
H.Bacry, A.Grossmann, J.Zak, Phys. Rev. B12, 1118 (1975)\
M. Boon, J. Zak, Phys. Rev. B18, 6744 (1978)\
M. Boon, J. Zak, J. Math. Phys. 22, 1090 (1981)\
M. Boon,J. Zak, J. Zuker, J. Math. Phys. 24, 316 (1983)\
A.J.E.M. Janssen, J. Math. Phys. 23, 720 (1982)
K.Seip J. Reine Angew. Math. 429,91(1992)\
Yu.I.Lyubarskii Adv. Sov. Math. 11, 167(1992)\
K.Seip,R.Wallsten, J.reine angew.Math. 429, 107(1992)\
Yu.I.Lyubarskii,K.Seip Arkiv Mat.32, 157 (1994)\
J.Ramanathan,T.Steiger,Appl.Comp.Harm.Anal.2, 148 (1995)
A.M.Perelomov, ‘Generalised coherent states and their applications’ (Springer, Berlin, 1986)\
A.M.Perelomov, Theo. Math. Phys. 6, 156 (1971)\
A.M.Perelomov, Commun. Math. Phys. 26, 222 (1972)\
A.M.Perelomov, Funct. Anal. Appl. 7, 225 (1973)
A. Vourdas, J Phys. A: Math. Gen., 30,4867 (1997)\
A. Vourdas, J Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5, S413 (2003)
R.P.Boas ‘Entire functions’ (Academic,New York,1954)\
B.Ja.Levin,‘Distribution of zeros of entire functions’ (American Math.Soc,Rhode Island,1964)\
B.Ja.Levin, ‘Lectures on Entire functions’ (American Math.Soc,Rhode Island, 1996)
R. Yarlagadda, IEEE Trans. ASSP-25(6), 586 (1997)\
B.W. Dickinson, K. Steiglitz, IEEE Trans. ASSP-30(1), 25 (1982)
I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, ‘Table of Integrals Series and Products’, Academic Press, London (2000);\
D. Mumford, ‘Tata lectures on Theta Vols. [**1,2**]{}’, Birkhauser, Boston (1983).
M.G.G. Laidlaw, C Morette-De Witt, Phys. Rev. D[**3**]{}, 1375 (1971);\
J.S. Dowker J. Phys. A[**5**]{}, 936 (1972);\
L.S. Schulman, J. Math.Phys. [**12**]{}, 304 (1971); “Techniques and applications of path integration” (Wiley, New York, 1981).
F. Acerbi, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Lett. Math. Phys. [**27**]{}, 1 (1993);\
F. Acerbi, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, J. Math. Phys. [**34**]{}, 889 (1993);\
H. Narnhofer, W.Thirring, Lett. Math. Phys. [**27**]{}, 133(1993);\
A. Vourdas, J.Phys. A[**30**]{}, 5195 (1997)
P. Leboeuf, J. Kurchan, Chaos 2(1), 125 (1992)\
J.P.Keating, F.Mezzadri, J.M. Robbins, Nonlinearity 12, 579 (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate how to model Markovian evolution of coupled harmonic oscillators, each of them interacting with a local environment. When the coupling between the oscillators is weak, dissipation may be modeled using local Lindblad terms for each of the oscillators in the master equation, as is commonly done. When the coupling between oscillators is strong, this model may become invalid. We derive a master equation for two coupled harmonic oscillators which are subject to individual heat baths modeled by a collection of harmonic oscillators, and show that this master equation in general contains non-local Lindblad terms. We compare the resulting time evolution with that obtained for dissipation through local Lindblad terms for each individual oscillator, and show that the evolution is different in the two cases. In particular, the two descriptions give different predictions for the steady state and for the entanglement between strongly coupled oscillators. This shows that when describing strongly coupled harmonic oscillators, one must take great care in how dissipation is modeled, and that a description using local Lindblad terms may fail. This may be particularly relevant when attempting to generate entangled states of strongly coupled quantum systems.'
author:
- Chaitanya Joshi
- Patrik Öhberg
- 'James D. Cresser'
- Erika Andersson
title: Markovian evolution of strongly coupled harmonic oscillators
---
Introduction
============
Physical systems will always, to a varying degree, interact with their external environments. This is commonly described using some kind of master equation. Very often approximations are made, resulting in a master equation of so-called Lindblad form. When modelling quantum systems coupled to each other and to their environments, it might therefore be tempting to “phenomenologically" add decay terms of Lindblad form to account for interaction with an environment, without going via a rigorous derivation of the master equation from first principles. As first noted by Walls, however, one has to be careful when doing this, as naively adding Lindblad terms may give the wrong steady state for strongly coupled quantum systems [@wallsp].
In this paper we further explore how to describe the system-environment interaction for coupled harmonic oscillators. In particular, we will be especially interested in strongly coupled oscillators, and will consider not just the steady state, but also predictions regarding quantum entanglement. Many different physical systems can be described as coupled harmonic oscillators, including coupled vibrational degrees of freedom of ions in an ion trap [@krbr], quantum fluctuations of mechanical and optical modes around the classical steady state value in an optomechanical cavity [@smans3; @agarwal; @akram; @joshopt], or coupled nano-sized electromechanical devices arranged in an array [@eisbos]. Entanglement properties of such systems are of great current interest in the context of quantum information science and quantum technology. This is one motivation for our work.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:me\] we briefly review the derivation of master equations. In section \[sec:pheno\], a master equation describing the evolution of two coupled oscillators is examined, for the case when each oscillator undergoes damping through a local Lindblad term, which could arise as a “phenomenologically" motivated master equation. Following this, a Markovian master equation describing the evolution of two strongly coupled oscillators is derived in section \[sec:mastersolexct\], assuming that each oscillator interacts with a local bath of harmonic oscillators. In section \[sec:resltsapp\] we compare the evolution of the two coupled oscillators when dissipation is modeled using the above two approaches. We compare oscillator excitations, fidelity between the two mode states for the different damping models, and the quantum correlations between the two coupled oscillators, as measured by the logarithmic negativity, and show these to be different, in general, in the two cases. The observation made by Walls for the steady state is also confirmed for zero temperature reservoirs. Finally, we conclude the paper with discussions in section \[sec:concld\].
Deriving master equations {#sec:me}
=========================
To illustrate how master equations are in general derived, we will be considering two bilinearly coupled harmonic oscillators with equal frequency $\omega$ and unit mass, labelled by $a$ and $b$, described by a Hamiltonian (with $\hbar=1$) $$\begin{gathered}
H_{\text{sys}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{p}_a^2+\omega^2\hat{x}_a^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{p}_b^2+\omega^2\hat{x}_b^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\Omega^2\left(\hat{x}_a\hat{x}_b\right).\end{gathered}$$ Expressing the position and momentum quadratures in terms of annihilation and creation operators, and setting $\kappa=\Omega^2/4\omega$, we can write the Hamiltonian as $$\label{eq:sysham}
\begin{split}
H_\text{sys}
=&H_a+H_b+H_\text{coupling}\\
=&\omega\left(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}
+\hat{b}^\dagger\hat{b}\right)
+\kappa\left(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^\dagger\right)\left(\hat{b}+\hat{b}^\dagger\right)
\end{split}$$ where $\hat a$ and $\hat b$ are destruction operators for the individual modes of the two coupled oscillators.
The joint state of the two oscillators and their outside environment evolve under the Hamiltonian $$H=H_\text{sys}+H_\text{env}+H_\text{int}.$$ The environment is often modeled as a collection of harmonic oscillators linearly coupled to the system oscillators through $$H_\text{int}=\hat{R}_a(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^\dagger)+\hat{R}_b(\hat{b}+\hat{b}^\dagger),$$ where the reservoir operators $\hat{R}_{a,b}$ take the generic form $$\hat{R}=\sum_{\Omega}^{}f(\Omega)(\hat{c}^\dagger_\Omega+\hat{c}_\Omega),$$ and $\hat c_\Omega$ refer to the modes of the environment which interact with the quantum system with interaction strength $f(\Omega)$. It is sometimes possible to derive an exact master equation, such as the Hu-Paz-Zhang master equation for the Caldeira-Leggett model, when the system is a single harmonic oscillator [@HuPazZhang]. The case of coupled harmonic oscillators interacting with an arbitrary number of reservoirs has been dealt with by influence functional methods in [@martinez]. The results are exact, but forbiddingly complex in the general case. We are working in the limit in which the Born-Markov approximation is appropriate, and a limiting case could in principle be arrived at from the exact results of [@martinez] by appropriate choice of spectral density and time scales. For our investigations, however,Êwe have chosen more usual methods, which are sufficient to illustrate the point we wish to make.
First, the rotating wave approximation (RWA) can be made on the coupling between the oscillators. Second, approximations including the RWA can be made for the interaction between the oscillators and the environment. The RWA involves dropping quickly oscillating terms from the Hamiltonian. In commonly encountered physical situations, the oscillators are weakly coupled to each other, so that $\kappa \ll \omega$. If this condition is met, then the coupling between the oscillators can be simplified under the rotating wave approximation (RWA) [@stev; @milburn]. The two-mode squeezing terms $\hat{a} \hat{b}$ and $\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{a}^{\dagger}$ oscillate, in the interaction picture, on a time scale $\sim$ (system transition frequencies)$^{-1}$, i.e., $\omega^{-1}$, which, if the RWA can be made, is much faster than the time scale $\kappa^{-1}$ of the coupling between the oscillators. The two-mode squeezing terms can then be dropped from the Hamiltonian. The RWA Hamiltonian then conserves the number of excitations and can be straightforwardly solved using a simple rotational transformation to the center of mass and the relative modes of the two oscillators.
Similar reasonings hold when applying the RWA on the interaction between a system and its environment. The “system" could also consist of several subsystems, each one in their independent environments, or in a common environment. In any case, properly applying the RWA should again involve dropping quickly oscillating terms.
For the interaction of the system with the environment, the theory of open quantum systems provides a suite of approximations, including the Born-Markov and secular approximations (the BMS approximations), that have been found to be widely valid. The secular approximation amounts to excluding rapidly oscillating terms arising in the master equation. Alternatively, the usual RWA can be introduced directly at the level of the Hamiltonian. Either way, this approximation is essential – the Born-Markov approximations are not enough – in yielding a master equation for the system density operator $\rho$ that is of Lindblad form (ignoring energy shifts), $$\dot{\rho}=-i\left[H_\text{sys},\rho\right]+\sum_{s}^{}\gamma_s\mathcal{L}_{s}[\rho],$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{s}\rho=\hat s\rho\,\hat s^\dagger-\frac{1}{2}\left\{\hat s^\dagger \hat s,\rho\right\}$ and where $\hat s,\hat s^\dagger$ are harmonic oscillator annihilation and creation operators whose detailed form depends on not just the form of the system-reservoir interaction, but also on the coupling between the systems, in our case the two oscillators.
For a system of coupled oscillators, each independently interacting with separate heat baths, one might expect that the form of the damping for each coupled oscillator is independent of the strength of the coupling between them. Therefore, a naive approach, which can also be referred to as a *local* damping model, is simply to add local Lindblad terms for each oscillator [@smans3; @akram; @joshopt; @geradolpa; @josh]. That is, the Lindblad operators $\hat s,\hat s^\dagger$ would be given by $\hat a,\hat a^\dagger, \hat b, \hat b^\dagger$ to yield $$\begin{gathered}
\label{mastereqntwoosc3}
\dot{\rho}=-i\left[H_\text{sys},\rho\right]\\+\sum_{s=a,b}^{}\left\{\Gamma_s\left(\bar{n}_s+1\right)\mathcal{L}_s[\rho]+\Gamma_s\bar{n}_s\mathcal{L}_{s^\dagger}[\rho]\right\}\end{gathered}$$ where $\Gamma_{s}$ is the decay rate of oscillator $s$, which is coupled to a heat bath with average thermal occupancy $\bar{n}_{s}$. This approach is certainly valid if the coupling between the oscillators is weak. As was first noted by Walls [@wallsp], however, it may also fail. Walls investigated the case of two coupled bosonic modes with inter-mode coupling $H_\text{coupling}=\kappa(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{b}+\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{a})$. He pointed out that for inter-mode coupling $\kappa \sim \omega$, modeling dissipation through local damping of each individual mode may become questionable. The steady state density operator for the system ought to be the canonical density operator $$\label{canonical}
\rho(\infty)\sim \exp\left(-H_\text{sys}/k_BT\right)$$ in the limit of weak coupling of the system(s) to the reservoir(s) at a temperature $T$. This is, of course, the expected steady state density operator for the system in thermal equilibrium with the reservoir at temperature $T$.
If, instead, the damping of Lindblad form is added naively, with $\hat s$ equal to the individual system mode operators $\hat a$ and $\hat b$, then $\hat{H}_a+\hat{H}_b$ appears in the exponent. While this might be an acceptable approximation for weak inter-system coupling ($\kappa\ll\omega$), in the limit of strongly coupled oscillators it is not a valid result.
When the coupling between oscillators is strong, it is necessary to derive the master equation in a way that fully accounts for the coupling between the oscillators. The Lindblad operators $\hat s,\hat s^\dagger$ are then the energy eigenoperators [@gardiner] for the composite system, or equivalently the normal modes of the coupled harmonic oscillators, instead of the operators $\hat a,\hat a^\dagger, \hat b, \hat b^\dagger$. Working with the eigenoperators is of course a general principle when it comes to dealing with damping of any composite quantum system – it is not confined to coupled harmonic oscillators. For instance, the “correct” damping of the Jaynes-Cummings model resulting in an equilibrium steady state entails an eigenoperator approach [@jim]. But in doing so, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the Lindblad terms in the resulting master equations are then in a sense *non-local*. The resulting time evolution then differs from the one obtained using a master equation with local Lindblad terms. In other words, when the oscillators are strongly coupled to each other, a description using local Lindblad terms may fail, and it is this regime we are interested in. In particular in this regime of strong coupling we find, for example, that we would not expect to be able to make the RWA in the oscillator-oscillator coupling in the Hamiltonian . In order to study in greater detail the contributions of the non-RWA terms, we will work, instead of with the Hamiltonian , but rather with a generalized Hamiltonian for the two oscillators, $$\label{eqn2ham}
H_\text{sys}=\omega (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a}+\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{b})
+\kappa (\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}+\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{a})
+\lambda (\hat{a}\hat{b}+\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{a}^{\dagger}).$$ From this Hamiltonian, can be regained in the case of $\lambda=\kappa$, and the RWA form for $\lambda=0$. Hamiltonian however also includes e.g. the case of a squeezing interaction, which is obtained for $\kappa =0$. Furthermore, we are here interested in the evolution of coupled harmonic oscillators initially prepared in Gaussian states. The generalized Hamiltonian is still quadratic in position and momentum coordinates, and hence the initial Gaussian nature of the state is preserved.
Local Lindblad-type dissipation {#sec:pheno}
===============================
As stated in the Introduction, there is inevitable coupling between the system of interest and the environment. In this section, we shall consider the case where dissipative dynamics is modeled by adding local Lindblad operators for each individual oscillator. As we will show, adding such local Lindblad terms to the master equation must be carefully justified, and may in fact lead to incorrect dynamics if the oscillators are strongly coupled to each other. For now, we nevertheless assume that the time evolution of the system of two coupled harmonic oscillators in the Born-Markov approximation is described by the Lindblad-type master equation , repeated here, $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=-i[H_\text{sys},\rho]+
\sum_{s=a,b}
\{[\Gamma_s(\bar{n}_{s}+1)\mathcal L_s(\rho)+\Gamma_s\bar{n}_s\mathcal L_{s^\dagger}(\rho)]\}.$$
If the two coupled oscillators interact with an environment which itself can be described by a Gaussian state, with an interaction Hamiltonian that contains terms at most quadratic in annihilation and creation operators, then the two coupled oscillators maintain their initial Gaussian character during the resulting dissipative evolution. One way to solve the master equation is to exploit this Gaussian character, by rewriting the master equation in terms of a partial differential equation for the two-mode quantum characteristic function. We define a normal-ordered characteristic function as $\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*},{\it t})=\langle e^{\kappa_{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger}}e^{-\kappa_{a}^{*}\hat{a}}e^{\eta_{b}\hat{b}^{\dagger}}e^{-\eta_{b}^{*}\hat{b}}\rangle$ and make a Gaussian ansatz for the time-evolved characteristic function, $\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*},{\it t}) =\exp\left[-z^{T}{\mbox{\bf L}}(t)\,z+i z^{T}h(t)\right]$. Here ${\mbox{\bf L}}(t)$ is a time-dependent 4$\times$4 symmetric matrix, $h(t)$ is a 4$\times$1 time-dependent vector and $z^{T}=( \kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*})$. The corresponding partial differential equation for $\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*},{\it t})$ then becomes [@stev] $$\label{chievnay}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \chi
=z^{T} {\mbox{\bf M}} z \chi+z^{T} {\mbox{\bf N}} \nabla \chi,$$ where $\nabla= (\frac{\partial}{ \partial \kappa_{a}}, \frac{\partial }{ \partial \kappa_{a}^{*}}, \frac{\partial}{ \partial \eta_{b}}, \frac{\partial }{ \partial \eta_{b}^{*}})^{T}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\bf N}}&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
i\omega-\Gamma_{a} & 0 & i \kappa &-i\lambda \\
0 & -i\omega-\Gamma_{a} & i \lambda &-i \kappa \\
i \kappa & -i\lambda & i\omega-\Gamma_{b}&0 \\
i\lambda & -i \kappa &0 &-i\omega-\Gamma_{b}\\
\end{array} \right ),\\
{\mbox{\bf M}}&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -\Gamma_{a} \bar{n}_{a} & i \lambda/2&0 \\
-\Gamma_{a} \bar{n}_{a} & 0 & 0&-i \lambda/2\\
i \lambda/2 & 0 & 0&-\Gamma_{b}\bar{n}_{b} \\
0 & -i \lambda/2 &-\Gamma_{b} \bar{n}_{b} &0 \\
\end{array} \right ).
\end{aligned}$$ Using the Gaussian ansatz for the quantum characteristic function $\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*},{\it t})$ it easily follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \chi }{ \partial t}&=&-z^{\rm T} \frac{d {\mbox{\bf L}}}{d t} z \chi+i z^{\rm T} \frac{d h}{d t} \chi \label{diff1}\\ \nabla \chi &=&-{\rm 2} {\mbox{\bf L}} z \chi +i h \chi.\label{diff2}\end{aligned}$$ Using and , the partial differential equation for $\chi$ becomes $$\label{difchmon}
-z^{\rm T} \frac{d {\mbox{\bf L}}}{d t} z+i z^{\rm T} \frac{d h}{d t} \chi = z^{\rm T} {\mbox{\bf M}} z \chi-{\rm 2}z^{\rm T}{\mbox{\bf N}}{\mbox {\bf L}} z \chi +i z^{\rm T} {\mbox{\bf N}} h \chi.$$ Recalling that $\mbox{\bf {L}}(t)$ is symmetric, we can write $${\mbox{\bf L}}(t)=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\mbox{\bf P}}(t)& {\mbox{\bf Q}}(t)\\
{\mbox{\bf Q}}(t)^{T}& {\mbox{\bf R}}(t)\\
\end{array} \right),$$ where ${\mbox{\bf P}}(t)$ and ${\mbox{\bf R}}(t)$ are 2$\times$2 symmetric matrices. Taking the symmetric part of results in two matrix differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nayitue}
\frac{d {\mbox{\bf L}}(t)}{d t}+ {\mbox{\bf M}}=&{\mbox{\bf N}}{\mbox{\bf L}}+{\mbox{\bf L}} {\mbox{\bf N}}^{\rm T} \\
\frac{d h}{d t}=& \mbox{\bf N} h.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus solving the master equation reduces to solving two coupled matrix differential equations. From the quantum characteristic function the complete statistical description of the corresponding state can be obtained. With the quantum characteristic function one can therefore also obtain the expectation values of quantum mechanical observables, e.g. $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \hat{a}^{\dagger m}(t){\it \hat{b}^{\dagger n}}(t) \rangle\\=\it {\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \kappa_{a}}\right)^{m}\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \kappa_{b}}\right)^{n}\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*},{\it t})}|_{\kappa_{a},\kappa_{a}^{*},\eta_{b},\eta_{b}^{*}=\rm{0}}.\end{gathered}$$ In the next section we shall derive a master equation describing the dynamics of two strongly coupled harmonic oscillators where their individual environments are modeled as collections of harmonic oscillators. By numerically solving both the master equation in , describing local Lindblad-type dissipation, and the master equation derived in the next section, we shall then, in section \[sec:resltsapp\], compare the dissipative evolution of the two strongly coupled harmonic oscillators in these two cases.
Bath-induced dissipation {#sec:mastersolexct}
========================
A master equation of standard Lindblad form guarantees the positivity of the time-evolved density matrix. It may seem justified to simply add local Lindblad terms acting on the individual coupled oscillators $a$ and $b$, also when they are strongly coupled to each other, as was done in the previous section. As we will show next, however, this is fraught with pitfalls. In what follows we shall derive a Markovian master equation for two strongly coupled harmonic oscillators which are harmonically coupled to their local heat baths.The result is a master equation of Lindblad form, but the Lindblad superoperators $\mathcal L$ do not act locally on each individual oscillator.
The oscillators are as before labelled $a$ and $b$ and their coupled dynamics is governed by the Hamiltonian . We consider a scenario where the two oscillators are irreversibly coupled to local heat baths, each of which is modeled as a collection of many harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian corresponding to the two independent local heat baths is given by $$H_{\rm env}= \sum_{\Omega}\Omega \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\Omega} \hat{c}_{\Omega} +\sum_{\Omega'} \Omega' \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\Omega'} \hat{d}_{\Omega'} ,$$ where $\hat{c}_{\Omega}$ and $\hat{d}_{\Omega'}$ represent the destruction operators for the bosonic modes of the local heat baths for oscillators $a$ and $b$, respectively. Assuming a bilinear coupling between the position quadratures of each oscillator and the modes of their local heat baths, the system-environment interaction takes the form
$$\label{hamilappnd3}
H_{\rm int}= \sum_{\Omega} \zeta_{\Omega} (\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\Omega}+\hat{c}_{\Omega}) (\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dagger})+ \sum_{\Omega'} \eta_{\Omega'} (\hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\Omega'}+\hat{d}_{\Omega'}) (\hat{b}+\hat{b}^{\dagger}),$$
where $\zeta_{\Omega}$ and $\eta_{\Omega'}$ are the coupling strengths between each individual oscillator and modes of the corresponding environment. The two coupled oscillators undergo unitary evolution described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{mastcrctapprch}
\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{\rm sys}+\hat{H}_{\rm env}+\hat{H}_{\rm int}.$$ Using the Hamiltonian , a master equation describing the dissipative evolution of the two coupled oscillators will now be derived.
Derivation of the coupled oscillator master equation {#sec:appddx}
----------------------------------------------------
In order to derive a master equation for the two coupled harmonic oscillators we shall first diagonalize the Hamiltonian by defining the center of mass and relative modes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{efab}
\hat{e}&=&\frac{\hat{a}+\hat{b}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\hat{f}&=&\frac{\hat{a}-\hat{b}}{\sqrt{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian now becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamilsqezng}
H_{\rm sys}&=& \omega (\hat{e}^{\dagger}\hat{e}+\hat{f}^{\dagger} \hat{f}) +\frac{\lambda}{2} (\hat{e}^{2}+\hat{e}^{ \dagger 2}-\hat{f}^{2}-\hat{f}^{ \dagger 2})\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\kappa}{2}(\hat{e}\hat{e}^{\dagger}+\hat{e}^{\dagger} \hat{e} -\hat{f}\hat{f}^{\dagger}-\hat{f}^{\dagger} \hat{f}), \end{aligned}$$ which can be diagonalized using a Bogoliubov transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{secappndx3}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
{\hat{e}} \\
{\hat{e}^{\dagger}}
\end{array}
\right)&=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\alpha_{1}} & {-\beta_{1}}\\
{-\beta_{1}} & {\alpha_{1}}
\end{array}
\right)\left( \begin{array}{c}
\hat l \\
\hat l^\dagger
\end{array}\right),\\
\left( \begin{array}{c}
{\hat{f}} \\
{\hat{f}^{\dagger}}
\end{array}
\right)&=&\left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\alpha_{2}} & {-\beta_{2}}\\
{-\beta_{2}} & {\alpha_{2}}
\end{array}
\right)\left( \begin{array}{c}
\hat m \\
\hat m^\dagger
\end{array}\right).\\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian then takes the simplified form $$H_{\rm sys}= (\alpha_{11}+\alpha_{22}) \hat{l}^{\dagger} \hat{l}+ (\beta_{11}+\beta_{22})\hat{m}^{\dagger} \hat{m},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{11}=\frac{(2 \omega +\kappa) \alpha_{1}^{2}-2 \lambda \alpha_{1}\beta_{1}+\kappa \beta_{1}^{2}}{2}\\
\alpha_{22}=\frac{(2 \omega +\kappa) \beta_{1}^{2}-2 \lambda \alpha_{1}\beta_{1}+\kappa \alpha_{1}^{2}}{2}\\
\beta_{11}=\frac{(2 \omega -\kappa) \alpha_{2}^{2}+2 \lambda \alpha_{2}\beta_{2}-\kappa \beta_{2}^{2}}{2}\\
\beta_{22}=\frac{(2 \omega -\kappa) \beta_{2}^{2}+2 \lambda \alpha_{2}\beta_{2}-\kappa \alpha_{2}^{2}}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1}^{2}&=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\kappa+\omega}{\sqrt{(\kappa+\omega)^{2}-\lambda^{2}}}\\
\beta_{1}^{2}&=&-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\kappa+\omega}{\sqrt{(\kappa+\omega)^{2}-\lambda^{2}}}\\
\alpha_{2}^{2}&=&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{-\kappa+\omega}{\sqrt{(-\kappa+\omega)^{2}-\lambda^{2}}}\\
\beta_{2}^{2}&=&-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{-\kappa+\omega}{\sqrt{(-\kappa+\omega)^{2}-\lambda^{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$
For the coupled oscillators to maintain their oscillatory behaviour, $\lambda < |\omega-\kappa|$ is required. Thus the free evolution of the two coupled oscillators and their local environment is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm sys}+H_{\rm env}= (\alpha_{11}+\alpha_{22}) \hat{l}^{\dagger} \hat{l}+ (\beta_{11}+\beta_{22})\hat{m}^{\dagger} \hat{m}
+\nonumber\sum_{\Omega}\Omega \hat{c}^{\dagger}_{\Omega} \hat{c}_{\Omega} +\sum_{\Omega'} \Omega' \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{\Omega'} \hat{d}_{\Omega'}.\end{aligned}$$ Re-expressing the bare modes $a$ and $b$ in terms of $\hat{l}$ and $\hat{m}$, the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture with $H_0=H_{\rm sys}+H_{\rm env}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqnhamapp3sol}
H_{I}(t)&=& \sum_{\Omega,\Omega'}[\zeta_{\Omega}(\hat{c}_{I}+\hat{c}_{I}^{\dagger}) (\alpha_{1}\hat{l}_{I}-\beta_{1}\hat{l}_{I}^{\dagger}+\alpha_{1}\hat{l}_{I}^{\dagger}-\beta_{1}\hat{l}_{I}+\alpha_{2}\hat{m}_{I}-\beta_{2}\hat{m}_{I}^{\dagger}+\alpha_{2}\hat{m}_{I}^{\dagger}-\beta_{2}\hat{m}_{I}) \nonumber\\&&
+\eta_{\Omega'}(\hat{d}_{I}+\hat{d}_{I}^{\dagger}) (\alpha_{1}\hat{l}_{I}-\beta_{1}\hat{l}_{I}^{\dagger}+\alpha_{1}\hat{l}_{I}^{\dagger}-\beta_{1}\hat{l}_{I}-\alpha_{2}\hat{m}_{I}+\beta_{2}\hat{m}_{I}^{\dagger}-\alpha_{2}\hat{m}_{I}^{\dagger}+\beta_{2}\hat{m}_{I})],\end{aligned}$$
where $H_{I}(t)=e^{-iH_{0}t}H_{{\rm int}}e^{i H_{0} t}$, $\hat{l}_{I}$=$\hat{l} ~e^{-i (\alpha_{11}+\alpha_{22})t}$, $\hat{m}_{I} =\hat{m} ~e^{-i (\beta_{11}+\beta_{22})t}$, $\hat{c}_{I}=\hat{c}_{\Omega}~ e^{-i\Omega t}$, $\hat{d}_{I}=\hat{d}_{\Omega'}~ e^{-i\Omega' t}$ and a factor of $1/ \sqrt{2}$ has been absorbed into the definition of $\zeta_{\Omega}$ and $\eta_{\Omega'}$.
If the system-reservoir coupling is weak we can simplify the interaction Hamiltonian using the rotating wave approximation (RWA). Invoking the RWA essentially amounts to dropping the fast oscillating terms proportional to $\hat{c}_{I}\hat{l}_{I}, \hat{c}_{I}\hat{m}_{I},\hat{d}_{I}\hat{l}_{I},\hat{d}_{I}\hat{m}_{I}$ and their Hermitian conjugates from the Hamiltonian , which results in $$\label{eqnhamapp3appslnew}
H_{I}(t)= \hat{l}_{I} \hat{F}^{\dagger}(t)+\hat{m}_{I} \hat{Q}^{\dagger}(t)+h.c.,$$ where the [noise]{} operators are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{F}^{\dagger}(t)= \sum_{\Omega,\Omega'} (\alpha_{1}- \beta_{1})(\zeta_{\Omega} \hat{c}_{\Omega}^{\dagger} e^{i \Omega t}+\eta_{\Omega'} \hat{d}_{\Omega'}^{\dagger}e^{i \Omega' t}),\\
\hat{Q}^{\dagger}(t)= \sum_{\Omega,\Omega'} (\alpha_{2}- \beta_{2})(\zeta_{\Omega} \hat{c}_{\Omega}^{\dagger} e^{i \Omega t}-\eta_{\Omega'} \hat{d}_{\Omega'}^{\dagger}e^{i \Omega' t}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the RWA and in the interaction picture with $H_0=H_{\rm sys}+H_{\rm env}$, the joint state of the oscillators and their local environments, represented by the total density matrix $\rho_{I}$, evolves according to $$\label{totdenstymat}
\dot{\rho_{I}}(t)=-{i}[H_{I}(t), \rho_{I}(t)],$$ where $H_{I}(t)$ is given by Eq. . We assume that at $t=0$ the joint state of the system and environments is factorizable so that $\rho_{I}(t=0)= \rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(0)$ where $\rho_{\rm e}(0)$ is the joint initial state of the two local baths and $\rho_{\rm sys}(0)$ is the density matrix of the two coupled harmonic oscillators.
The evolution of the density matrix $\rho_{\rm sys}$ representing the state of the two oscillators is given by $$\label{denstymatrxappds3}
\dot{\rho}_{\rm sys}(t)={\rm Tr_{e}}\dot{\rho}_{I}(t)=-i{\rm Tr_{e}}[H_{I}(t), \rho_{I}(t)],$$ where ${\rm Tr_{e}}$ denotes the trace over the environmental degrees of freedom. If we also assume that the state of the environment for each oscillator remains unaffected as a result of the coupling, then the joint state of the system evolves as $\rho_{I}(t)= \rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t)$. Formally integrating gives $$\rho_{I}(t)=\rho_{I}(0)-i \int_{0}^t[H_{I}(t'),\rho_{I}(t')] dt',$$ which when substituted in gives an integro-differential equation for the state of the oscillators,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{mstappnd3intgrl}
\dot{\rho}_{\rm sys}(t)&=&-i {\rm Tr_{e}}[ H_{I}(t),\rho_{I}(0)]-
\int_{0}^t {\rm Tr_{e}}[H_{I}(t),[H_{I}(t'),\rho_{I}(t')]] dt'.
\end{aligned}$$
For an environment in thermal equilibrium the first term in is identically zero. Using the above integro-differential equation takes the form $$\label{densmatapp}
\dot{\rho}_{\rm sys}(t)=- \int_{0}^{t} {\rm Tr_{e}}\big[ \hat{l}_{I}
\hat{F}^{\dagger}(t)+\hat{m}_{I} \hat{Q}^{\dagger}(t)+h.c.,[ \hat{l}_{I}
\hat{F}^{\dagger}(t')+\hat{m}_{I} \hat{Q}^{\dagger}(t')+h.c., \rho_{\rm e}(0)
\otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t')]] dt'.$$
Equation can be rearranged as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_{\rm sys}(t)&=&-\int_{0}^{t}{\rm Tr_{e}}[H_{I}(t)H_{I}(t')\rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t')\nonumber\\
&& -H_{I}(t)\rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t') H_{I}(t')
\nonumber \\
&&-H_{I}(t')\rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t') H_{I}(t)\nonumber \\
&& +\rho_{\rm e}(0) \otimes \rho_{\rm sys}(t') H_{I}(t')H_{I}(t)]dt'.\end{aligned}$$ For environments in thermal equilibrium with flat spectral densities such that $\zeta_{\Omega}=\zeta$ and $\eta_{\Omega'}=\eta$, together with the Markov approximation, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\Omega}\zeta_{\Omega}^{2} e^{i \Omega (t'-t)}&=&\zeta^{2} 2 \pi \delta(t'-t),\\
\sum_{\Omega'}\eta_{\Omega'}^{2} e^{i \Omega' (t'-t)}&=&\eta^{2}2 \pi \delta(t'-t).
\end{aligned}$$ One can easily verify that in the case of symmetric coupling of each oscillator to its own environment at zero temperature such that $\pi \zeta^{2}=\pi \eta^{2}=\Gamma$, one obtains the following master equation in the Schrödinger picture, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disspfullappdxnewold}
\dot{\rho}(t)&=&-i [(\alpha_{11}+\alpha_{22}) \hat{l}^{\dagger}\hat{l}+ (\beta_{11}+\beta_{22})\hat{m}^{\dagger} \hat{m},\rho(t)] \nonumber\\
&&+\langle \hat{F} \hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle[2 \hat{l} \rho(t) \hat{l}^{\dagger}-\hat{l}^{\dagger}\hat{l}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{l}^{\dagger}\hat{l}]\\
&&+ \langle \hat{Q} \hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle[2 \hat{m} \rho(t) \hat{m}^{\dagger}-\hat{m}^{\dagger}\hat{m}\rho(t) -\rho(t) \hat{m}^{\dagger}\hat{m}],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(t)=e^{-iH_{\rm sys} t}\rho_{\rm sys}(t)e^{iH_{\rm sys} t}$ is the density matrix representing the state of the two coupled oscillators in the Schrödinger picture and the only non-zero two-time noise correlation functions are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle&=&2 \Gamma(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{1})^{2}\\
\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle&=&2 \Gamma(\alpha_{2}-\beta_{2})^{2} .
\end{aligned}$$ Reverting back to the bare modes $a$ and $b$, the master equation takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disspfullappdxnewoldnayi}
\dot{\rho}(t)&=&-i [H_{\rm sys},\rho(t)] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{1}[2 \hat{a} \rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{1} [2 \hat{b} \rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}]\nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{2} [2 \hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{a}-\hat{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{2} [2 \hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{b}-\hat{b}\hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{b}\hat{b}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{3}[2 \hat{a} \rho(t) \hat{a}-\hat{a} \hat{a}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a} \hat{a}]\nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{3} [2 \hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{3}[2 \hat{b} \rho(t) \hat{b}-\hat{b} \hat{b}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{b} \hat{b}]\nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{3} [2 \hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{4} [2 \hat{a}\rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{a} \rho(t)-\rho(t)\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{a}] \nonumber\\&&+
\Gamma_{4} [2 \hat{b}\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{5} [2 \hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{a}-\hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{5} [2 \hat{a}^{\dagger}\rho(t) \hat{b}-\hat{b}\hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t)\hat{b}\hat{a}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{6}[2 \hat{b} \rho(t) \hat{a}-\hat{a} \hat{b}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a} \hat{b}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{6}[2 \hat{a} \rho(t) \hat{b}-\hat{a} \hat{b}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a} \hat{b}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{6} [2 \hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}^{\dagger}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{6} [2 \hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{a}^{\dagger} \rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}^{\dagger}],
\end{aligned}$$ where the $\Gamma_{i}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{1}&=& (\langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{1}^{2}+\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{2}^{2})/2\\
\Gamma_{2}&=& ( \langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \beta_{1}^{2}+\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \beta_{2}^{2})/2 \\
\Gamma_{3}&=& (\langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{1} \beta_{1}+\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{2} \beta_{2})/2\\
\Gamma_{4}&=& ( \langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{1}^{2}-\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{2}^{2} )/2\\
\Gamma_{5}&=& (\langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \beta_{1}^{2}-\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \beta_{2}^{2} )/2\\
\Gamma_{6}&=& ( \langle \hat{F}\hat{F}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{1} \beta_{1}-\langle \hat{Q}\hat{Q}^{\dagger} \rangle \alpha_{2} \beta_{2})/2. \\&&\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Equation is the final form of the master equation describing the dynamics of two coupled harmonic oscillators interacting with independent zero temperature baths with flat spectral densities.
It is worth comparing the form of the master equation , obtained in the RWA limit when $\lambda={\rm 0}$ with the master equation in the corresponding case. It is easy to check that when $\lambda$=0, $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=$1 and $\beta_{1}=\beta_{2}=$0, the master equation reduces to the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mastreqnewjuly}
\dot{\rho}(t)&=&-i [H_{\rm sys},\rho(t)] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{1}[2 \hat{a} \rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}-\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}] \nonumber\\ &&+
\Gamma_{1} [2 \hat{b} \rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}\rho(t)-\rho(t) \hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}],
\end{aligned}$$ which is identical to the local master equation obtained in the limit $\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}={\rm 0}$. Thus, for both reservoirs at zero temperature, and under the RWA on the coupled oscillator Hamiltonian, the local and non-local descriptions coincide. This is a result that will be commented on further when we discuss in Section \[sec:SteadyState\] the steady state solutions to the local and non-local master equations.
The characteristic function
---------------------------
From the master equation we obtain a partial differential equation for the two-mode quantum characteristic function, $$\label{chievnaycrt}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \chi
=z^{T} {\mbox{\bf M}_1} z \chi+z^{T} {\mbox{\bf N}_1} \nabla \chi,$$ where $\nabla= (\frac{\partial}{ \partial \kappa_{a}}, \frac{\partial }{ \partial \kappa_{a}^{*}}, \frac{\partial}{ \partial \kappa_{b}}, \frac{\partial }{ \partial \kappa_{b}^{*}})^{T}$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\bf N}_{1}}&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
i\omega+\Gamma_{2}-\Gamma_{1} & 0 & \Gamma_{5}-\Gamma_{4}+i \kappa &-i\lambda\\
0 & -i\omega+\Gamma_{2}-\Gamma_{1} & i\lambda &-i \kappa +\Gamma_{5}-\Gamma_{4} \\
i \kappa +\Gamma_{5}-\Gamma_{4} & -i\lambda & i\omega+\Gamma_{2}-\Gamma_{1}&0 \\
i\lambda & -i \kappa +\Gamma_{5}-\Gamma_{4}&0 &-i\omega+\Gamma_{2}-\Gamma_{1}\\
\end{array} \right )\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
{\mbox{\bf M}_{1}}&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Gamma_{3} & -\Gamma_{2} & i \lambda/2-\Gamma_{6} & -\Gamma_{5} \\
-\Gamma_{2} & -\Gamma_{3} & -\Gamma_{5}&-i \lambda/2-\Gamma_{6}\\
i \lambda/2-\Gamma_{6}& -\Gamma_{5} & -\Gamma_{3}&-\Gamma_{2} \\
-\Gamma_{5} & -i \lambda/2-\Gamma_{6}&-\Gamma_{2} &-\Gamma_{3} \\
\end{array} \right ).
\end{aligned}$$
Using the numerical solution of equations and , equivalently, equations and , we can compare the time evolution of the state of the two coupled oscillators initially prepared in Gaussian states when it evolves according to the master equation and when it evolves according to . This is the subject of the next section.
Time evolution {#sec:resltsapp}
==============
By numerically solving the master equations obtained in sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\], we can now easily compare the results of the two approaches. We are interested in studying the time evolution of coupled harmonic oscillators initially prepared in Gaussian states. The state of the coupled oscillators can therefore be fully characterized in terms of the covariance matrix.
Oscillator excitation
---------------------
Figures \[figent1\] and \[figent2\] show the average number of excitations for each coupled oscillator evolving according to the local master equation and the nonlocal master equation . One can clearly see that the dissipative dynamics is different depending on which master equation and model for dissipation is used. As will be discussed later, the difference between the two approaches will become even stronger when one looks at the steady-state solutions of the two master equations obtained through the above two approaches.
Oscillator correlation
----------------------
To quantify the quantum correlations between the two coupled oscillators, we investigate the entanglement between the oscillators initially prepared in Gaussian separable states. For the case of two-mode Gaussian states, the covariance matrix ${\mbox{\bf V}}$ is a $4 \times 4$ symmetric matrix with $V_{ij}=(\langle R_{i} R_{j}+R_{j} R_{i} \rangle )/2$ where $i,j \in \{a,b\}$ and $R^{T}=(\hat{q}_{a}, \hat{p}_{a},\hat{q}_{b},\hat{p}_{b})$. Here $\hat{q}_{i}$ and $\hat{p}_{i}$ are the position and momentum quadratures of the $i$th oscillator. To characterize the entanglement dynamics we use the logarithmic negativity, which is an entanglement monotone and relatively easy to compute. For a two-mode Gaussian continuous-variable state with covariance matrix $\bf V$, the logarithmic negativity is obtained as $ \mathcal N= \rm{Max}[0,-\rm{ln}(2 \nu_{-})]$ [@gera], where $\nu_{-}$ is the smallest of the symplectic eigenvalues of the covariance matrix, given by $
\nu_{-}= \sqrt{\sigma/2-\sqrt{(\sigma^{2}-4 \rm{Det} \bf{V})}/\rm{2}}$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma&=&\rm{Det} \bf{A_{1}}+\rm{Det} \bf{B_{1}}-\rm{2Det} \bf{C_{1}}\\ \bf V&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\bf A_{1} &\bf C_{1}\\
\bf C_{1}^{T} & \bf B_{1}
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bf {A_{1}}(\bf {B_{1}})$ accounts for the local variances of mode $a(b)$ and $\bf C_{1} $ for the inter-mode correlations. Using the numerical solutions of the partial differential equations and we compute the logarithmic negativity, shown in Fig. \[figent3\] and Fig. \[figent4\]. As can be seen from these figures, the two different approaches for modeling the system-reservoir interactions, discussed in sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\], yield quantitatively very different results as far as quantum correlations between the two oscillators are concerned.
Fidelity
--------
The difference in the dynamics for the two approaches can be further illustrated by computing the quantum fidelity between the time-evolved states of the two oscillators. In general, finding the fidelity between two quantum states is difficult, but for Gaussian states it is possible to arrive at a closed-form expression for the quantum fidelity in terms of the covariance matrix. We trace over the state of one of the oscillators, and compute the fidelity between the two different single-oscillator states resulting from the numerical solutions of equations and .
The one-mode quantum characteristic function $\chi(\kappa_{a})$ can be deduced from the two-mode quantum characteristic function $\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{b})$ through the identity $\chi(\kappa_{a},{\it t})=\chi(\kappa_{a},\kappa_{b}={\rm 0},{\it t})$. In this way a one-mode Gaussian state of the pair of oscillators can be defined, which is used for calculating the corresponding fidelity.
The quantum fidelity between two one-mode Gaussian states can be computed from $$\mathcal F= \frac{2}{(\sqrt{{\rm Det}[{\bf A_{1}}+{\bf A_{2}}]+\mathcal P}-\sqrt{ \mathcal P})}$$ where $$\mathcal P=({\rm Det}[\bf A_{1}]-1)({\rm Det}[{\bf A_{2}}]-1),$$ and where ${\bf A_{i}}$ is the 2$\times$2 covariance matrix corresponding to the [*i*]{}:th mode [@hscut; @ghspar]. The time evolution of the fidelity between the solutions of sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\] is shown in Fig. \[figent5\] and Fig. \[figent6\], where the initial state was chosen to be the ground state of each oscillator. As can be seen from these figures, when the inter-mode coupling strength between the oscillators increases, the fidelity between the time-evolved one-mode Gaussian states of each oscillator obtained through the solution of master equations and decreases. Thus it is evident that if the oscillators are strongly coupled then the solution of the master equation starts to disagree with the solution of the master equation . Nonetheless the fidelity between the two solutions stays much above 99 $\%$ for a wide range of coupling strengths $\kappa, \lambda$. It should be noted from Fig. \[figent5\] and \[figent6\] that the mismatch between the solutions of the master equations and becomes more prominent if the two-mode squeezing interaction strength $\lambda$ increases. The above observations from Fig. \[figentnumber2\] remain qualitatively unchanged even when the two oscillators are initialized in a separable squeezed state.
Steady state\[sec:SteadyState\]
-------------------------------
Recall the original observation by Walls [@wallsp] that the validity of the local Lindblad master equation is open to question on the basis that it fails to derive the expected thermal equilibrium density operator for the system. We can investigate the issue here by first returning to the local master equation for both reservoirs at zero temperature, where $\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}={\rm 0}$ $$\label{disspfullappdxnewdif}
\dot{\rho}=-i\left[H_\text{sys},\rho\right]+\Gamma_a\mathcal{L}_a\rho+\Gamma_b\mathcal{L}_b\rho$$ and where $\mathcal{L}_{l}\rho=\hat{l}\rho\, \hat{l}^\dagger-\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \hat{l}^\dagger\hat{l},\rho\right\}$. Now it is a simple matter to verify that the steady state of the non-local master equation is $\rho_{ss}$=$|0\rangle_{ll} \langle 0| \otimes |0\rangle_{mm} \langle 0 |$, while the steady state of the local master equation is $\rho_{ss}=|0\rangle_{aa}\langle 0|\otimes|0\rangle_{bb}\langle 0|$. The point to note is that the vacuum states of the non-local $\hat{l},\hat{m}$ oscillators are not the same as those of the local $\hat{a},\hat{b}$ oscillators, as can be easily demonstrated by using the relation between $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{l},\hat{m}$ and their Hermitean conjugates, readily obtainable from and , to show that $$\hat{a}|0\rangle_l|0\rangle_m
=-\frac{1}{\!\sqrt{2}}\left(\beta_1|1\rangle_l|0\rangle_m+\beta_2|0\rangle_l|1\rangle_m\right)$$ (and similarly for $\hat{b}|0\rangle_l|0\rangle_m$) which only vanishes if $\beta_1=\beta_2=0$ which implies $\lambda=0$, i.e., the full RWA Hamiltonian, a not unexpected result since for $\kappa \ne 0$ and $\lambda=0$, and in the zero temperature limit of $\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}={\rm 0}$, the non-local master equation is identical to the master equation , as already indicated in . The steady state is then the separable trivial ground state of each operator.
In general, it is the non-local steady state which is the limit for zero temperature of the canonical density operator : the ground state of the generalised Hamiltonian . This result extends Walls’s early result to the case of two coupled bosonic modes interacting under this generalized Hamiltonian, at least for a zero temperature reservoir. We have further shown that this result may be of great significance in understanding the entanglement properties of the ground state of coupled harmonic oscillators.
Before concluding this section we will briefly consider a physical scenario where each coupled oscillator is in contact with an identical heat bath with non-zero average thermal occupancy ($\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}= \bar{n}\neq 0$). It is a straightforward exercise to extend the master equation to include the thermal fluctuations of the heat bath for each oscillator. We, however, do not explicitly detail this calculation and only report the results here. Fig. \[figentfidtemp\] shows the steady state value of the logarithmic negativity, and the quantum fidelity between the two one-mode states of each oscillator obtained using the approaches of sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\], plotted as a function of $\bar{n}$. As can be seen from Fig. \[figent7\], a critical value of thermal noise destroys the pairwise entanglement between the oscillators. Also evident is the feature that the phenomenological modeling of dissipation, as compared to the bath-induced dissipation approach of section \[sec:mastersolexct\], overestimates the magnitude of steady state logarithmic negativity. A noteworthy feature of Fig. \[figent8\] is that with increasing $\bar{n}$, the quantum fidelity between the two one-mode states of each oscillator, obtained using the approaches of sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\], improves further. However, it is worth mentioning that even in a regime when the coupled oscillators are in a separable state ($\bar{n} \sim 0.12$), the quantum fidelity between the two one-mode states of each oscillator, obtained using the approaches of sections \[sec:pheno\] and \[sec:mastersolexct\], does not reach unity.
Discussion and summary {#sec:concld}
======================
To summarize, we have investigated Markovian master equations for two harmonic oscillators, coupled through a general Hamiltonian . We especially considered the regime where the oscillators are strongly coupled to each other, in which case the RWA cannot be applied to an oscillator-oscillator coupling of the form in Eq. . We compared two situations. First, a case where the dissipation of each oscillator was modeled with local Lindblad terms, added “phenomenologically" for each individual oscillator. This situation was then compared to the case where each oscillator is coupled to a bath of harmonic oscillators, resulting in a master equation of Lindblad form, but where the Lindblad terms are not local in terms of the individual oscillator modes. Specifically, in our derivation of Eq. , the RWA for the system-environment interaction is made at the level of mode operators for the eigenmodes $\hat l$, $\hat m$ of the total oscillator-oscillator Hamiltonian including the coupling between the oscillators. The master equation with local Lindblad operators in Eq. would result if one instead drops terms involving the individual oscillator modes $\hat a$ and $\hat b$, of the form $\hat a \hat c, \hat a^\dagger \hat c^\dagger, \hat b \hat d$ and $\hat b^\dagger \hat d^\dagger$. However, this is not a correct application of the RWA, as it does not correctly identify, and then remove, the rapidly oscillating terms.
As we have shown, the difference between the two approaches will in fact result in different steady state solutions, which may give rise to non-trivial differences in ground state properties, especially with regards to non-classical correlations such as entanglement. Modeling system-environment interaction through local Lindblad operators may be valid if the inter-mode couplings are weak. However, in a system of strongly coupled bosonic modes, modeling dissipation through local damping of each individual mode may become questionable and may give rise to dubious results.
We like to briefly comment that there are equivalent ways to [*exactly*]{} solve the open dynamics of two coupled harmonic oscillators. This includes the Heisenberg-Langevin equation approach and the Feynman and Vernon path integral approach for open quantum systems [@dissiptvebook2]. In this direction, previous works have addressed coupled harmonic oscillators interacting with common or independent baths with arbitrary spectra [@noteref]. In this work, however, we have worked in the Schrödinger picture and have derived a master equation for a pair of harmonic oscillators coupled under the generalized Hamiltonian . Provided the Born-Markov and secular approximations hold and the two oscillators interact with their independent heat baths (with flat spectra), the master equation is [*exact*]{} in modeling the dissipative dynamics of the two oscillators. We have subsequently converted the master equation into a Fokker Planck equation and have solved it numerically. Therefore, all our results are exact within the ambit of above approximations.
[99]{} D. F. Walls, Z. Phys. [**234**]{}, 231 (1970). K. R. Brown, C. Ospelkaus, Y. Colombe, A. C. Wilson, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, [*Nature*]{} **471,** 196 (2011). S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **88**, 120401 (2002); W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, [*ibid*]{} **91**, 130401 (2003); M. Paternostro, D. Vitali, S. Gigan, M. S. Kim, C. Brukner, J. Eisert, and M. Aspelmeyer, [*ibid*]{} **99**, 250401(2007); M. J. Hartmann and M. B. Plenio [*ibid*]{} **101**, 200503 (2008). S. Huang and G. S. Agarwal, [*New J. Phys.*]{} **11**, 103044 (2009). U. Akram, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer and G. J. Milburn, [*New J. Phys.*]{} **12**, 083030 (2010). C. Joshi, J. Larson, M. Jonson, E. Andersson and P. Öhberg, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} **85**, 033805 (2012). J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, S. Bose, and J. Hartley, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **93,** 190402 (2004). B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, *Phys. Rev. D* **45**, 2843 (1992) E. A. Martinez, and J. P. Paz, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **110**, 130406 (2013). S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, *Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997). D. F. Walls, and G. J. Milburn, *Quantum Optics* (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994).
G. J. Milburn, A. S. Lane, and D. F. Walls, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} **27**, 02804 (1983). C. Joshi, A. Hutter, F. E. Zimmer, M. Jonson, E. Andersson and P. Öhberg, [*Phys Rev. A*]{} **82**, 043846 (2010). C. W. Gardiner, [*Quantum Noise*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991), Sec. 5.1.4. J. D. Cresser, [*J. Mod. Opt.*]{} **39**, 2187 (1992). G. Adesso and F. Illuminati [*J. Phys. A*]{} **40**, 7821 (2007). H. Scutaru [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} **31**, 3659 (1998). Gh.-S. Paraoanu and H. Scutaru, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} **61**, 022306 (2000). U. Weiss,*Quantum Dissipative Systems* (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993). See [@maxludwig] and references therein. M. Ludwig, K. Hammerer, and F. Marquardt, [*Phys Rev. A*]{} **82**, 012333 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A supermassive black hole can disrupt a star when its tidal field exceeds the star’s self-gravity, and can directly capture stars that cross its event horizon. For black holes with mass $M \gtrsim 10^7 M_\odot$, tidal disruption of main-sequence stars occurs close enough to the event horizon that a Newtonian treatment of the tidal field is no longer valid. The fraction of stars that are directly captured is also no longer negligible. We calculate generically oriented stellar orbits in the Kerr metric, and evaluate the relativistic tidal tensor at the pericenter for those stars not directly captured by the black hole. We combine this relativistic analysis with previous calculations of how these orbits are populated to determine tidal-disruption rates for spinning black holes. We find, consistent with previous results, that black-hole spin increases the upper limit on the mass of a black hole capable of tidally disrupting solarlike stars to $\sim 7 \times 10^8 M_\odot$. More quantitatively, we find that direct stellar capture reduces tidal-disruption rates by a factor $\sim 2/3~(1/10)$ at $M \simeq 10^7 (10^8) M_\odot$. The strong dependence of tidal-disruption rates on black-hole spin for $M \gtrsim 10^8 M_\odot$ implies that future surveys like the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope that discover thousands of tidal-disruption events can constrain supermassive black-hole spin demographics.'
author:
- Michael Kesden
date: August 2011
title: Tidal disruption rate of stars by spinning supermassive black holes
---
Introduction {#S:intro}
============
In 1943, active galactic nuclei (AGN) were discovered with emission lines Doppler broadened to widths $\gtrsim 1,000$ km/s [@Seyfert:1943]. Twenty years later, theorists proposed that these AGN were powered by accretion onto compact objects of masses $10^5 -
10^8 M_\odot$ [@Hoyle:1963]. Such massive objects cannot support themselves against gravitational collapse into supermassive black holes (SBHs) [@LyndenBell:1969yx]. SBH masses are tightly correlated with the luminosity [@Kormendy:1995er], mass [@Magorrian:1997hw], and velocity dispersion [@Gebhardt:2000fk] of the spheroidal component of their host galaxies.
SBHs primarily grow by accreting gas driven into galactic centers by tidal torques during major mergers [@Toomre:1972vt; @Barnes:1991zz]. However, SBHs can also grow by directly capturing stars that cross their event horizons or by accreting debris from stars passing close enough to be tidally disrupted [@Frank:1976uy]. Such tidal-disruption events (TDEs) could also power bright flares of radiation as the stellar debris is shock heated and subsequently accreted [@Rees:1988bf; @Strubbe:2010kq]. Several potential TDEs have been found in x-ray [@Bade:1996], UV [@Gezari:2006fe], and optical [@vanVelzen:2010jp] surveys, and tidal debris may also fuel recent blazar activity seen by the Swift satellite [@Burrows:2011dn; @Levan:2011yr; @Bloom:2011xk; @Cenko:2011ys]. The handful of TDEs found in current surveys implies that thousands more may be found each year in future surveys by the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [@vanVelzen:2010jp; @:2009pq]. A detailed comparison between predicted and observed TDE rates will provide important constraints on SBHs and the galactic centers in which they reside.
Frank and Rees [@Frank:1976uy] were among the first to estimate TDE rates. They introduced the concept of a “loss cone” in the stellar phase space that would be depopulated by tidal disruption within a dynamical time $t_{\rm dyn}$. Stars within the loss cone have velocities lying in a cone about the radial direction. TDE rates are set by the rate at which stellar diffusion from other portions of phase space refills this loss cone. Frank and Rees evaluated stellar fluxes into the loss cone at a critical radius $r_{\rm crit}$ at which stellar diffusion operating on a reference time scale $t_R$ [@Spitzer:1958] could refill the loss cone within $t_{\rm dyn}$. Cohn and Kulsrud [@Cohn:1978] provided a more sophisticated treatment of stellar diffusion into the loss cone by numerically integrating the Fokker-Planck equation in energy-angular momentum space. More recently, Wang and Merritt [@Wang:2003ny] have revised predicted TDE rates using more realistic galactic density profiles and the observed relation between SBH mass and host-galaxy velocity dispersion [@Gebhardt:2000fk].
These analyses focused on smaller SBHs for which a Newtonian treatment of tidal forces is valid and the number of directly captured stars is negligible compared to the number that are tidally disrupted. Manasse and Misner [@Manasse:1963] introduced Fermi normal coordinates that are ideal for a relativistic treatment of the tidal tensor, and calculated this tidal tensor for radial geodesics of the Schwarzschild metric for nonspinning SBHs. Marck [@Marck:1983] generalized this calculation to generically oriented timelike geodesics of the Kerr metric [@Kerr:1963ud] for spinning SBHs. Beloborodov [*et al.*]{} [@Beloborodov:1992] used this tidal tensor to calculate the relativistic cross sections for tidal disruption for a range of initial orbital inclinations with respect to the SBH spin. Ivanov and Chernyakova [@Ivanov:2005se] used a numerically fast Lagrangian model of a tidally disrupted star to investigate how stellar hydrodynamics affects these relativistic cross sections. In this paper, we combine a similar relativistic treatment of tidal disruption and direct capture with existing calculations of loss-cone physics to derive improved predictions of TDE rates for massive and highly spinning SBHs.
The first step in calculating TDE rates is to establish criteria for determining when a star is tidally disrupted. Most tidally disrupted stars are initially on highly eccentric or unbound orbits characterized by the distance $r$ of their pericenters from the SBH. An order-of-magnitude estimate of the maximum value of $r$ for which tidal disruption occurs can be obtained by equating the differential acceleration $GMR_\ast/r^3$ experienced by a star of mass $m_\ast$ and radius $R_\ast$ in the tidal field of a black hole of mass $M$ to the star’s self-gravity $Gm_\ast/R_{\ast}^{2}$. This implies that a star will be tidally disrupted when $r < r_{\rm TD} \simeq (M/m_\ast)^{1/3}
R_\ast$. A star will be directly captured by the SBH when $r$ is less than the radius of the event horizon, which for a nonspinning SBH is equal to the Schwarzschild radius $r_{\rm S} = 2GM/c^2$. Since $r_{\rm TD} \propto M^{1/3}$ while $r_{\rm S} \propto M$, the ratio of tidally disrupted to directly captured stars will decrease with increasing SBH mass. Equating these two distances, we find that a SBH with mass $M$ greater than $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\rm max} &\simeq& \frac{c^3}{m_{\ast}^{1/2}}
\left( \frac{R_\ast}{2G} \right)^{3/2}
\nonumber \\
\label{E:Mmax}
&=& 1.1 \times 10^8 M_\odot \left( \frac{m_\ast}{M_\odot} \right)^{-1/2}
\left( \frac{R_\ast}{R_\odot} \right)^{3/2}\end{aligned}$$ should directly capture stars instead of tidally disrupting them.
Our estimate of $r_{\rm TD}$ assumed that the gravitational field of the SBH was that of a Newtonian point particle, which should only be valid for $r_{\rm TD} \gg r_{\rm S}$. One should be [*very*]{} suspicious of using this estimate at the event horizon, as we did when deriving $M_{\rm max}$ above. In a proper general-relativistic treatment, the spacetime of a spinning SBH is described by the Kerr metric [@Kerr:1963ud]. The Kerr metric is a two-parameter family of solutions to Einstein’s equation fully specified by the SBH mass $M$ and dimensionless spin $a/M < 1$. Theoretical estimates of SBH spins depend sensitively on the extent to which SBHs grow by accretion or mergers. SBHs accreting from a standard thin disk [@Shakura:1972te] can attain a limiting spin $a/M \simeq 0.998$ [@Thorne:1974ve] after increasing their mass by a factor $\sim \sqrt{6}$ [@Bardeen:1970]. The spins of SBHs formed in mergers vary greatly depending on whether the spins of the initial binary black holes become aligned with their orbital angular momentum prior to merger [@Berti:2008af]. SBH spins can be inferred from observations of iron K$\alpha$ lines in AGN x-ray spectra [@Reynolds:1998ie]. Large spins have been measured, such as $a/M =
0.989_{-0.002}^{+0.009}$ in the Seyfert 1.2 galaxy MCG-06-30-15 [@Brenneman:2006hw], although reliable estimates are only available for a small number of systems.
Given the large sample of observed TDEs expected in the near future and the wide range of predicted SBH spins, it is important to determine the extent to which TDE rates depend on SBH spin. This is the primary goal of this paper. The greater the spin dependence, the more tightly observed TDEs will be able to constrain the distribution of SBH spins. In Sec. \[S:geo\], we review how the tidal field is calculated along timelike geodesics of the Kerr metric. In Sec. \[S:sims\], we describe the Monte Carlo simulations we performed to determine which stellar orbits lead to tidal disruption. We then use these simulations to calculate expected TDE rates in Sec. \[S:rates\]. The implications of our findings are discussed in Sec. \[S:disc\].
Tidal fields along Kerr geodesics {#S:geo}
=================================
In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates [@Boyer:1966qh] and units where $G
= c = 1$, the Kerr metric takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:met}
ds^2 &=& -\left( 1 - \frac{2Mr}{\Sigma} \right) dt^2
- \frac{4Mar \sin^2 \theta}{\Sigma} dt d\phi
+ \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta} dr^2
\nonumber \\
&& + \Sigma d\theta^2 + \left( r^2 + a^2 +
\frac{2Ma^2r \sin^2 \theta}{\Sigma} \right) \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma \equiv r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta$ and $\Delta \equiv r^2 -
2Mr + a^2$. This metric is both stationary (independent of $t$) and axisymmetric (independent of $\phi$). Massive test particles travel on timelike geodesics of the Kerr metric. Individual stars have masses $m_\ast \sim M_\odot$ much less than those of SBHs ($10^6
M_\odot \lesssim M \lesssim 10^{10} M_\odot$), and radii $R_\ast \sim
R_\odot \simeq 7 \times 10^{10}$ cm less than the Schwarzschild radius $$\label{E:RS}
r_{\rm S} = \frac{2GM}{c^2} = 2.95 \times 10^{11}~{\rm cm} \left(
\frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)~.$$ We can therefore consider them to be test particles for the purpose of determining their orbits. The position $(r, \theta, \phi)$ of a star as a function of proper time $\tau$ evolves according to the equations [@Carter:1968rr]
\[E:EOM\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^2 \left( \frac{dr}{d\tau} \right)^2 &=& [E(r^2 + a^2) - aL_z]^2
\nonumber \\
\label{E:drdt}
&& -\Delta[r^2 + (L_z - aE)^2 + Q] \\
\label{E:dthetadt}
\Sigma^2 \left( \frac{d\theta}{d\tau} \right)^2 &=&
Q - L_{z}^2 \cot^2 \theta - a^2 (1-E^2) \cos^2 \theta \\
\label{E:dphidt}
\Sigma \left( \frac{d\phi}{d\tau} \right) &=&
L_z \csc^2 \theta + \frac{2MarE}{\Delta} -\frac{a^2 L_z}{\Delta}~,\end{aligned}$$
where the specific energy $E$, angular momentum $L_z$, and Carter constant $Q$ are conserved along geodesics.
Although Boyer-Lindquist coordinates reduce to flat-space spherical coordinates in the limit $r \to \infty$, the nonzero off-diagonal elements of the Kerr metric (\[E:met\]) imply that these coordinate vectors do not constitute an orthogonal tetrad at finite $r$. The gravitational-field gradients experienced by freely falling observers are more conveniently expressed by projecting them onto an orthonormal tetrad $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\mu$ like that provided by Fermi normal coordinates [@Manasse:1963]. This coordinate system can be used to specify points in the neighborhood of a central timelike geodesic, such as that traversed by a star orbiting a Kerr SBH. The timelike member of this tetrad $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$ is the tangent vector along the central geodesic, while the spacelike vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) span the plane in the tangent space othogonal to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$. The point ($\tau, x^i$) in Fermi normal coordinates is reached by starting at the location of the star at proper time $\tau$ and moving a proper distance $R =
\sqrt{\sum_i (x^i)^2}$ along the spacelike geodesic whose tangent vector is $\sum_i x^i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$.
In Fermi normal coordinates, the time-time component of the metric can be Taylor expanded as $$\label{E:ttFNC}
g_{\mu\nu} \lambda_{0}^\mu \lambda_{0}^\nu = -1 - R_{0i0j} x^i x^j + ...~,$$ where $R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ is the Riemann curvature tensor projected onto the orthonormal tetrad $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\mu$. This implies that the tidal potential $\Phi_{\rm tidal}$ experienced by a star is $$\label{E:tidpot}
\Phi_{\rm tidal} = -\frac{1}{2}(g_{\mu\nu} \lambda_{0}^\mu \lambda_{0}^\nu
+ 1) = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} x^i x^j + ...~,$$ where $C_{ij} \equiv R_{0i0j}$ is the tidal tensor. Although the higher-order corrections to the tidal potential denoted by the ellipsis can sometimes be significant [@Ishii:2005xq], in this paper we consider only the term quadratic in $x^i$. The tidal tensor $C_{ij}$ is a symmetric, traceless $3 \times 3$ matrix whose eigenvectors denote the principal axes along which the star is stretched or squeezed, and whose eigenvalues denote the extent of this stretching and squeezing.
The problem of calculating the tidal potential $\Phi_{\rm tidal}$ thus reduces to choosing an appropriate orthonormal tetrad $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_\mu$ for generic Kerr geodesics and projecting the Riemann tensor onto this tetrad. This has already been accomplished for us by Marck [@Marck:1983], who found
\[E:TT\] $$\begin{aligned}
C_{11} &=& \left(1 - 3\frac{ST(r^2 - a^2 \cos^2 \theta)}{K\Sigma^2}
\cos^2 \Psi \right) I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C11}
&& + 6ar\cos \theta \frac{ST}{K\Sigma^2} \cos^2 \Psi I_2 \\
C_{12} &=& [-ar\cos \theta (S+T)I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C12}
&& + (a^2 \cos^2 \theta S - r^2 T) I_2] 3\frac{\sqrt{ST}}{K\Sigma^2}\cos \Psi \\
C_{13} &=& [(a^2 \cos^2 \theta - r^2)I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C13}
&& + 2ar \cos \theta I_2] 3\frac{ST}{K\Sigma^2}\cos \Psi \sin \Psi \\
C_{22} &=& \left(1 + 3\frac{r^2T^2 - a^2\cos^2 \theta S^2}{K\Sigma^2}
\right) I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C22}
&& - 6ar\cos \theta \frac{ST}{K\Sigma^2} I_2 \\
C_{23} &=& [-ar\cos \theta (S+T)I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C23}
&& + (a^2 \cos^2 \theta S - r^2 T) I_2] 3\frac{\sqrt{ST}}{K\Sigma^2}\sin \Psi \\
C_{33} &=& \left(1 - 3\frac{ST(r^2 - a^2 \cos^2 \theta)}{K\Sigma^2}
\sin^2 \Psi \right) I_1 \nonumber \\
\label{E:C33}
&& + 6ar\cos \theta \frac{ST}{K\Sigma^2} \sin^2 \Psi I_2~,\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:KTT}
K &\equiv& (L_z - aE)^2 + Q \\
\label{E:STT}
S &\equiv& r^2 + K \\
\label{E:TTT}
T &\equiv& K - a^2 + \cos^2 \theta \\
\label{E:I1}
I_1 &\equiv& \frac{Mr}{\Sigma^3} (r^2 - 3a^2 \cos^2 \theta) \\
\label{E:I2}
I_2 &\equiv& \frac{Ma\cos \theta}{\Sigma^3} (3r^2 - a^2 \cos^2 \theta)~.\end{aligned}$$
The angle $\Psi$ evolves along the geodesic to ensure that $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_3$ are parallel propagated.
The fully general tidal tensor of Eq. (\[E:TT\]) is intimidating, but we can gain insight by considering the tidal tensor for equatorial geodesics ($\theta = \pi/2, Q = 0$) whose nonzero elements are
\[E:TTeq\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:C11eq}
C_{11} &=& \left(1 - 3\frac{r^2 + K}{r^2} \cos^2 \Psi \right) \frac{M}{r^3} \\
\label{E:C13eq}
C_{13} &=& -3\frac{r^2 + K}{r^5} M \cos \Psi \sin \Psi \\
\label{E:C22eq}
C_{22} &=& \left(1 + 3\frac{K}{r^2} \right) \frac{M}{r^3} \\
\label{E:C33eq}
C_{33} &=& \left(1 - 3\frac{r^2 + K}{r^2} \sin^2 \Psi \right) \frac{M}{r^3}~.\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalues of this tensor are $M/r^3$, $(1+3K/r^2)M/r^3$, and $-2(1+3K/2r^2)M/r^3$. Since the tidal force is $$\label{E:Ftid}
F_i = -\nabla_i \Phi_{\rm tidal} = -C_{ij} x^j~,$$ the positive eigenvalues correspond to directions in which the star is squeezed while the negative eigenvalues correspond to the direction in which it is streched. In the Newtonian limit $K/r^2 \to 0$, the eigenvalues reduce to $-2M/r^3$ and the doubly degenerate eigenvalue $M/r^3$. This degeneracy reflects the restoration of symmetry between the $\theta$ and $\phi$ directions at large $r$, where the effects of the SBH’s spin are negligible. Stretching occurs in the radial direction corresponding to the eigenvalue $-2M/r^3$. Note that despite one’s possible intuition to the contrary, the tidal force remains finite at both the innermost stable circular orbit and even the event horizon itself.
To determine whether a star on a given orbit is tidally disrupted, we check at the pericenter of that orbit whether the outward tidal force in the direction corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of the tidal tensor exceeds the inwards Newtonian self-gravity of the star. We assume that the tidal field is maximized at the pericenter as in the Newtonian limit. If $\beta_-$ denotes the numerical value of this eigenvalue, tidal disruption occurs if $$\label{E:TDcon}
r < r_{\rm TD} = \left[ \left( \frac{|\beta_-|}{M/r^3} \right)
\left( \frac{M}{m_\ast} \right) \right]^{1/3} R_\ast~.$$ In the Newtonian limit $\beta_- = -2M/r^3$ discussed above, this condition is equivalent to the more familiar expression $$\label{E:TDconNR}
r < r_{\rm TD} = \left( \frac{2M}{m_\ast} \right)^{1/3} R_\ast~.$$
Although our condition (\[E:TDcon\]) for tidal disruption is only approximate, we expect it to be conservative for several reasons. It neglects that the tidal force has already raised bulges on the star’s surface before the star reaches the pericenter, so the stellar radius $R_\ast$ appearing in Eq. (\[E:TDcon\]) should exceed its value in hydrostatic equilibrium far from the SBH. It also assumes that the star is nonrotating, while in reality the torques exerted on the tidally distorted star will cause it to partially corotate with its orbit. These torques are likely to be complicated for a generic nonequatorial Kerr geodesic, but we can gain some insight by again considering the Newtonian limit. Stars rotating with angular velocity $\Omega$ will be disrupted at a radius $$\label{E:TDconrot}
r < r_{\rm TD}(\Omega) = \left[ \left( 2 + \frac{\Omega^2 r^3}{GM}
\right) \left( \frac{M}{m_\ast} \right) \right]^{1/3} R_\ast$$ in this limit. For corotating stars on circular orbits ($\Omega^2 =
GM/r^3$), the first factor in parentheses on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[E:TDconrot\]) equals 3 as in the definition of the radius of the Hill’s sphere [@Murray]. For a star corotating at the pericenter of a parabolic orbit like that expected for a star approaching a SBH from a large distance, this factor equals 4. Our assumption that the star is nonrotating is conservative because the condition (\[E:TDconrot\]) is most restrictive for $\Omega = 0$, although $r_{\rm TD}(\Omega)$ only varies by the modest factor $2^{1/3}$.
Our criterion (\[E:TDcon\]) might overestimate the rate at which stars are fully disrupted since they might lose their outer layers while maintaining their dense cores. In the Newtonian limit, Phinney [@Phinney] showed that stars will not be fully disrupted until $$r < r_{\rm TD} = \left( \frac{k}{f} \right)^{1/6}
\left( \frac{M}{m_\ast} \right)^{1/3} R_\ast~,$$ where $k$ is the constant of apsidal motion and $fGm_{\ast}^2/R_\ast$ is the star’s binding energy. The factor $k/f = 0.3 (0.02)$ for stars with convective (radiative) atmospheres, but the exponent of 1/6 ensures that $r_{\rm TD}$ is only weakly dependent on this factor. We ignore this factor and keep our criterion (\[E:TDcon\]) for the remainder of this paper, but the Monte Carlo simulations described in the next section could easily be evaluated with a new criterion that incorporates this factor or a different choice of stellar properties than $m_\ast = M_\odot$, $R_\ast = R_\odot$.
![The mass $M_{\rm max}$ of the heaviest SBH capable of disrupting a star of solar mass and radius as a function of SBH spin $a/M$. The red squares show the values listed in Table 2 of [@Ivanov:2005se] derived using a simple hydrodynamical model. The solid blue curve shows our prediction according to the relativistic criterion (\[E:TDcon\]), while the dashed black curve shows the Newtonian prediction (\[E:TDconNR\]).[]{data-label="F:Mmax"}](Fig1){width="3.5in"}
A detailed study of the fraction of mass loss as a function of SBH and orbital parameters is beyond the scope of this paper, but such a study for selected orbital inclinations has been performed by Ivanov and Chernyakova [@Ivanov:2005se]. They recognized that for a given SBH mass and spin, stars on prograde, equatorial, marginally bound orbits [@Bardeen:1972fi] are the most likely to be tidally disrupted. Using a simple but computationally inexpensive hydrodynamical model, they calculated the mass $M_{\rm max}$ of the heaviest SBH capable of tidally disrupting stars without directly capturing them. As in the Newtonian prediction of Eq. (\[E:Mmax\]), $M_{\rm max}
\propto m_{\ast}^{-1/2} R_{\ast}^{3/2}$. In Fig. \[F:Mmax\], we compare their predictions (red squares) to our own using the relativistic criterion (\[E:TDcon\]) (solid blue curve) and Newtonian criterion (\[E:TDconNR\]) (dashed black curve) for stellar mass $m_\ast = M_\odot$ and radius $R_\ast = R_\odot$. We see that the relativistic correction to the Newtonian prediction is significant, and that our simple criterion (\[E:TDcon\]) does a reasonable job given the $\sim 50\%$ uncertainty in the simulations [@Ivanov:2005se].
We see that in the maximally spinning limit ($a/M \to 1$), a SBH as massive as $\sim 10^9 M_\odot$ is capable of tidally disrupting main-sequence stars. This prediction is consistent with earlier simulations [@Sponholz; @Kobayashi:2004py] that demonstrated this possibility. The above scaling of $M_{\rm max}$ with stellar mass and radius suggests that a white dwarf with $m_\ast \simeq M_\odot, R_\ast \simeq
0.01 R_\odot$ could be tidally disrupted by a maximally spinning SBH as massive as $10^6 M_\odot$. This conclusion helps alleviate tension between the small SBH mass required for the interpretation of Swift J1644+57 as a white-dwarf tidal disruption [@Krolik:2011fb] and the larger value of $M$ inferred from the relation between SBH mass and host-galaxy velocity dispersion [@Gebhardt:2000fk].
Monte Carlo simulations {#S:sims}
=======================
Unlike the Newtonian two-body problem, there is no general analytic solution to the relativistic equations of motion (\[E:EOM\]). We must integrate these equations explicitly for every orbit we consider. Stars that will eventually be tidally disrupted are scattered onto their final orbits at radii $r \gg r_{\rm TD}$. These orbits may or may not be gravitationally bound to the SBH, but their Newtonian orbital energies $\sim m_\ast \sigma^2$, where $\sigma$ is a typical velocity at $r \gg r_{\rm TD}$, are much less than the rest-mass energy $m_\ast c^2$. It is therefore an excellent approximation to set the specific energy $E$ appearing in Eqs. (\[E:EOM\]) equal to unity in units where $c = 1$. The Kerr metric (\[E:met\]) is axisymmetric, so our results are independent of the initial value of $\phi$. We must perform Monte Carlo simulations with an appropriate distribution of the remaining variables $\{ r, \theta, L_z, Q \}$ to determine what fraction of orbits are tidally disrupted according to our relativistic criterion (\[E:TDcon\]), where the negative eigenvalue $\beta_-$ of the tidal tensor $C_{ij}$ depends on all these variables.
![Our choice of coordinates for determining the initial conditions for integrating the equations of motion (\[E:EOM\]) for stellar orbits. The SBH is located at the origin, and the star is located at Boyer-Lindquist coordinates ($r, \theta, \phi$). $\Theta$ is the angle between the stellar velocity $\mathbf{v}$ and the inwards radial direction $-\mathbf{\hat{r}}$, while $\Phi$ is the angle between the component of $\mathbf{v}$ perpendicular to $\mathbf{\hat{r}}$ and the unit vector $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_\theta$ in the $\theta$ direction.[]{data-label="F:geo"}](Fig2){width="3.5in"}
We illustrate the geometry of the problem and our choice of coordinates in Fig. \[F:geo\]. We begin integrating the equations of motion (\[E:EOM\]) with the star located at an initial position ($r, \theta, \phi$) in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates. Since these equations are independent of $\phi$ as is the tidal tensor $C_{ij}$, we do not actually need to integrate Eq. (\[E:dphidt\]). We choose an initial radius $r = 2000 M$, where relativisic corrections are small, and check that our results are insensitive to this choice. In this limit, the constants of motion are given by
\[E:ICs\] $$\begin{aligned}
L_z &=& rv \sin \theta \sin \Theta \sin \Phi \\
\label{E:Lz}
Q &=& L_{x}^2 + L_{y}^2
\nonumber \\
&=& (rv \sin \Theta)^2 (\cos^2 \Phi + \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \Phi)~,
\label{E:Q}\end{aligned}$$
where $v = (2M/r)^{1/2}$ is the magnitude of the initial stellar velocity and $\Theta$ and $\Phi$ are the angles described in Fig. \[F:geo\]. Since the stars at $r \gg r_{\rm TD}$ do not know about the direction of the SBH spin, the stellar distribution is axisymmetric about $\mathbf{\hat{r}}$ and there is a uniform distribution in $\Phi$. Although astrophysical spheroids do not necessarily have isotropic velocity dispersions at large $r$, the stars approaching this close to the SBH belong to the tiny fraction of the distribution where the velocity lies in a loss cone centered about the radial direction [@Frank:1976uy]. Since there is no reason to expect the distribution function to be varying strongly in this small portion of phase space, there is a uniform distribution in $-1 \leq \cos \Theta \leq 1$ as well. However, since the rate at which stars of velocity $\mathbf{v}$ enter the sphere of radius $r$ is proportional to $\mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{r}}$, we weight our distribution by $\cos \Theta$ during our Monte Carlo simulations of stellar orbits. We choose a maximum value $\Theta_{\rm
max}$ to avoid wasting computational time on orbits that do not closely approach the SBH.
With this choice of initial conditions, we integrate the equations of motion (\[E:EOM\]) until the star reaches the pericenter. We then calculate and tabulate the negative eigenvalue $\beta_-$ of the tidal tensor $C_{ij}$ (\[E:TT\]). We also tabulate which stars are directly captured by the SBH when their orbits encounter the SBH’s event horizon. We integrated 250,000 stellar orbits for each of several SBH spins, with an additional 250,000 with a smaller choice of $\Theta_{\rm max}$ to increase our sampling of the small number of orbits that lead to tidal disruption when $M \to M_{\rm max}$.
TDE rates {#S:rates}
=========
Given a stellar phase-space distribution function, it is reasonably straightforward to calculate the rate of TDEs using the Monte Carlo simulations described in the previous section. In Sec. \[SS:Max\] below, we calculate the TDE rate as a function of SBH mass assuming that the stars approach a Maxwellian distribution with fixed number density and velocity dispersion far from the SBH. This calculation illustrates the dependence of TDE rates on SBH spin. However, astrophysical SBHs reside in galaxy spheroids whose properties are tightly correlated with SBH mass [@Kormendy:1995er; @Magorrian:1997hw; @Gebhardt:2000fk]. In addition, the very luminous early-type galaxies that host the most massive SBHs have cored profiles at their centers unlike the power-law profiles that characterize less luminous early-type galaxies and late-type bulges [@Faber:1996yg]. Predicted TDE rates are sensitive to whether galactic centers are described by cored or power-law profiles [@Wang:2003ny]. Recent observations [@Buchholz:2009st] suggest that even the nuclear star cluster at our own Galactic center, long believed to have a cuspy profile ($\rho \propto r^{-7/4}$) [@Bahcall:1976aa], may in fact have a core of radius $r_{\rm core}
\simeq 0.5$ pc [@Merritt:2009mr]. Given these uncertainties, it is difficult to make precise estimates of astrophysical TDE rates. Despite this, in Sec. \[SS:real\] we calculate the TDE rate assuming galaxies have isothermal ($\rho \propto r^{-2}$) profiles at their centers and host SBHs with masses correlated with their velocity dispersions. The results of this calculation shown in Fig. \[F:Rrate\] illustrate how SBH spin affects TDE rates.
Maxwellian distribution {#SS:Max}
-----------------------
Assume that stars far from the SBH have a Maxwellian distribution function $$\label{E:maxDF}
f(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v}) = \frac{n}{(2\pi \sigma^2)^{3/2}}
e^{-\mathbf{v}^2/2\sigma^2}$$ with number density $n$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$. The differential rate at which stars with Newtonian specific energy $E_N$ and angular momentum $L_N$ enter a sphere of radius $r$ is given by $$\label{E:difrate1}
\frac{\partial^2\Gamma}{\partial E_N \partial L_N} =
4\pi r^2 \int d^3\mathbf{v}~v_z \delta(E^\prime - E_N)
\delta(L^\prime - L_N) f(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v})~,$$ where the volume integral extends over the region $v_z > 0$ and $E^\prime$ and $L^\prime$ are given by
\[E:Ndef\] $$\begin{aligned}
E^\prime &=& \frac{1}{2} v^2~, \\
\label{E:EN}
L^\prime &=& |\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{v}|~.
\label{E:LN}\end{aligned}$$
We can use Eq. (\[E:maxDF\]) and the delta functions to evaluate the integral to find $$\label{E:difrate2}
\frac{\partial^2\Gamma}{\partial E_N \partial L_N} =
\frac{(8\pi)^{1/2}nL_N}{\sigma^3} e^{-E_N/\sigma^2}~.$$ If $\sigma \ll c$, orbits near the SBH will be insensitive to the value of $E_N$ and we can integrate over this variable to yield a differential rate $$\label{E:difrate3}
\frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial L_N} = \int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{\partial^2\Gamma}{\partial E_N \partial L_N} dE_N =
\frac{(8\pi)^{1/2}nL_N}{\sigma}~.$$ The divergence of this rate as $\sigma \to 0$ results from gravitational focusing, which would channel all stars into the SBH in the absence of tangential velocities.
Before proceeding to the relativistic calculation, let us review the Newtonian predictions. Although the event horizon is fundamentally a relativistic concept, the “Newtonian” prediction would be that a star is directly captured by the SBH if the pericenter of its orbit is less than the Schwarzschild radius (\[E:RS\]). The pericenter of a parabolic ($E_N = 0$) orbit with specific angular momentum $L_N$ is $L_{N}^2/2GM$. Equating this to the Schwarzschild radius, a star is directly captured if $L_N \leq L_{\rm cap} \equiv 2GM/c$, which according to Eq. (\[E:difrate3\]) implies a capture rate $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm cap} &=& \int_{0}^{L_{\rm cap}} \frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial L_N}
dL_N = \frac{(32\pi)^{1/2}n(GM)^2}{\sigma c^2}
\nonumber \\
&=& 2.1 \times 10^{-6} {\rm yr}^{-1} \left( \frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)^2
\left( \frac{n}{10^5 {\rm pc}^{-3}} \right)
\nonumber \\
\label{E:RcapN}
&& \times \left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}} \right)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ A star will be tidally disrupted if the pericenter of its orbit is less than the tidal-disruption radius $r_{\rm TD}$ (\[E:TDconNR\]), which implies an angular momentum $$\label{E:LTD}
L_N \leq L_{\rm TD} \equiv \left(
\frac{(2M)^{4/3}GR_\ast}{m_{\ast}^{1/3}} \right)^{1/2}~.$$ This implies a TDE rate $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime &=& \int_{0}^{L_{\rm TD}}
\frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial L_N} dL_N =
\frac{(8\pi)^{1/2}nGMR_\ast}{\sigma} \left( \frac{2M}{m_\ast} \right)^{1/3}
\nonumber \\
&=& 6.3 \times 10^{-5} {\rm yr}^{-1} \left( \frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)^{4/3}
\left( \frac{n}{10^5 {\rm pc}^{-3}} \right)
\nonumber \\
\label{E:RTDN}
&& \times \left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}} \right)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ This rate agrees with that in Eq. (16b) of Frank and Rees [@Frank:1976uy] which applies when the critical radius at which the loss cone refills on a dynamical time exceeds the SBH’s radius of influence. If TDEs can only be observed when the tidal debris is not directly captured by the SBH, the observed TDE rate will be $\Gamma_{\rm TD} = \Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime - \Gamma_{\rm cap}$. Since $\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime \propto M^{4/3}$ while $\Gamma_{\rm cap}
\propto M^2$, the TDE rate will vanish for $M \geq M_{\rm max}$ (\[E:Mmax\]) at which $r_{\rm TD} = r_s$.
We can use this same differential rate $\partial \Gamma/\partial L_N$ (\[E:difrate3\]) to calculate the relativistic direct-capture and TDE rates. However, we must now rely on the Monte Carlo simulations of Sec. \[S:sims\] to determine whether stars are directly captured or tidally disrupted, instead of the simple Newtonian expressions for $L_{\rm cap}$ and $L_{\rm TD}$ given above. The simulated orbits have a maximum angular momentum $L_{\rm max} \equiv (2GMr)^{1/2} \sin
\Theta_{\rm max}$. The total rate at which stars on these orbits enter a sphere of radius $r = 2000 M$ is $$\label{E:totrate}
\Gamma_{\rm tot} = \int_{0}^{L_{\rm max}} \frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial L_N}
dL_N = \frac{(8\pi)^{1/2}nGMr}{\sigma} \sin^2 \Theta_{\rm max}~.$$ The rate $\Gamma_{\rm cap}$ at which stars are directly captured by the SBH is found by multiplying this total rate $\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ by the fraction $F_{\rm cap}$ of simulated geodesics that cross the event horizon. The TDE rate $\Gamma_{\rm TD}$ is similarly found by multiplying $\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ by the fraction $F_{\rm TD}$ of orbits that violate the relativistic criterion (\[E:TDcon\]) for tidal disruption. If $r$ and $\Theta_{\rm max}$ are chosen large enough, these fractions $F
\propto (r\sin^2 \Theta_{\rm max})^{-1}$ so that the physical rates are independent of our choice of initial conditions.
![The rates at which stars are directly captured (dotted lines) and tidally disrupted (solid and dashed curves) by SBHs of mass $M$ in constant-density cores with $n = 10^5~{\rm pc}^{-3}$ and $\sigma =
100$ km/s. The black curves show the Newtonian rates of Eqs. (\[E:RcapN\]) and (\[E:RTDN\]), while the colored curves show the relativistic rates for SBHs with spins $a/M = 0$ (red), 0.5 (orange), 0.9 (green), 0.99 (blue), and 0.999 (purple). The capture rates mildly decrease with SBH spin, while for $M \geq 10^8 M_\odot$ the TDE rates greatly increase with SBH spin.[]{data-label="F:Grate"}](Fig3){width="3.5in"}
In Fig. \[F:Grate\], we show the direct-capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm
cap}$ and TDE rate $\Gamma_{\rm TD}$ as functions of SBH mass $M$ for our fiducial choices $n = 10^5~{\rm pc}^{-3}$ and $\sigma = 100$ km/s. The Newtonian prediction for $\Gamma_{\rm cap}$ underestimates the true relativistic capture rate by about a factor of 4. If we had used the true specific angular momentum $L_z = 4GM/c$ for marginally bound geodesics of a Schwarzschild SBH as the upper limit of the integral in our Newtonian prediction (\[E:RcapN\]), we could have nearly reproduced the correct relativistic result. The capture rate is nearly independent of SBH spin as indicated by the colored dotted lines lying almost on top of each other. This is surprising, since the specific angular momentum $L_z$ for prograde (retrograde) marginally bound equatorial orbits varies from $4M$ ($-4M$) to $2M$ ($-4.828M$) as $a/M$ increases from 0 to 1. Near perfect cancellation over orbital orientation ($\theta, \Theta, \Phi$) must occur for the capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm cap}$ to be so mildly dependent on spin, but we do not see any obvious reason for this to be the case. Young [*et al.*]{} [@Young:1977] calculated the ratio of the capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm cap}(a)$ for Kerr SBHs of spin $a$ to the capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm cap}(0)$ for nonspinning SBHs. Equation (B2) of their paper shows that this ratio is approximately given by $$\label{E:capratio}
\frac{\Gamma_{\rm cap}(a)}{\Gamma_{\rm cap}(0)} = 1 -
0.0820 \left( \frac{a}{M} \right)^2 + 0.0717 \left( \frac{a}{M} \right)^4
- 0.0864 \left( \frac{a}{M} \right)^6.$$ The small numerical values of the coefficients in this expression indicate the weak dependence of the direct-capture rate on SBH spin; the ratio is between 0.9 and unity over the full range of spins $0 \leq a/M \leq 1$.
The TDE rate $\Gamma_{\rm TD}$ exhibits a much stronger dependence on SBH spin, as illustrated by the strongly varying solid colored curves in Fig. \[F:Grate\]. At small SBH masses, $r_{\rm TD} \gg M$ and the TDE rate for all spins converges to the Newtonian result as expected. However, as $M$ increases, tidal disruption occurs closer to the SBH where the Newtonian approximation is increasingly invalid. This is most glaringly apparent for masses $M \gtrsim M_{\rm max}$ of Eq. (\[E:Mmax\]) for which tidal disruption would not be possible in the Newtonian limit. The true maximum mass, where the solid colored curves in Fig. \[F:Grate\] intersect $\Gamma_{\rm TD} = 0$, is given as a function of spin in Fig. \[F:Mmax\]. Since $\Gamma_{\rm
TD}^\prime \propto M^{4/3}$, these massive SBHs are capable of tidally disrupting even more stars than their less massive counterparts. Although the spins $a/M = 0.99$ and $0.999$ depicted by the blue and purple curves in Fig. \[F:Grate\] may seem extreme, the simple scenario of growing a SBH from a standard thin accretion disk leads to a limiting spin $a/m \simeq 0.998$ quite close to the purple curve [@Thorne:1974ve]. Although uncertain, cosmological predictions for SBH spin distributions can also be peaked near these large values [@Berti:2008af]. The primary conclusions to draw from our analysis are that relativistic corrections to the TDE rate can alter predictions by a factor of several for $M \gtrsim 10^7 M_\odot$, and that they can allow TDEs to occur for SBHs as large as $\sim 10^9 M_\odot$.
Real galaxies {#SS:real}
-------------
Following Frank and Rees [@Frank:1976uy], the rates we calculated in the preceding subsection assumed that galaxies had constant-density cores outside the SBH’s radius of influence, $$\label{E:rh}
r_h \equiv \frac{GM}{\sigma^2} = 0.43~{\rm pc} \left(
\frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right) \left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}}
\right)^{-2} .$$ Real galaxies with either power-law or core profiles have mass-density profiles $\rho(r)$ that monotonically decrease with radius. This raises the question of what is the appropriate number density $n$ to insert in our expressions for direct-capture and TDE rates. Frank and Rees [@Frank:1976uy] argued that the appropriate density to use is that at the critical radius $r_{\rm crit}$ at which stellar diffusion can refill the loss cone of tidally disrupted orbits on a dynamical time. A very crude estimate of this density can be made by assuming that $r_{\rm crit} \simeq r_h$, an assumption roughly true for real galaxies as indicated by Fig. 6 of Wang and Merritt [@Wang:2003ny]. If we further assume that the density profile of galactic centers is that of a single isothermal sphere, $$\label{E:rhoISO}
\rho(r) = \frac{\sigma^2}{2\pi Gr^2}~,$$ then inserting $n = \rho(r_h)/m_\ast$ into Eq. (\[E:RTDN\]) implies $$\label{E:rhrcrit}
\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime \simeq 1.3 \times 10^{-3} {\rm yr}^{-1}
\left( \frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)^{-2/3}
\left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}} \right)^5~.$$ Wang and Merritt [@Wang:2003ny] use the isotropic distribution function appropriate for a single isothermal sphere to calculate the true rate at which the loss cone is refilled by stellar diffusion. They find that their results are well approximated by the fit $$\label{E:WMrate}
\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime \simeq 2.5 \times 10^{-3} {\rm yr}^{-1}
\left( \frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)^{-1}
\left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}} \right)^{7/2}~.$$ If we combine this estimate with a recent determination of the relation between SBH mass and host-galaxy velocity dispersion [@Schulze:2010yy], $$\label{E:Msig}
\frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} = 7.58 \left( \frac{\sigma}{100~{\rm km/s}}
\right)^{4.32},$$ we arrive at a final TDE rate of $$\label{E:Frate}
\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime \simeq 4.8 \times 10^{-4} {\rm yr}^{-1}
\left( \frac{M}{10^6 M_\odot} \right)^{-0.19}$$ in the Newtonian limit. This estimate should be reasonable for the power-law galaxies that dominate the total TDE rate; the core galaxies that host the most massive SBHs have TDE rates $\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime
\simeq 10^{-5}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ about an order of magnitude below that of comparable-mass power-law galaxies [@Wang:2003ny].
![The rates at which stars are tidally disrupted by SBHs of mass $M$ in power-law galaxies obeying the $M-\sigma$ relation. The dashed black line is the prediction of Wang and Merritt [@Wang:2003ny] for $\Gamma_{\rm TD}^\prime$ with an updated $M-\sigma$ relation. The colored curves show our relativistic corrections $\Gamma_{\rm TD}$ to this prediction. The TDE rate increases with SBH spin, with the given curves corresponding to $a/M = 0$ (red), 0.5 (orange), 0.9 (green), 0.99 (blue), and 0.999 (purple).[]{data-label="F:Rrate"}](Fig4){width="3.5in"}
In Fig. \[F:Rrate\], we show how the direct capture of stars by spinning SBHs changes this prediction. This figure was prepared with the same set of Monte Carlo simulations described in Sec. \[S:sims\]. Although there are considerable differences between the Newtonian predictions of Eqs. (\[E:RTDN\]) and (\[E:Frate\]), these differences result from different treatments of the stellar populations far from the SBH. We may therefore simply renormalize our relativistic predictions $\Gamma_{\rm TD} = F_{\rm TD}
\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ of the previous subsection by dividing by Eq. (\[E:RTDN\]) and multiplying by Eq. (\[E:Frate\]) at each SBH mass $M$. Direct capture reduces the predicted TDE rate by a factor $\sim 2/3~(1/10)$ at $M = 10^7~(10^8) M_\odot$. Although TDEs are very rare for large SBH masses, they are still possible for $M <
M_{\rm max} \simeq 10^9 M_\odot$. Since SBHs with masses $M \simeq
10^9 M_\odot$ predominantly live in galaxies with cored profiles, Fig. \[F:Rrate\] may somewhat underestimate TDE rates at these masses since the stellar density will not fall as steeply with $r$ as the single isothermal profile of Eq. (\[E:rhoISO\]).
Discussion {#S:disc}
==========
Astronomers have sought to observe the electromagnetic flares associated with TDEs ever since this possibility was proposed by Rees [@Rees:1988bf]. Several potential TDEs were discovered over the past 15 years by the Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT) [@Bade:1996] and the Galaxy Evolution Explorer [@Gezari:2006fe], and the recent discovery of additional TDEs by both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@vanVelzen:2010jp] and Swift [@Burrows:2011dn; @Levan:2011yr; @Bloom:2011xk; @Cenko:2011ys] has renewed interest in this phenomenon. While individual TDEs may provide new insights into SBH accretion physics, the large samples that may soon be available [@vanVelzen:2010jp] will uniquely probe the whole population of both active and quiescent SBHs. While overall TDE rates depend on stellar populations at galactic centers, the upper bound on the mass $M$ of SBHs capable of tidal disruption is a sensitive measure of SBH spins. For $M \gtrsim 10^7 M_\odot$, tidal disruption occurs deep enough in the SBHs potential well that Newtonian gravity is no longer valid. Furthermore, there is no reason to expect the orbital angular momenta of tidally disrupted stars to align with SBH spins. For both these reasons, accurate calculations of TDE rates require evaluation of the relativistic tidal tensor $C_{ij}$ on a representative sample of generically oriented Kerr geodesics.
We have performed a series of Monte Carlo simulations that provide this required sample. We use this sample to calculate TDE rates for spinning SBH as a function of their mass $M$, both in constant-density cores and in isothermal spheres that approximate real power-law galaxies. We find that for $M \gtrsim 10^7 M_\odot$, a significant fraction of stars will be directly captured by the SBH’s event horizon instead of being tidally disrupted and subsequently accreted. This will reduce the observed TDE rate assuming that directly captured stellar debris will not have the chance to radiate appreciably before being swallowed by the SBH. Above $M \simeq 10^8 M_\odot$, only highly spinning ($a/M \gtrsim 0.9$) SBHs will be able to produce observable TDEs. Theory [@Berti:2008af] and observation [@Reynolds:1998ie; @Brenneman:2006hw] suggest that most SBHs may have such large spins, but further observations are needed to investigate this possibility. A future survey like the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [@:2009pq] that finds thousands of TDEs may provide important constraints on the distribution of SBH spins.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We would like to thank Mike Blanton, Glennys Farrar, Andrei Gruzinov, David Merritt, Maryam Modjaz, Sterl Phinney, and Scott Tremaine for useful conversations.
[99]{}
C. Seyfert, Astrophys. J. [**97**]{}, 28 (1943).
F. Hoyle, W. A. Fowler, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**125**]{}, 169 (1963).
D. Lynden-Bell, Nature [**223**]{}, 690 (1969).
J. Kormendy, D. Richstone, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**33**]{}, 581 (1995).
J. Magorrian, S. Tremaine, D. Richstone, R. Bender, G. Bower, A. Dressler, S. M. Faber, K. Gebhardt [*et al.*]{}, Astron. J. [**115**]{}, 2285 (1998).
K. Gebhardt, R. Bender, G. Bower, A. Dressler, S. M. Faber, A. V. Filippenko, R. Green, C. Grillmair [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**539**]{}, L13 (2000).
A. Toomre, J. Toomre, Astrophys. J. [**178**]{}, 623 (1972).
J. E. Barnes, L. E. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. [**370**]{}, L65 (1991).
J. Frank, M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**176**]{}, 633 (1976).
M. J. Rees, Nature [**333**]{}, 523 (1988).
L. E. Strubbe, E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**415**]{}, 168 (2011).
N. Bade, S. Komossa, M. Dahlem, Astron. Astrophys. [**309**]{}, L35 (1996).
S. Gezari, D. C. Martin, B. Milliard, S. Basa, J. P. Halpern, K. Forster, P. G. Friedman, P. Morrissey [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**653**]{}, L25 (2006).
S. van Velzen, G. R. Farrar, S. Gezari, N. Morrell, D. Zaritsky, L. Ostman, M. Smith, J. Gelfand, A. J. Drake, \[arXiv:1009.1627 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
D. N. Burrows, J. A. Kennea, G. Ghisellini, V. Mangano, B. Zhang, K. L. Page, M. Eracleous, P. Romano [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**476**]{}, 421 (2011).
A. J. Levan, N. R. Tanvir, S. B. Cenko, D. A. Perley, K. Wiersema, J. S. Bloom, A. S. Fruchter, A. d. U. Postigo [*et al.*]{}, Science [**333**]{}, 199 (2011).
J. S. Bloom, D. Giannios, B. D. Metzger, S. B. Cenko, D. A. Perley, N. R. Butler, N. R. Tanvir, A. J. Levan [*et al.*]{}, Science [**333**]{}, 203 (2011).
S. B. Cenko, H. A. Krimm, A. Horesh, A. Rau, D. A. Frail, J. A. Kennea, A. J. Levan, S. T. Holland [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1107.5307 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
P. A. Abell [*et al.*]{} \[ LSST Science and LSST Project Collaborations \], \[arXiv:0912.0201 \[astro-ph.IM\]\].
L. Spitzer and R. Harm, Astrophys. J. [**127**]{}, 544 (1958).
H. Cohn and R. Kulsrud, Astrophys. J. [**226**]{}, 1087 (1978).
J. -X. Wang, D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. [**600**]{}, 149 (2004).
F. K. Manasse and C. W. Misner, J. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 735 (1963).
J.-A. Marck, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**385**]{}, 431 (1983).
R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**11**]{}, 237 (1963). A. M. Beloborodov, A. F. Illarionov, P. B. Ivanov, A. G. Polnarev Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**259**]{}, 209 (1992).
P. B. Ivanov, M. A. Chernyakova, Astron. Astrophys. [**448**]{}, 843 (2006).
N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. [**24**]{}, 337 (1973). K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. [**191**]{}, 507 (1974). J. M. Bardeen, Nature [**226**]{}, 64 (1970).
E. Berti, M. Volonteri, Astrophys. J. [**684**]{}, 822 (2008).
C. S. Reynolds, A. J. Young, M. C. Begelman and A. C. Fabian, Astrophys. J. [**514**]{}, 164 (1999). L. W. Brenneman and C. S. Reynolds, Astrophys. J. [**652**]{}, 1028 (2006). R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist, J. Math. Phys. [**8**]{}, 265 (1967). B. Carter, Phys. Rev. [**174**]{}, 1559 (1968).
M. Ishii, M. Shibata, Y. Mino, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 044017 (2005).
C. D. Murray, S. F. Dermott, [*Solar System Dynamics*]{} (Cambridge University, New York, 1999).
E. S. Phinney, in [*The Center of the Galaxy: Proceedings of the 136th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union*]{}, edited by M. Morris (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 543.
J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. [**178**]{}, 347 (1972).
H. Sponholz, Mem. Soc. Astron. It. [**65**]{}, 1135 (1994).
S. Kobayashi, P. Laguna, E. S. Phinney, P. Meszaros, Astrophys. J. [**615**]{}, 855 (2004).
J. H. Krolik, T. Piran, \[arXiv:1106.0923 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
S. M. Faber, S. Tremaine, E. A. Ajhar, Y. -I. Byun, A. Dressler, K. Gebhardt, C. Grillmair, J. Kormendy [*et al.*]{}, Astron. J. [**114**]{}, 1771 (1997).
R. M. Buchholz, R. Schodel, A. Eckart, Astron. Astrophys. [**499**]{}, 483 (2009).
J. N. Bahcall, R. A. Wolf, Astrophys. J. [**209**]{}, 214 (1976).
D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. [**718**]{}, 739 (2010).
A. Schulze, K. Gebhardt, Astrophys. J. [**729**]{}, 21 (2011).
P. J. Young, G. A. Shields, J. C. Wheeler Astrophys. J. [**212**]{}, 367 (1977).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
---
**Probabilities of first order sentences on sparse random relational structures: An application to definability on random CNF formulas**
Lázaro Alberto Larrauri\
*Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya*\
lazaro.alberto.larrauri@upc.edu\
**Abstract**\
We extend the convergence law for sparse random graphs proven by Lynch to arbitrary relational languages. We consider a finite relational vocabulary $\sigma$ and a first order theory $T$ for $\sigma$ composed of symmetry and anti-reflexivity axioms. We define a binomial random model of finite $\sigma$-structures that satisfy $T$ and show that first order properties have well defined asymptotic probabilities when the expected number of tuples satisfying each relation in $\sigma$ is linear. It is also shown that these limit probabilities are well-behaved with respect to several parameters that represent the density of tuples in each relation $R$ in the vocabulary $\sigma$. An application of these results to the problem of random Boolean satisfiability is presented. We show that in a random $k$-CNF formula on $n$ variables, where each possible clause occurs with probability $\sim c/n^{k-1}$, independently any first order property of $k$-CNF formulas that implies unsatisfiability does almost surely not hold as $n$ tends to infinity.
\
**Keywords:** random hypergraphs, convergence law, random SAT, asymptotic probability, unsatisfiability certificate.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
We say that a sequence of random structures $\{G_n\}_n$ satisfies a limit law with respect to some logical language $L$ if for every property $P$ expressible in $L$ the probability that $G_n$ satisfies $P$ tends to some limit as $n \to \infty$. If that limit takes only the values zero and one then we say that $\{G_n\}_n$ satisfies a zero-one law with respect to $L$.
Convergence and zero-one laws have been extensively studied on the binomial graph $G(n,p)$. The seminal theorem on this topic, due to Fagin [@fagin1976probabilities] and Glebskii et al. [@glebskii1969range] independently, concerns general relational structures. When applied to graphs it states that if $p$ is fixed, then $G(n,p)$ satisfies a zero-one law with respect to the first order (FO) language of graphs.
This zero-one law was later extended by Shelah and Spencer in [@shelah1988zero]. There it is proven, among other results, that if $p:=p(n)$ is a decreasing function of the form $n^{-\alpha}$ and $\alpha>0$ is irrational, then $G(n,p(n))$ obeys a zero-one law with respect to FO logic. Moreover, it is also proven that if $\alpha\in (0,1)$ is rational then $G(n,p(n))$ does not obey a convergence law.
This was further studied by Lynch in [@lynch1992probabilities], where it is shown that in the case where the expected number of edges is linear, i.e. when $p(n)\sim \beta/n$ for some $\beta >0$, then $G(n,p(n))$ satisfies a limit law with respect to FO logic. The following is a restatement of the main result in that article.
Let $p(n)\sim \beta/n$. For every FO sentence $\phi$, the function $F_\phi: (0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,1]$ given by $$F_\phi(\beta) = {\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left( \mathrm{G}(n,p(n))
\text{ satisfies } \phi \right)$$ is well defined and is given by an expression with parameter $\beta$ built using rational constants, addition, multiplication and exponentiation with base $e$.
A relevant aspect of this result is that the limit probability of any FO property in $G(n,p(n))$ when $p(n)\sim \beta/n$ varies analytically with $\beta$. A consequence of this is that FO logic cannot “capture" sudden changes in the structure of $G(n,p(n))$.
It was left open at the end of [@lynch1992probabilities] whether the convergence law obeyed by $G(n,p(n))$ in the range $p(n)\sim \beta/n$ could be generalized to other random models of relational structures that contain relations of arity greater than $2$. A result in this direction was obtained in [@salvadorbrasil], among other zero-one and convergence laws. They consider the random model of $d$-uniform hypergraphs $G^d(n,p)$ where each $d$-edge is added to a set of $n$ labeled vertices independently with probability $p$. It is shown that when $p(n)\sim \beta/n^{d-1}$, i.e. when the expected number of edges is linear, $G^d(n,p(n))$ obeys a convergence law with respect to the FO language of $d$-uniform hypergraphs. With little additional work it can be shown that in these conditions the limit probability of any FO property of $G^d(n,p(n))$ varies analytically with $\beta$. We extend this result to arbitrary relational structures on whose relations we can impose symmetry and anti-reflexivity constraints ().
This generalization is motivated by an application to the problem of random SAT. We continue the study started by Atserias in [@atserias2005definability] with respect to the definability in first order logic of certificates for unsatisfiability that hold for typical unsatisfiable formulas. A random model for $3$-CNF formulas where each possible clause over $n$ variables is added independently with probability $p$ is considered there. In this model the expected number of clauses $m$ is $\Theta(n^3p)$ as $n$ grows. The main result of that article states the following: (1) if $m=\Theta(n^{2-\alpha})$ for an irrational number $\alpha>0$, then no FO property of $3$-CNF formulas that implies unsatisfiability holds asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.) for unsatisfiable formulas, and (2) if $m=\Theta(n^{2+\alpha})$ for $\alpha>0$, then there exists some FO property that implies unsatisfiability and holds a.a.s. for unsatisfiable formulas.
The second part of the statement is the simpler one to prove: it can be shown that when $m=\Theta(n^{2+\alpha})$ for some $\alpha>0$ the random $3$-CNF formula a.a.s. contains some fixed unsatisfiable subformula (which depends on the choice of $\alpha$). This is clearly expressible in FO logic, so (2) follows. The proof of (1) is more involved and, in fact, shows something stronger: if $m=\Theta(n^{2-\alpha})$ for $\alpha>0$ irrational, then all FO properties that imply unsatisfiability a.a.s. do not hold. This proof employs techniques based in those used by Shelah and Spencer in [@shelah1988zero] to prove that $G(n,p)$ satisfies a zero-one law with respect to FO logic when $p$ is an irrational power of $n$.
Since the techniques used to prove (2) rely on the fact that $\alpha$ is irrational, the study of the range $m=\Theta(n)$ (that is, $m=\Theta(n^{2-\alpha})$ with $\alpha=1$), was left open. This range is of special interest because it is where the phase transition from almost sure satisfiability to almost sure unsatisfiability takes place. It was shown in [@chvatal1992mick] that a random $k$-CNF formula with $m$ clauses over $n$ variables satisfying that $m\sim c n$ is a.a.s satisfiable for all sufficiently small values of $c$ and is a.a.s unsatisfiable for all sufficiently large values of $c$.
The possibility of studying FO definability of certificates for unsatisfiability in random $l$-CNF formulas with a linear expected number of clauses using a generalization of Lynch theorem was suggested by Atserias. This application is discussed in . We give a brief overview of it here. Let $F(l,n,p)$ be a random model of $l$-CNF formulas where each $l$-clause over $n$ variables is chosen independently with probability $p$. Let $F^l_n(\beta)$ denote a random formula in $F(l,n,p)$ where $p:=p(n)\sim \beta/n^{l-1}$. Suppose that every FO property of $l$-CNF formulas has a well defined asymptotic probability in $F^l_n(\beta)$ for any $\beta>0$. Further suppose that these asymptotic probabilities vary analytically with $\beta$. Then any FO property that implies unsatisfiability a.a.s does not hold in $F^l_n(\beta)$ for $\beta>0$. Indeed, let $P$ be one such FO property. One can find a value $\beta_0>0$ satisfying that a.a.s $F^l_n(\beta)$ is satisfiable when $0<\beta<\beta_0$. As a consequence $P$ a.a.s does not hold in $F^l_n(\beta)$ when $0<\beta<\beta_0$. Since the asymptotic probability of $P$ varies analytically with $\beta$ and it vanishes in the non-empty interval $(0,\beta_0)$, because of the Principle of analytical continuation it must be true that a.a.s $P$ does not hold in $F^l_n(\beta)$ for all $\beta>0$.
Preliminaries
=============
General notation {#subsect:notation}
----------------
Given a positive natural number $n$, we write $[n]$ to denote the set ${1,2,\dots,n}$. Given numbers, $n,m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $m\leq n$ we denote by $(n)_m$ the $m$-th falling factorial of $n$. Given a set $S$ and a natural number $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we use $\binom{S}{k}$ to denote the set of subsets of $S$ of size $k$.Given a set $S$ and $n\leq |S|$, we define $(S)_n$ as the subset of $S^n$ consisting of the $n$-tuples whose coordinates are all different. We also define $S^*:=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty S^n$ and $(S)_*:=\bigcup_{n\leq |S|} (S)_n$.
We use the convention that over-lined variables, like $\overline{x}$, denote ordered tuples of arbitrary length. Given an ordered tuple $\overline{x}$ we define ${\mathrm{len}}(\overline{x})$ as its length. Given a tuple $\overline{x}$ and an element $x$ the expression $x\in \overline{x}$ means that $x$ appears as some coordinate in $\overline{x}$. Given a map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ and an ordered tuple $\overline{x}:=(x_1,\dots,x_a)\in X^*$ we define $f(\overline{x})\in Y^*$ as the tuple $(f(x_1),\dots,f(x_a))$. Given two tuples $\overline{x},\overline{y}$ we write $\overline{x}^\smallfrown \overline{y}$ to denote their concatenation. Given a set $S$ and elements $x_s$ for each $s\in S$ we write $\{x_s\}_{s\in S}$, or just $\{x_s\}_s$ when $S$ is understood, to denote the tuple indexed by $S$ which contains the element $x_s$ at the position given by $s$.
Let $S$ be a set, $a$ a positive natural number, and $\Phi$ a group of permutations over $[a]$. Then $\Phi$ acts naturally on $S^a$ in the following way: Given $g\in \Phi$ and $\overline{x}:=(x_1,\dots,x_a)\in S^a$ let $g \overline{x}:=(x_{g(1)},\dots,x_{g(a)})$. We denote by $S^a/\Phi$ the quotient of $S^a$ by this action. Given $\overline{x}:=(x_1,\dots, x_a)\in S^a$ we denote its equivalence class in $S^a/\Phi$ by $[x_1,\dots,x_a]$ or $[\overline{x}]$. Thus, for $g\in \Phi$, by definition $[x_1,\dots,x_a]=[x_{g(1)}
,\dots,x_{g(a)}]$.
The notations $\overline{x}$ and $(x_1,\dots, x_a)$ represent ordered tuples while $[\overline{x}]$ and $[x_1,\dots,x_a]$ denote ordered tuples modulo the action of some arbitrary group of permutations. Which group it is will depend on the ambient set where $[x_1,\dots,x_a]$ belongs and it should either be clear from context or not be relevant.
Given real functions over the natural numbers $f,g:{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ the expressions $f=O(g)$, $f=o(g)$ and $f=\Theta(g)$ have their usual meaning. If $g(n)\neq 0$ for $n$ large enough we write $f\sim g$ if ${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\frac{f(n)}{g(n)}=1$.
Probabilistic preliminaries
---------------------------
We assume familiarity with basic probability theory. We denote by $\mathrm{Poiss}_\lambda(n)$ the discrete probability mass function of a random Poisson variable with mean $\lambda$. That is, $\mathrm{Poiss}_\lambda(n)=e^{-\lambda}\frac{\lambda^n}{n!}$. We define $\mathrm{Poiss}_\lambda(\geq n)=1 - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \mathrm{Poiss}_\lambda(i)$.
Given some sequence of events $\{A_n\}_n$ we say that $A_n$ is satisfied asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.) if $\Pr(A_n)$ tends to $1$ as $n\to \infty$. Given a sequence of random variables $\{X_n\}_n$, the **first moment method** is an application of Markov’s inequality that establishes that if $\mathrm{E}[X_n]$ tends to zero as $n\to \infty$ then a.a.s $X_n=0$.
If $A,B$ are events we may write the conditioned probability $\mathrm{Pr}(A\, | \, B )$ as $\mathrm{Pr}_B(A)$ to shorten some expressions. In this situation, given a random variable $X$ we put $\mathrm{E}_B[X]$ to denote conditional expectation of $X$ given the event $B$.
Our main tool for proving the convergence in distribution to Poisson variables is the next result, which can be found in [@bollobas2001random Theorem 1.23].
\[thm:BrunSieve\] Let $l\in {\mathbb{N}}$. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $X_{n,1},\dots, X_{n,l}$ be non-negative random integer variables over the same probability space. Let $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_l$ be real numbers. Suppose for any $r_1,\dots,r_l \in {\mathbb{N}}$ $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^{l} \binom{X_{n,i}}{r_i} \right]
= \prod_{i=1}^{l} \frac{\lambda_i}{r_i !}.$$ Then the $X_{n,1},\dots,X_{n,l}$ converge in distribution to independent Poisson variables with means $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_l$ respectively.
We use the following observation in order to compute the binomial moments of our random variables.
\[obs:binomialmean\] Let $X_1,\dots, X_l$ be non negative random integer variables over the same probability space. Let $r_1,\dots,r_l\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Suppose each $X_i$ is the sum of indicator random variables (i.e. variables that only take the values $0$ and $1$) $X_i=\sum_{j=1}^{a_i} Y_{i,j}$. Define $\Omega:=\prod_{i=1}^l \binom{[a_i]}{r_i}$. That is, the elements $\{S_i\}_{i\in[l]}\in \Omega$ represent all the possible unordered choices of $r_i$ indicator variables $Y_{i,j}$ for each $i\in [l]$. Then $$\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^{l} \binom{X_i}{r_i}\right]=
\sum_{\{S_i\}_{i\in [l]}} \mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{i\in [l]\ j\in S_i}} Y_{i,j}=1
\right).$$
Logical preliminaries
---------------------
We assume familiarity with first order logic (FO). We follow the convention that first order logic contains the equality symbol. Given a vocabulary $\sigma$ we denote by $FO[\sigma]$ the set of first order formulas of vocabulary $\sigma$. Given a relation symbol $R\in \sigma$ we denote by $ar(R)$ the arity of $R$. Given a formula $\phi\in FO[\sigma]$ we use the notation $\phi(\overline{y})$ to express that $\overline{y}$ is a tuple of (different) variables which contains all free variables in $\phi$ and none of its bounded variables, but it may contain variables which do not appear in $\phi$. Formulas with no free variables are called **sentences** and formulas with no quantifiers are called **open formulas**. The **quantifier rank** of a formula $\phi$, written as ${\mathrm{qr}}(\phi)$, is the maximum number of nested quantifiers in $\phi$. We call **edge sentence** to any consistent open formula that contains no occurrence of the equality symbol ‘$=$’.
Structures as multi-hypergraphs {#sect:structures}
-------------------------------
For the rest of the article consider fixed:
- A relational vocabulary $\sigma$ such that all the relations $R\in\sigma$ satisfy $ar(R)\geq 2$.
- Groups $\{ \Phi_R \}_{R\in \sigma}$ such that each $\Phi_R$ is consists of permutations on $[ar(R)]$ with the usual composition as its operation.
- Sets $\{P_R\}_{R\in \sigma}$ satisfying $P_R\subseteq \binom{[ar(R)]}{2}$ for all $R\in \sigma$.
We define $\mathcal{C}$ as the class of $\sigma$-structures that satisfy the following axioms:
- *Symmetry axioms*: For each $R\in \sigma$ and $g\in \Phi_R$: $$\forall \overline{x}:=x_1,\dots, x_{ar(R)} \left( R(\overline{x})
\iff R(g \overline{x}) \right)$$
- *Anti-reflexivity axioms*: For each $R\in \sigma$ and $\{i,j\}\in P_R$ $$\forall x_1,\dots, x_{ar(R)}
\left( (x_i=x_j) \implies \neg R(x_1,\dots, x_{a_s})
\right)$$
Structures in $\mathcal{C}$ generalize the usual notion of a hypergraph in the sense that they contain multiple “adjacency” relations with arbitrary symmetry and anti-reflexivity axioms.
We use the usual graph theory nomenclature and notation with some minor changes. In the scope of this article **hypergraphs** are structures in $\mathcal{C}$. Given a hypergraph $G$ its **vertex set** $V(G)$ is its universe.
In order to define the edge sets of $G$ we need the following auxiliary definition
Let $V$ be a set, and let $R\in \sigma$. We define the **set of possible edges over $V$ given by $R$** as $$E_R[V]= (V^{ar(R)}/\Phi_R)\, \setminus \, X,$$ where $$X=
\Big\{ [v_1,\dots,v_{ar(R)}]
\quad \Big| \quad
v_1,\dots,v_{ar(R)}\in V, \,
\text{ and }
\, v_i=v_j \text{ for some }
\{i,j\}\in P_R \Big\}.$$ We call **edges** to the elements of $E_R[V]$ and we say that the **sort** of an edge $e\in E_R[V]$ is $R$. In the case where $V=[n]$ we write simply $E_R[n]$ instead of $E_R[[n]]$
That is, $E_R[V]$ contains all the “$ar(R)$-tuples of elements in $V$ modulo the permutations in $\phi_R$" excluding those that contain some repetition of elements in the positions given by $P_R$.
Let $G$ be a hypergraph with vertex set is $V$ and let $R\in \sigma$ be a relation. We define the **edge set of $G$ given by $R$**, denoted by $E_R(G)$, as the set of edges $[\overline{v}]\in E_R[V]$ such that $\overline{v}\in R^G$. We define **the total edge set of $G$** as the set $E(G):=\cup_{R\in \sigma} E_R(G)$. Given an edge, $e\in E(G)$ we denote by $V(e)$ the set of all vertices that participate in $e$.
Clearly a hypergraph $G$ is completely given by its vertex set $V(G)$ and its edge set $ E(G)$. Notice that edges $e\in E(G)$ are sorted according to the relation they represent. The **size** of $G$, written as $|G|$, is its number of vertices.
Given two hypergraphs $H$ and $G$ we say that $H$ is a **sub-hypergraph** of $G$, written as $H\subset G$, if $V(H)\subset V(G)$ and $E(H)\subset E(G)$ (notice that this is equivalent to $E_R(H)\subset E_R(G)$ for all $R\in \sigma$, since the edges are sorted).
Given a set of vertices $U\subseteq V(G)$, we denote by $G[U]$ the **hypergraph induced by $G$ on $U$**. That is, $G[U]$ is a hypergraph $H=(V(H),\{E(H)_R\}_{R\in \sigma})$ such that $V(H)=U$ and for any $R\in \sigma$ an edge $e\in E_R(G)$ belongs to $E_R(H)$ if and only if $V(e)\subset U$.
We define the **excess** ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)$ of a hypergraph $G$ as the number $${\mathrm{ex}}(G):= \left(\sum_{R\in \sigma} (ar(R)-1)|E_R(G)|\right) - |V(G)|.$$ That is, the excess of $G$ is the “weighted number of edges” minus its number of vertices.
An hypergraph $G$ is **connected** if for any two vertices $v,u\in V(G)$ there is a sequence of edges $e_1,\dots, e_m\in E(G)$ such that $v\in V(e_1), u\in V(e_m)$ and for each $i\in [m-1]$, $V(e_i)\cap V(e_{i+1})\neq \emptyset$. It holds that ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)\geq -1$ for any connected hypergraph.
Given a hypergraph $G$ we define the following metric, $d$, over $V(G)$: $$d^G(u,v)= \min_{\substack{H \subset G\
H \text{ connected }\\
u,v\in V(H)}} |E(H)| .$$ That is, the **distance** between $v$ and $u$ is the minimum number of edges necessary to connect $v$ and $u$. If such number does not exist we define $d^G(u,v)=\infty$. When $G$ is understood or not relevant we simply write $d$ instead of $d^G$. Equivalently, the distance $d$ coincides with the usual one defined over the Gaifman graph of the structure $G$. The **diameter** of a hypergraph is the maximum distance between any pair of vertices. We extend naturally the distance $d$ to sets and tuples of vertices, as usual. Given a vertex/set/tuple $X$ and a number $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define the **neighborhood** $N^G(X;r)$, or simply $N(X;r)$ when $G$ is not relevant, as the set of vertices $v$ such that $d^G(X,v)\leq r$.
A connected hypergraph $G$ is a **path** between two of its vertices $v,u\in V(G)$ if $G$ does not contain any connected proper sub-hypergraph containing both $v,u$. A connected hypergraph $G$ is a **tree** if ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)=-1$ and **dense** if ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)>0$. An hypergraph is called $r$-**sparse** if it does not contain any dense sub-hypergraph $H$ such that $diam(H)\leq r$. A connected hypergraph $G$ with ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)\geq 0$ is called **saturated** if for any non-empty proper sub-hypergraph $H\subset G$ it holds ${\mathrm{ex}}(H)<{\mathrm{ex}}(G)$. A connected hypergraph $G$ with ${\mathrm{ex}}(G)=0$ is called a **unicycle**. A saturated unicycle is called a **cycle**. We say that an edge $e:=[\overline{v}]$ contains a **loop** if some vertex $v$ appears in $\overline{v}$ more than once.
A **rooted tree** $(T,v)$ is a tree $T$ with a distinguished vertex $v\in V(T)$ called its **root**. We usually omit the root when it is not relevant and write just $T$ instead of $(T,v)$. The **initial edges** of a rooted tree $(T,v)$ are the edges in $T$ that contain $v$. We define the radius of a rooted tree as the maximum distance between its root and any other vertex.
Let $\Sigma$ be a set. A **$\Sigma$-hypergraph** is a pair $(H, \chi)$ where $H$ is a hypergraph and $\chi: V(H)\rightarrow \Sigma$ is a map called a **$\Sigma$-coloring** of $H$.
**Isomorphisms** between hypergraphs are defined as isomorphisms between relational structures. Isomorphisms between $\Sigma$-hypergraphs are just isomorphisms between the underlying hypergraphs that also preserve their colorings. In both cases we denote the isomorphism relation by $\simeq$. Given a hypergraph $H$, resp. a $\Sigma$-hypergraph $(H, \chi)$, an **automorphism** of $H$, resp. $(H,\chi)$, is an isomorphism from $H$, resp. $(H,\chi)$, to itself. We denote by ${\mathrm{aut}}(H)$, resp. ${\mathrm{aut}}(H,\chi)$, the number of such automorphisms.
Let $H$ be a hypergraph and let $V$ be a set. We define the set of **copies of $H$ over $V$**, denoted as $Copies(H,V)$, as the set of hypergraphs $H^\prime$ such that $V(H^\prime)\subset V$ and $H\simeq H^\prime$. Let $\chi$ be a $\Sigma$-coloring of $H$. Analogously, we define the set $Copies\left(
(H,\chi),\, \, V\right)$ as the set of $\Sigma$-hypergraphs $(H^\prime,\chi^\prime)$ satisfying $V(H^\prime)\subset V$ and $(H,\chi)\simeq (H^\prime,\chi^\prime)$. Let $\mathbb{H}$ be an isomorphism class of $\Sigma$-hypergraphs. Then the set $Copies(\mathbb{H}, V)$ is defined as the set of $\Sigma$-hypergraphs $(H^\prime,\chi^\prime)$ such that $V(H^\prime)\subset V$ and $(H^\prime,\chi^\prime)\in \mathbb{H}$. Let $v\in V$ and $s\in \Sigma$. We define the set $Copies\left(\mathbb{H}, V;\,\, (v,s)\right)$ as the set of $\Sigma$-hypergraphs $(H^\prime,\chi^\prime)\in Copies(\mathbb{H}, V)$ that satisfy $v\in V(H^\prime)$ as well as $\chi^\prime(v)=s$.
Given $\mathbb{H}$ an isomorphism class of hypergraphs or $\Sigma$-hypergraphs, we define expressions such as ${\mathrm{ex}}(\mathbb{H})$, ${\mathrm{aut}}(\mathbb{H})$, $|V(\mathbb{H})|$, $|E(\mathbb{H})|$ or $Copies(\mathbb{H},V)$ via representatives of $\mathbb{H}$.
Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse Games
-------------------------
We assume familiarity with Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse (EF) games. An introduction to the subject can be found for instance in [@finitemodeltheory1 Section 2], for example. Given hypergraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ we denote the $k$-round EF game played on $H_1$ and $H_2$ by ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1;H_2)$. The following is satisfied:
\[Ehrenfeut, [@ehrenfeucht1961application]\] Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be hypergraphs. Then Duplicator wins ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1;H_2)$ if and only if $H_1$ and $H_2$ satisfy the same sentences $\phi\in FO[\sigma]$ with ${\mathrm{qr}}(\phi)\leq k$.
Given lists $\overline{v}\in V(H_1)^*$, and $\overline{u}\in V(H_2)^*$ of the same length, we denote the $k$ round Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse game on $H_1$ and $H_2$ with initial position given by $\overline{v}$ and $\overline{u}$ by ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,\overline{v};H_2,\overline{u})$.
We also define the $k$-round distance Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse game on $H_1$ and $H_2$, denoted by $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1;H_2)$, the same way as ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1;H_2)$, but now in order for Duplicator to win the game the following additional condition has to be satisfied at the end: For any $i,j\in [k]$, $d^{H_1}(v_i,v_j)=d^{H_2}(u_i,u_j)$, where $v_s$ and $u_s$ denote the vertex played on $H_1$, resp. $H_2$ in the $s$-th round of the game. Given $\overline{v}\in V(H_1)^*$, and $\overline{u}\in V(H_2)^*$ lists of vertices of the same length, we define the game $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,\overline{v};H_2,\overline{u})$ analogously to ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,\overline{v};H_2,\overline{u})$.
The random model {#sect:random}
----------------
For each $R\in \sigma$ let $p_R$ be a real number between zero and one. The random model $G^{\mathcal{C}}\left(n,{\left\{ p_R \right\}_{R\in \sigma}}\right)$ is the discrete probability space that assigns to each hypergraph $G$ whose vertex set $V(G)$ is $[n]$ the following probability:
$$\mathrm{Pr}(G)=\prod_{R\in \sigma} p_R^{|E_R(G)|}
(1-p_R)^{ \big|E_R[n]\big|-\big|E_R(G)\big|}.$$ Equivalently, this is the probability space obtained by assigning to each edge $e\in E_R[n]$ probability $p_R$ independently for each $R\in \sigma$.
As in the case of Lynch theorem, we are interested in the “sparse regime” of $G^\mathcal{C}(n,\{p\}_R)$, were the expected number of edges of each sort is linear. This is achieved when for each $R\in \sigma$ it holds $p_R(n)\sim \beta_R/n^{ar(R)-1}$ for some $\beta_R>0$. We write $G_n\left(\{\beta_R\}_R\right)$ to denote a random sample of $G^\mathcal{C}\left(n,\{p_R\}_{R}\right)$ when the probabilities $p_R$ satisfy $p_R(n)\sim \beta_R/n^{ar(R)-1}$. When the choice of $\{\beta\}_R$ is not relevant we write $G_n$ instead of $G_n\left(\{\beta_R\}_R\right)$.
Main definitions
----------------
Our main definition follow closely the ones in [@lynch1992probabilities] adapted to the context of hypergraphs.
Let $H$ be a connected hypergraph. Then $H$ contains a unique maximal saturated sub-hypergraph $H^\prime$ satisfying satisfies ${\mathrm{ex}}(H^\prime)={\mathrm{ex}}(H)$ if ${\mathrm{ex}}(H)\geq 0$, and $H^\prime=\emptyset$ otherwise. Given $\overline{v}\in V(H)^*$ we define $Center(H,\overline{v})$ as the minimal connected sub-hypergraph in $H$ that contains both $H^\prime$ and the vertices in $\overline{v}$. If $H$ is not connected we define $Center(H,\overline{v})$, as the union of $Center(H^{\prime\prime},\overline{u})$ for all connected components $H^{\prime\prime} \subset H$, where $\overline{u}\in V(H)^*$ contains exactly the vertices in $\overline{v}$ belonging to $V(H^{\prime\prime})$. When $\overline{v}$ is empty we simply write $Center(H)$.
Let $H$ be a hypergraph, $\overline{v}\in V(H)^*$ and $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $X$ be the set of vertices $v\in V(H)$ that either belong to $\overline{v}$ or belong to some saturated sub-hypergraph of $H$ with diameter at most $2r+1$. We define $Core(H, \overline{v};r)$ as $N(X;r)$. If $\overline{v}$ is empty we write $Core(H;r)$. We say that $H$ is **$r$-simple** if all connected components of $Core(H;r)$ are unicycles.
\[def:TrOperator\] Let $H$ be a hypergraph, let $\overline{v}\in V(H)^*$ and let $v\in H$ be such that $d(Center(H,\overline{v}),$ $ \, v)<\infty$. Let $X\subset V(H)$ be the set $$X:=\big\{\, u\in V(H) \,\, \big| \,
d\left(\, Center(H, \overline{v})
, \, \, u \right)= d\left(\, Center(H, \overline{v})
, \, \, v \right) + d(v,u)
\big\}.$$ Then we define $\mathrm{Tr}\left(
H,\overline{v};\,\, v\right)$ as the tree $H[X]$ with $v$ as a root. That is, $\mathrm{Tr}\left(
H,\overline{v};\,\, v\right)$ is the tree formed of all vertices whose only path to $Center(H,\overline{v})$ contains $v$. One can easily check that $H[X]$ is indeed a tree: if it were not then it would contain some saturated sub-hypergraph, leading to a contradiction. Given $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define $\mathrm{Tr}(H,\overline{v};\, v;\, r)$ as $\mathrm{Tr}( Core(H,\overline{v};\,r),\overline{v}; \, v)$. In the case that $\overline{v}$ is the empty list we write simply $\mathrm{Tr}(H;\,\, v)$ or ${\mathrm{Tr}}(H;\,\,v;\,\,r)$.
For any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define an equivalence relation over rooted trees which generalizes both the relation of “$k$-morphism” as defined in [@lynch1992probabilities], and the notion of “$(k,r)$-values” defined in [@salvadorbrasil].
\[def:sim\_trees\]
Fix a natural number $k$. We define the **$k$-equivalence** relation over rooted trees, written as $\sim_k$, by induction over their radii as follows:
- Any two trees with radius zero are $k$-equivalent. Notice that those trees consist only of one vertex: their respective roots.
- Let $r>0$. Suppose the $k$-equivalence relation has been defined for rooted trees with radius at most $r-1$. Let $\Sigma_{k,r-1}$ be the set consisting of the $\sim_k$ classes of trees with radius at most $r-1$. Let $\rho$ be an special symbol called the **root symbol**. Set $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k,r-1}:=\Sigma_{k,r-1}\cup \{\rho\}$. Then a $(k,r)$-**pattern** is isomorphism class of $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k,r-1}$-hypergraphs $(e,\tau)$ that consist of only one edge with no loops and no isolated vertices, and satisfy $\tau(v)=\rho$ for exactly one vertex $v\in V(e)$. We denote by $P(k,r)$ the set of $(k,r)$-patterns.
Given a rooted tree $(T,v)$ of radius $r$ we define its **canonical k-coloring** as the map $\tau^k_{(T,v)}: V(T)\rightarrow \widehat{\Sigma}_{k,r-1}$ satisfying that $\tau^k_{(T,v)}(u)$ is the $\sim_k$ class of $\mathrm{Tr}(T,u;\, \,v)$ for any $u\neq v$, and $\tau^k_{(T,v)}(v)=\tau$.
Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be rooted trees of radius $r$. We say that $(T_1,v_1)\sim_k (T_2,v_2)$ if for any pattern $\epsilon\in P(k,r)$ the “quantity of initial edges $e_1\in E(T_1)$ such that $(e,\tau^k_{(T_\delta,v_\delta)}) \in \epsilon$" and the “quantity of initial edges $e_2\in E(T_2)$ such that $(e,\tau^k_{(T_\delta,v_\delta)})\in \epsilon$ " are equal or are both greater than $k-1$.
The following is a way of characterizing $\sim_k$ classes of rooted trees with radii at most $r$ that will be useful later.
\[obs:equivalenttrees\] Let $\mathbf{T}$ be a $\sim_k$ class of rooted trees with radii at most $r$. Then there is a partition $E^1_\mathbf{T},
E^2_\mathbf{T}$ of $P(k,r)$ and natural numbers $a_\epsilon<k$ for each $\epsilon\in E^2_\mathbf{T}$ that depends only on $\mathbf{T}$ such that a rooted tree $(T,v)$ belongs to $\mathbf{T}$ if and only if the following hold: (1) For any pattern $\epsilon\in E^1_\mathbf{T}$ there are at least $k$ initial edges $e\in E(T)$ such that $(e,\tau^k_{(T,v)})\in \epsilon$, and (2) for any pattern $\epsilon\in E^2_\mathbf{T}$ there are exactly $a_\epsilon$ initial edges $e\in E(T)$ such that $(e,\tau^k_{(T,v)})\in \epsilon$.
From this characterization of the $\sim_k$ relation it follows, by induction over $r$, that the quantity of $\sim_k$ classes of trees with radii at most $r$ is finite, for any $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
\[def:sim\_general\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Given a non-tree connected hypergraph $H$, we define its **canonical k-coloring** $\tau^k_{H}$ as the one that assigns to each vertex $v\in V(H)$ the $\sim_k$ class of the tree ${\mathrm{Tr}}(H,v)$. Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be connected hypergraphs which are not trees. Set $H^\prime_1:= Center(H_1)$ and $H^\prime_2:= Center(H_2)$. We say that $H_1$ and $H_2$ are $k$-equivalent, written as $H_1\sim_k H_2$, if $( H^\prime_1,\tau^k_{H_1}) \simeq
(H^\prime_2,\tau^k_{H_2})$
\[def:agreeability\] Let $k,r\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be hypergraphs. Let $H^\prime_1:=Core(H_1;r)$ and $H^\prime_2:=Core(H_2;r)$. We say that $H_1$ and $H_2$ are $(k,r)$-agreeable, written as $H_1\approx_{k,r} H_2$ if for any $\sim_k$ class $\mathbf{H}$ “the number of connected components in $H^\prime_1$ that belong to $\mathbf{H}$" and “the number of connected components in $H^\prime_2$ that belong to $\mathbf{H}$" are the same or are both greater than $k-1$.
Let $k,r\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\Sigma_{(k,r)}$ be the set of $\sim_k$ classes of rooted trees with radii at most $r$. Then a $(k,r)$-**cycle** is an isomorphism class of $\Sigma_{(k,r)}$-hypergraphs $(H,\tau)$ that are cycles of diameter at most $2r+1$. We denote by $C(k,r)$ the set of $(k,r)$-cycles.
\[obs:agreeablecores\] Let $k,r\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\mathbf{O}$ be a $\approx_{k,r}$ class of $r$-simple hypergraphs. Then there is a partition $U^1_\mathbf{O},
U^2_\mathbf{O}$ of $C(k,r)$ and natural numbers $a_\omega<k$ for each $\omega\in U^2_\mathbf{O}$ that depend only on $\mathbf{O}$ such that a $r$-simple hypergraph $G$ belongs to $\mathbf{O}$ if and only if it holds that (1) for any $\omega\in U^1_\mathbf{O}$ there are at least $k$ connected components $H \subset Core(G;r)$ whose cycle $H^\prime=Center(H)$ satisfies that $(H^{\prime},\tau^k_{H})\in \omega$, and (2) for any $\omega\in U^2_\mathbf{O}$ there are exactly $a_\omega$ connected components $H \subset Core(G;r)$ whose cycle $H^\prime=Center(H)$ satisfies that $(H^{\prime},\tau^k_{H})\in \omega$.
\[def:rich\] Let $H$ be a hypergraph and let $k,r\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Let $X\subset V(H)$ be the set of vertices in $H$ belonging to some saturated sub-hypergraph of diameter at most $2r+1$. We say that $H$ is $(k,r)$-**rich** if for any $r^\prime\leq r$, vertices $v_1,\dots, v_k$ and $\sim_k$ class $\mathbf{T}$ of trees with radius at most $r^\prime$ there exists a vertex $v\in V(H)$ such that $d(v,X)> 2r^\prime+1$, $d(v,v_i)>2r^\prime+1$ for all $v_i$ and $T:=N(v;r^\prime)$ is a tree satisfying $(T,v)\in \mathbf{T}$.
Main result and outline of the proof
------------------------------------
Our goal is to prove the following theorem
\[thm:main\] Let $\phi$ be a sentence in $FO[\sigma]$. Then the function $F_\phi: (0,\infty)^{|\sigma|}
\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ given by $${\left\{ \beta_R \right\}_{R\in \sigma}} \mapsto {\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}Pr\left( G_n\left(
\{\beta_R\}_R\right) \models \phi\right)$$ is well defined and analytic.
In fact we prove something stronger. We show that the limit in last theorem is given by an expression with parameters $\{\beta_R\}_R$ built using rational constants, sums, products and exponentiation with base $e$. We do so by giving a family of expressions which contains the ones that define limit probabilities of FO properties in $G_n(\{\beta\}_R)$.
The main arguments are similar to the ones in the proof of [@lynch1992probabilities Theorem 2.1], adapted to fit our context. As in that article the proof is divided into two parts: a model theoretic part and a probabilistic part. The main result of the first part is the following
[thm:Duplicatorwins]{} Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $H_1$, $H_2$ be hypergraphs. Set $r:=(3^k-1)/2$. Suppose that both $H_1$ and $H_2$ are $(k,r)$-rich and $H_1\approx_{k,r} H_2$. Then Duplicator wins ${\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}(H_1,H_2)$
With regards to the second part, the “landscape” of $G_n$ can be described similarly to the one of $G(n,c/n)$ as in [@shelah1994can]: A.a.s for any fixed radius $r$ all neighborhoods $N(v;r)$ in $G_n$ are trees or unicycles, so cycles in $G_n$ are far apart. One can find arbitrarily many copies of any fixed tree, while the expected number of copies of any fixed cycle is finite. The main probabilistic results are the following:
[cor:simple]{} Let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s $G_n$ is $r$-simple.
[thm:rich]{} Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s $G_n$ is $(k,r)$-rich.
[thm:agreeabilityprobabilities]{} Let $k,r \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $\mathbf{O}$ be a $\approx_{k,r}$ class of $r$-simple hypergraphs. Then $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n\left(\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma}\right)\in \mathbf{O}\right)$$ exists and is an analytic expression in $\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma}$.
A sketch of the proof of using these results as follows. Let $\Phi\in FO[\sigma]$ be a sentence and let $k:={\mathrm{qr}}(\Phi)$, $r:=(3^k-1)/2$. Because of it holds that for any $\approx_{k,r}$ class $\mathbf{O}$ $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n \models \Phi\, \big| \, G_n\in \mathbf{O} \right)= \text{ $0$ or $1$ }.$$ This together with and the fact that there is a finite number of $\approx_{k,r}$-classes of $r$-simple hypergraphs imply that ${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n \models \Phi\right)}$ equals a finite sum of limits of the form ${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n \in \mathbf{O}\right)}$, where $\mathbf{O}$ is some $\approx_{k,r}$-class of $r$-simple hypergraphs. Finally, using we get that ${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n \models \Phi\right)}$ exists and is an analytic expression in $\{\beta_R\}_{R}$, as we wanted.
Model theoretic results
=======================
Winning strategies for Duplicator
---------------------------------
During this section $H_1$ and $H_2$ stand for hypergraphs and $V_1:=V(H_1)$, $V_2:=V(H_2)$.
\[def:similar\] Let $\overline{v} \in V_1^*,
\overline{u} \in V_2^*$ be tuples of the same length. We write $(H_1,\overline{v})\simeq_{k,r}(H_2, \overline{u})$, if Duplicator wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k\left(N(\overline{v};r),
\overline{v};\, N(\overline{u};r),\overline{u}\right)$. Given $X\subseteq V_1$ and $Y\subseteq V_2$ we write $(H_1,X)\simeq_{k,r} (H_2,Y)$, if we can order $X$, resp. $Y$, to form lists $\overline{v}$, resp. $\overline{u}$, such that $(H_1,\overline{v})\simeq_{k,r}(H_2,\overline{u})$. Given $X\in V_1$, $Y\in V_2$ and tuples of the same length $\overline{v}\in V_1^*$ and $\overline{u}\in V_2^*$ we write $\left(H_1, (X,\overline{v}) \right)
\simeq_{k,r} \left(H_2, (Y,\overline{u}) \right)$, if $X$ and $Y$ can be ordered to form lists $\overline{w}$, resp. $\overline{z}$ such that $(H_1,\overline{w}^\smallfrown \overline{v})
\simeq_{k,r} (H_2,\overline{z}^\smallfrown \overline{u})$.
\[def:analogous\] Fix $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Suppose $X\subseteq V_1$ and $Y\subseteq V_2$ can be partitioned into sets $X=X_1\cup \dots \cup X_a$ and $Y=Y_1\cup \dots \cup Y_b$ such that all $N(X_i;r)$ and $N(Y_i;r)$ are connected and disjoint. We write $(H_1,X)\cong_{k,r} (H_2,Y)$, if for any set $Z\subset V_\delta$, with $\delta\in \{1,2\}$, among the $X_i$ or the $Y_i$ it is satisfied that “the number of $X_i$ such that $(H_\delta, Z) \simeq_{k,r} (H_1,X_i)$" and “the number of $Y_i$ such that $(H_\delta,Z)\simeq_{k,r} (H_2,Y_i)$" are both equal or are both greater than $k-1$.
The main theorem of this section, which is a strengthening of [@spencer2013strange Theorem 2.6.7], is the following.
\[thm:DuplicatorAux\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Set $r:=(3^k-1)/2$. Suppose there exist sets $X\subseteq V_1$, $Y\subseteq V_2$ with the following properties:
1. $(H_1,X)\cong_{k,r} (H_2,Y)$.
2. - Let $r^\prime\leq r$. Let $v\in V_1$ be a vertex such that $d(X,v)> 2r^\prime + 1$. Let $\overline{u}\in (V_2)^{k-1}$ be a tuple of vertices. Then there exists $u\in V_2$ such that $d(u,\overline{u})>2r^\prime+1$, $d(Y,u)>2r^\prime +1$ and $(H_1,v)\simeq_{k,r^\prime} (H_2,u)$.
- Let $r^\prime\leq r$. Let $u\in V_2$ be a vertex such that $d(Y,u)> 2r^\prime + 1$. Let $\overline{v}\in (V_1)^{k-1}$ be a tuple of vertices. Then there exists $v\in V_1$ such that $d(v,\overline{v})>2r^\prime+1$, $d(X,v)>2r^\prime +1$ and $(H_1,v)\simeq_{k,r^\prime} (H_2,u)$
Then Duplicator wins ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k\left(H_1;H_2\right)$.
In order to prove this theorem we need to make two observations and prove a previous lemma.
\[obs1\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\overline{v}\in V(H_1)^*$, $\overline{u}\in V(H_2)^*$ be of equal length. Suppose Duplicator wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,\overline{v}; \, H_2,\overline{u})$. Then, for any $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $(H_1, \overline{v})\simeq_{k,r}
(H_2,\overline{u})$.
\[obs2\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\overline{v}\in V(H_1)^*$, $\overline{u}\in V(H_2)^*$ be of equal length. Suppose Duplicator wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,\overline{v};\,H_2,\overline{u})$. Let $v\in V(H_1),u\in V(H_2)$ be the vertices played in the first round of an instance of the game where Duplicator is following a winning strategy. Then Duplicator also wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-1}(H_1,\overline{v_2}; \,
H_2,\overline{u_2})$, where $\overline{v_2}:=\overline{v}^\smallfrown v$ and $\overline{u_2}:=\overline{u}^\smallfrown u$.
\[lemm:Duplicator\] Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $\overline{v}\in V_1^*$ and $\overline{u} \in V_2^*$ be of equal length. $(H_1,\overline{v})\simeq_{k,3r+1} (H_2,\overline{u})$. Let $v \in V_1$ and $u\in V_2$ be vertices played in the first round of an instance of $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k\left(\, N(\overline{v};3r+1),
\overline{v}; \quad N(\overline{u};3r+1),\overline{u}\, \right)$$ where Duplicator is following a winning strategy. Further suppose that $d(\overline{v},v)\leq 2r+1$ (and in consequence $d(\overline{u},u)\leq 2r+1$ as well). Let $\overline{v_2}:=\overline{v}^\smallfrown v$ and $\overline{u_2}:=\overline{u}\smallfrown u$. Then $(H_1,\overline{v_2})\simeq_{k-1,r}
(H_2,\overline{u_2})$.
Using we get that Duplicator wins $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-1}\left(\, N(\overline{v};3r+1),
\overline{v_2}; \quad N(\overline{u};3r+1)
,\overline{u_2} \, \right)$$ as well. Call $H^\prime_1=N(\overline{v};3r+1)$, $H^\prime_2=N(\overline{u};3r+1)$. Then by Duplicator wins $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-1}\left(\, N^{H^\prime_1}(
\overline{v_2};r),\overline{v_2};\quad
N^{H^\prime_2}(\overline{u_2};r),\overline{u_2}\, \right).$$ Because of this if we prove $N^{H_1}(\overline{v_2};r)
=N^{H^\prime_1}(\overline{v_2};r)$ and $N^{H_2}(\overline{u_2};r)
=N^{H^\prime_2}(\overline{u_2};r)$, then we are finished. Let $z\in N^{H_1}(v^\prime;r)$. Then $d(z,\overline{v})\leq d(z,v^\prime)+d(v^\prime,\overline{v})=3r+1$. As a consequence, $N^{H_1}(v;r)\subset H^\prime_1$. Thus, $N^{H_1}(\overline{v_2};r)\subseteq H^\prime_1$, and $N^{H_1}(\overline{v_2};r)
=N^{H^\prime_1}(\overline{v_2};r)$. Analogously we obtain $N^{H_2}(\overline{u_2};r)=N^{H^\prime_2}(\overline{u_2};r)$, as we wanted.
Let $X_1,\dots,X_a$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_b$ be partitions of $X$ and $Y$ respectively as in the definition of $\cong_{k,r}$. Let $r_0:=(3^k-1)/2$ and $r_i:=(r_{i-1}-1)/3$ for each $1\leq i \leq k$. Let $v^1_i$ and $v^2_i$ be the vertices played in $H_1$ and $H_2$ respectively during the $i$-th round of ${\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1,H_2)$. We show a winning strategy for Duplicator in ${\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}\left(H_1;\, H_2\right)$. For each $0\leq i \leq k$, Duplicator will keep track of some marked sets of vertices $T\subset V_1$, $S\subset V_2$. For $\delta=1,2$ each marked set $T\subset V_\delta$ will have associated a tuple of vertices $\overline{v}(T)\in V_\delta^*$ consisting of the vertices played in $H_\delta$ so far that were “appropriately close” to $T$ when chosen, ordered according to the rounds they where played in. The game will start with no sets of vertices marked and at the end of the $i$-th round Duplicator will perform one of the two following operations:
- Mark two sets $S\subset V_1$ and $T\subset V_2$ and define $\overline{v}(S):=v^1_i$ and $\overline{v}(T):=v^2_i$.
- Given two sets $S\subset V_1$, $T\subset V_2$ that were previously marked during the same round, append $v^1_i$ and $v^2_i$ to $\overline{v}(S)$ and $\overline{v}(T)$ respectively.
We show that Duplicator can play in such a way that at the end round the following are satisfied:
- For $\delta=1,2$, each vertex played so far $v^\delta_j\in V_\delta$ belongs to $\overline{v}(S)$ for a unique marked set $S\subset V_\delta$.
- Let $S\subset V_1$ and $T\subset V_2$ be sets marked during the same round. Then any previously played vertex $v^1_j$ occupies a position in $\overline{v}(S)$ if and only if $v^2_j$ occupies the same position in $\overline{v}(T)$.
- - Let $S\subset V_1$ be a marked set. Then for any different marked $S^\prime \subset V_1$ of any different $S^\prime$ among $X_1,\dots,X_a$ it holds $d(S,S^\prime)>2r_i + 1$.
- Let $T\subset V_2$ be a marked set. Then for any different marked $T^\prime \subset V_2$ or any different $T^\prime$ among $Y_1,\dots, Y_b$ it holds $d(T,T^\prime)>2r_i +1$.
- Let $S\subset V_1, T\subset V_2$ be sets marked during the same round. Then $$\left(H_1, (S,\overline{v}(S))\right)\simeq_{k-i,r_i}
\left(H_2, (T,\overline{v}(T))\right).$$
In particular, if conditions (i) to (iv) are satisfied this means that if $\overline{v}^1:=(v^1_1,\dots,v^1_i)$ and $\overline{v}^2:=(v^2_1,\dots, v^2_i)$ are the vertices played so far then Duplicator wins $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-i}\left(\,
N(\overline{v}^1;\, r_i), \overline{v}^1; \quad
N(\overline{v}^2;\, r_i),\overline{v}^2 \,
\right),$$ And at the end of the $k$-th round Duplicator will have won ${\textsc{Ehr}}(H_1;\, H_2)$.
The game $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(H_1; \, H_2)$ proceeds as follows. Clearly properties (i) to (iv) hold at the beginning of the game. Suppose that Duplicator can play in such a way that properties (i) to (iv) hold until the beginning of the $i$-th round. Suppose during the $i$-th round Spoiler chooses $v^1_i\in V_1$ (the case where they play in $V_2$ is symmetric). There are three possible cases:
- For some unique previously marked set $S\subset V_1$ we have $d(S\cup \overline{v},\, v^1_i)\leq 2r_i +1$. In this case let $T\subset V_2$ be the set in $H_2$ marked in the same round as $T$. By hypothesis $$\left(H_1,(S,\overline{v}(S))\right)
\simeq_{k-i+1,3r_i+1}
\left(H_2,(T,\overline{v}(T))\right).$$ Then, by definition, for some orderings $\overline{w}$, $\overline{z}$ of the vertices in $S$ and $T$ respectively it holds that Duplicator wins $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-i+1}\left(\,
N(\overline{w}^\smallfrown \overline{v}(S); \, 3r_i + 1)
, \overline{w}^\smallfrown \overline{v}(S); \quad
N(\overline{z}^\smallfrown \overline{v}(T); \, 3r_i + 1)
, \overline{z}^\smallfrown \overline{v}(T)\,
\right).$$ Thus Duplicator can choose $v^2_i\in V_2$ according to the winning strategy in that game. After this Duplicator sets $\overline{v}(S):= \overline{v}(S)^\smallfrown v^1_i$, and $\overline{v}(T):= \overline{v}(T)^\smallfrown v^2_i$. Notice that because of now $$\left(H_1, (S,\overline{v}(S))\right)\simeq_{k-i,r_i}
\left(H_2, (T,\overline{v}(T))\right).$$
- For all marked sets $S\subset V_1$ it holds $d(S\cup \overline{v}(S), \quad v^1_i)>2r_i +1$, but there is a unique $S$ among $X_1,\dots, X_a$ such that $d(S,v^1_i)\leq 2r_i+1$. In this case from condition (1) of the statement follows that there is some non-marked set $T$ among $Y_1,\dots, Y_b$ such that $$(H_1,S)\simeq_{k-i+1,3r_i+1} (H_2,T).$$ Thus, by definition, for some orderings $\overline{w}$, $\overline{z}$ of the vertices in $S$ and $T$ respectively, Duplicator wins $$d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k-i+1}\left( \,
N(\overline{w};3r_i+1), \overline{w};
\quad
N(\overline{z};3r_i+1), \overline{z}
\, \right).$$ Then Duplicator can choose $v^2_i\in V_2$ according to a winning strategy for this game. After this Duplicator marks both $S$ and $T$ and sets $\overline{v}(S):=v^1_i$, and $\overline{v}(T):=v^2_i$. Notice that because of now $$\left(H_1, (S,\overline{v}(S))\right)\simeq_{k-i,r_i}
\left(H_2, (T,\overline{v}(T))\right).$$
- For all marked sets $S\subset V_1$ we have $d(S\cup \overline{v}(S), \, v^1_i)>2r_i +1$, and for all sets $S$ among $X_1,\dots, X_a$ it also holds $d(S,v^1_i)> 2r_i+1$. In this case from condition (2) of the statement it follows that Duplicator can choose $v^2_i\in V_2$ such that (A) $d(T\cup \overline{v}(T),\, v^2_i)>2r_i+1$ for all marked sets $T\subset V_2$, (B) $d(T, v^2_i)> 2r_i+1$ for all sets $T$ among $Y_1,\dots, Y_b$, and (C) $(H_1,v^1_i)\simeq_{k-i,r_i} (H_2, v^2_i)$. After this Duplicator marks both $S=\{
v^1_i\}$ and $T=\{v^2_i\}$ and sets $\overline{v}(S):=v^1_i$, and $\overline{v}(T):=v^2_i$.
The fact that conditions (i) to (iv) still hold at the end of the round follows from comparing $r_{i-1}$ and $r_{i}$ as well as applying and .
k-Equivalent trees {#sect:equivtrees}
------------------
We want prove the following.
\[thm:equivalenttrees\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $(T_1,v_1)$ and $(T_2,v_2)$ be rooted trees such that $(T_1,v_1)\sim_k (T_2,v_2)$. Then Duplicator wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}(T_1,v_1;\, \, T_2,v_2)$.
Before proceeding with the proof we need an auxiliary result. Let $(T,v)$ be a rooted tree and $e$ an initial edge of $T$. We define $\mathrm{Tr}(T,v;\, e)$ as the induced tree $T[X]$ on the set $X:=\{v\} \cup \{\, u\in V(T) \, | \, d(v,u) = 1 + d(e,u) \,\}$, with $v$ as the root. In other words, $\mathrm{Tr}\left(T,v;\, e\right)$ is the tree consisting of $v$ and all the vertices in $T$ whose only path to $v$ contains $e$.
\[lem:equivalentedges\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and fix $r>0$. Suppose theorem \[thm:equivalenttrees\] holds for rooted trees with radii at most $r$. Let $(T_1,v_1)$ and $(T_2,v_2)$ be rooted trees with radius $r+1$. Let $\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)}$ and $\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)}$ be colorings over $T_1$ and $T_2$ as in Let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be initial edges of $T_1$ and $T_2$ respectively satisfying $(e_1,\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)})\simeq (e_2,\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)})$. Name $T^\prime_1:=\mathrm{Tr}(T_1,v_1; \,\,e_1)$ and $T^\prime_2:=\mathrm{Tr}(T_2,v_2;\,\,e_2)$. Then Duplicator wins $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}(T^\prime_1, v_1; \, \, T^\prime_2,v_2)$.
We show a winning strategy for Duplicator. At the beginning of the game fix an isomorphism $f:V(e_1)\rightarrow V(e_2)$ between $(e_1,\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)})$ and $(e_2,\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)})$. Suppose in the $i$-th round of the game Spoiler plays on $T^\prime_1$. The other case is symmetric. If Spoiler plays $v_1$ then Duplicator chooses $v_2$. Otherwise, Spoiler plays a vertex $v$ that belongs to some $\mathrm{Tr}(T^\prime_1,v_1;\,\, u)$ for a unique $u\in V(e_1)$ different from the root $v_1$. Set $T^{\prime\prime}_1:=
\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^\prime_1,v_1;\,\, u\right)$ and $T^{\prime\prime}_2:=\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^\prime_2,v_2;\,\, f(u)\right)$ Then, as $\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)}\left(u\right)=\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)}\left(f(u)\right)$, we obtain $\left(T^{\prime\prime}_1,u\right) \sim_k
\left(T^{\prime \prime}_2,f(u)\right)$. As both these trees have radii at most $r$, by assumption Duplicator has a winning strategy in $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}\left(\,T^{\prime\prime}_1, u;
\quad T^{\prime \prime}_2, f(u)\, \right)$ and they can follow it considering the previous plays in $T^{\prime\prime}_1$ and $T^{\prime\prime}_2$.
Notice that, as $(T_1,v_1){\sim_k} (T_2,v_2)$, both $T_1$ and $T_2$ have the same radius $r$. We prove the result by induction on $r$. If $r=0$ then both $T_1$ and $T_2$ consist of only one vertex and we are done. Now let $r>0$ and assume that the statement is true for all smaller values of $r$. Let $\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)}$ and $\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)}$ be the colorings over $T_1$ and $T_2$ as in . We show that there is a winning strategy for Duplicator in $d{\textsc{Ehr}}_k(T_1,v_1;\,\, T_2,v_2)$. At the start of the game, set all the initial edges in $T_1$ and $T_2$ as non-marked. Suppose in the $i$-th round Spoiler plays in $T_1$. The other case is symmetric. If Spoiler plays $v_1$ then Duplicator plays $v_2$. Otherwise, the vertex played by Spoiler belongs to $\mathrm{Tr}(T_1,v_1;\,\,e_1)$ for a unique initial edge $e_1$ of $T_1$. There are two possibilities:
- If $e_1$ is not marked yet, mark it. In this case, there is a non-marked initial edge $e_2$ in $T_2$ satisfying $\left(e_1,\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)}\right)\simeq
\left(e_2,\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)} \right)$. Mark $e_2$ as well. Set $T^\prime_1:=\mathrm{Tr}(T_1,v_1;\,\,e_1)$ and $T^\prime_2:=\mathrm{Tr}(T_2,v_2;\,\,e_2)$ Because of , Duplicator has a winning strategy in $ d{\textsc{Ehr}}{k}(T^\prime_1, v_1;$ $\,\, T^\prime_2,v_2)$ and can play according to it.
- If $e_1$ is already marked then there is a unique initial edge $e_2$ in $T_2$ that was marked during the same round as $e_1$ and it satisfies $\left(e_1,\tau^k_{(T_1,v_1)}\right)\simeq
\left(e_2,\tau^k_{(T_2,v_2)} \right)$. Again, because of , Duplicator has a winning strategy in $d{\textsc{Ehr}}{k}(T^\prime_1, v_1; \,\, T^\prime_2,v_2)$ and can continue playing according to it taking into account the plays made previously in $T^\prime_1$ and $T^\prime_2$.
k-Equivalent hypergraphs {#sect:equivunicycles}
------------------------
\[thm:strategyaux\] Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be non-tree connected hypergraphs satisfying $H_1\sim_k H_2$. Set $H^\prime_1:= Center(H_1)$ and $H^\prime_2:= Center(H_2)$. Let $\tau^k_{H_1}, \tau^k_{H_2}$ be as in . Let $f$ be an isomorphism between $( H^\prime_1,\tau^k_{H_1})$ and $(H^\prime_2,\tau^k_{H_2})$. Let $\overline{v}$ be an ordering of the vertices of $H^\prime_1$ and let $\overline{u}:=f(\overline{v})$ be the corresponding ordering of the vertices of $H^\prime_2$. Then Duplicator wins $ d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}\left(\,
H^\prime_1,\overline{v};\,\,
H^\prime_2,\overline{u}\,
\right).
$
The winning strategy for Duplicator is as follows. Suppose at the beginning of the $i$-th round Spoiler plays in $H_1$ (the case where they play in $H_2$ is symmetric). Then Spoiler has chosen a vertex that belongs to $\mathrm{Tr}(H_1;\,\,u)$ for a unique $u\in H^\prime_1$. Set $T_1:=\mathrm{Tr}\left(H_1;\,\,u\right)$ and $T_2:=\mathrm{Tr}\left(H_2;\,\,f(u)\right)$. By hypothesis $(T_1,u)\sim_k (T_2,f(u))$. Then because of we have that Duplicator has a winning strategy in $
d{\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}\left(\,
T_1,u; \, \, T_2, f(u)\,\right),
$ and they can follow it taking into account the previous moves made in $T_1$ and $T_2$, if any. In particular, if Spoiler has chosen $u$ then Duplicator will necessarily choose $f(u)$. One can easily check that distances are preserved following this strategy.
Main result {#sec:Core}
-----------
\[lem:aux1\] Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $H_1, H_2$ be hypergraphs such that $H_1\approx_{k,r} H_2$. Let $X$ and $Y$ be the sets of vertices in $H_1$, resp. $H_2$, that belong to a saturated sub-hypergraph of diameter at most $2r+1$. Then $(H_1,X)\cong_{k,r} (H_2,Y)$ in the sense of .
Let $X_1,\dots, X_a$ and $Y_1,\dots, Y_b$ be partitions of $X$ and $Y$ such that each $N(X_i;r)$ and $N(Y_i;r)$ is a connected component of $Core(H_1;r)$, resp. $Core(H_2;r)$. Because of $N(X_i;r)\sim_k N(Y_j;r)$ implies $(H_1,X_i)\simeq_{k,r} (H_2,Y_j)$ in the sense of . The result follows now from the definition of $H_1\approx_{k,r}H_2$.
\[thm:Duplicatorwins\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and set $r:=(3^k-1)/2$. Let $H_1$, $H_2$ be hypergraphs. Suppose that both $H_1$ and $H_2$ are $(k,r)$-rich and $H_1\approx_{k,r} H_2$. Then Duplicator wins ${\textsc{Ehr}}_{k}(H_1,H_2)$.
Because of the previous lemma we can apply with $X\subset V(H_1)$ and $Y\subset V(H_2)$ defined as before. The hypothesis of $(k,r)$-richness on both $H_1, H_2$ ensures that condition (2) in the statement of holds.
Probabilistic results
=====================
Almost all hypergraphs are simple
---------------------------------
Let $H$ be a hypergraph, and let $X_n$ be the random variable equal to the number of copies of $H$ in $G_n$. Then $\mathrm{E}\big[X_n\big]=\Theta(n^{-{\mathrm{ex}}(H)})$.
We have $$\mathrm{E}\big[X_n\big]=
\sum_{H^\prime \in Copies(H,[n])} {\mathrm{Pr}\left(H^\prime \subset G_n\right)}.$$ We also have that $\Big|Copies(H,[n])\Big|=\frac{(n)_{|H|}}{{\mathrm{aut}}(H)}$. Also, for any $H^\prime \in Copies(H,[n])$ it holds that $${\mathrm{Pr}\left(H^\prime \subset G_n\right)}\sim \prod_{R\in \sigma} \left(\frac{\beta_R}{n^{ar(R)-1}}
\right)^{|E_R(H)|}.$$ Substituting in the first equation we get $$\mathrm{E}\big[X_n\big]\sim
\frac{(n)_{|H|}}{{\mathrm{aut}}(H)}
\prod_{R\in \sigma} \left(\frac{\beta_R}{n^{ar(R)-1}}\right)^{|E_R(H)|}
\sim
n^{-{\mathrm{ex}}(H)} \frac{\prod_{R\in \sigma} \beta_R^{
|E_R{H}| }}{{\mathrm{aut}}(H)}.$$
\[lem:nocopiesdense\] Let $H$ be a hypergraph such that ${\mathrm{ex}}(H)>0$. Then a.a.s there are no copies of $H$ in $G_n$.
Because of the previous lemma $\mathrm{E}\big[\# \text{ copies of }H \text{ in } G_n\big]
\xrightarrow[]{n\to \infty} 0$ . An application of the first moment method yields the desired result.
\[lem:nocopiesfixed\] Let $H$ be a hypergraph. Let $\overline{v}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be a list of vertices with ${\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})\leq |V(H)|$. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $X_n$ be the random variable that counts the copies of $H$ in $G_n$ that contain the vertices in $\overline{v}$. Then $
\mathrm{E}\big[ X_n \big]=\Theta(n^{-{\mathrm{ex}}(H)-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})})$.
The number of hypergraphs $H^\prime \in Copies(H,[n])$ that contain all vertices in $\overline{v}$ is asymptotically $\sim n^{|V(H)|-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})}$ for some constant $C$. Then, $$\mathrm{E}\big[ X_n \big]\sim
C n^{|V(H)|-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})}
\prod_{R\in\tau} \left( \frac{\beta_R}{n^{ar(R)-1}}\right)^{e_R(H)}=
n^{-{\mathrm{ex}}(H)-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})} C
\prod_{R\in\tau} \left( \beta_R \right)^{e_R(H)}.$$
Given a hypergraph $H$ and an edge $e\in E(H)$ we define the operation of **cutting** the edge $e$ as removing $e$ from $H$ and then removing any isolated vertices from the resulting hypergraph.
Let $G$ be a dense hypergraph with diameter at most $r$, and let $H\subset G$ be a connected sub-hypergraph with ${\mathrm{ex}}(H)<{\mathrm{ex}}(G)$. Then there is a connected sub-hypergraph $H^\prime \subset G$ satisfying $H\subset H^\prime$, ${\mathrm{ex}}(H)<{\mathrm{ex}}(H^\prime)$ and that $|E(H^\prime)|\leq |E(H)|+2 r + 1$,
Suppose there is some edge $e\in E(G)\setminus E(H)$ with and ${\mathrm{ex}}(e)\geq 0$. Let $P$ be a path of length at most $r$ joining $H$ and $e$ in $G$. Then $H^\prime:=H\cup P \cup e$ satisfies the conditions of the statement. Otherwise, all edges $e\in E(G)\setminus E(H)$ satisfy ${\mathrm{ex}}(e)=-1$. In this case we successively cut edges $e$ from $G$ such that $d(e, H)$ is the maximum possible (notice that this always yields a connected hypergraph) until we obtain a hypergraph $G^\prime$ with ${\mathrm{ex}}(G^\prime)<{\mathrm{ex}}(G)$. Let $e$ be the edge that was cut last. Then $V(G^\prime)\cap V(e)=
{\mathrm{ex}}(G)-{\mathrm{ex}}(G^\prime)+1 \geq 2$. Let $v_1, v_2\in V(G^\prime)\cap V(e)$, and let $P_1$, $P_2$ be paths of length at most $r$ that join $H$ with $v_1$ and $v_2$ respectively in $G^\prime$. Then the hypergraph $H^\prime:=H\cup e \cup P^1 \cup P^2$ satisfies the conditions in the statement.
Let $G$ be a dense hypergraph of diameter at most $r$. Then $G$ contains a connected dense sub-hypergraph $H$ with $|E(H)|\leq 4r+2$.
Apply the previous lemma twice starting with $G$ and taking as $H$ a sub-hypergraph of $G$ consisting of a single vertex and no edges.
In particular, if we define $l:=\max\limits_{R\in \sigma} \,\, ar(R)$ the last lemma implies that, if $G$ is a dense hypergraph whose diameter is at most $r$ then $G$ contains a dense sub-hypergraph $H$ with $|H|\leq l (4r+2)$.
\[thm:sparse\] Let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s $G_n$ is $r$-sparse.
Because of the last lemma there is a constant $R$ such that “$G$ does not contain dense hypergraphs of size bounded by $R$" implies that “$G$ is $r$-sparse". Thus, $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left( G_n \text{ is } r \text{-sparse} \right)
\geq {\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left( G_n \text{ does not contain dense
hypergraphs of size} \leq R\right).$$ Because of , given a fixed dense hypergraph, the probability that $G_n$ contains no copies of it tends to $1$ as $n$ goes to infinity. Using that there are a finite number of $\sim$ classes of dense hypergraphs whose size bounded by $R$, we deduce that the RHS of the last inequality tends to $1$.
As a corollary we obtain the needed result.
\[cor:simple\] Let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s $G_n$ is $r$-simple.
If some connected component of $Core(G_n;r)$ is not a cycle then either $G_n$ contains a dense hypergraph of diameter at most $4r+1$, or $G_n$ contains two cycles of diameter at most $2r+1$ that are at distance at most $2r+1$. In the second case, considering the two cycles and the path joining them, $G_n$ contains a dense hypergraph of diameter bounded by $6r+3$. Hence the fact that $G_n$ is $(6r+3)$-sparse implies that $G_n$ is $r$-simple. Because of the previous theorem $G_n$ is a.a.s $(6r+3)$-sparse and the result follows.
\[lem:disjointtrees\] Let $\overline{v}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ and let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s, for all vertices $v\in \overline{v}$ the neighborhoods $N(v;r)$ are all trees and they are all disjoint.
An application of the first moment method together with and the fact that there is a finite number of $\simeq$ classes of paths whose length is at most $2r+1$, implies that a.a.s the $N(v;r)$ are disjoint. Also, because of a.a.s the $N(v;r)$ are either trees or unicycles. But if any of the $N(v;r)$ was an unicycle then in $G_n$ there would exist a path $P$ of length at most $2r+1$ joining some vertex $v\in \overline{v}$ with a cycle $C$ of diameter at most $2r+1$. Using again, as well as the fact that there is a finite number of possible $\simeq$ classes for $P\cup C$, we obtain that a.a.s no such $P$ and $C$ exist. In consequence all the $N(v;r)$ are disjoint trees as we wanted to prove.
\[lem:far\_away\] Let $\overline{v} \subset {\mathbb{N}}*$ be a finite set of fixed vertices and let $\pi(\overline{x})$ be an edge sentence such that ${\mathrm{len}}(\overline{x})={\mathrm{len}}(\overline{v})$. Define $G_n^\prime=G_n \setminus E[\overline{v}]$ (i.e. $G_n$ minus all the edges induced on $\overline{v}$). Fix $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s for all vertices $v\in \overline{v}$ the neighborhoods $N^{G^\prime_n}(v;\,r)$ are disjoint trees.
Let $A_n$ be the event that the $N^{G^\prime_n}(v;\,r)$ are disjoint trees. Notice that $A_n$ does not concern the possible edges induced over $\overline{v}$. Because edges are independent in our random model, we have that $\mathrm{Pr}\left(A_n \, | \, \pi(\overline{v})\right)
=\mathrm{Pr}(A_n)$. Now the result follows from using that $G^\prime_n\subset G_n$.
Probabilities of trees
----------------------
\[def:treeprobabilies\] We define $\Lambda$ and $M$ as the minimal families of expressions with arguments $\{\beta_R\}_{R\in\sigma}$ that satisfy the conditions: **(1)** $1\in \Lambda$, **(2)** for any $R\in \sigma$, any positive $b\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and $\overline{\lambda} \in \Lambda^*$, the expression $(\beta_R/b) \prod_{\lambda\in \overline{\lambda}}
\lambda$ belongs to $M$, **(3)** for any $\mu\in M$ and any $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ both $\mathrm{Poiss}_{\mu}(n)$ and $\mathrm{Poiss}_\mu(\geq n)$ are in $\Lambda$, and **(4)** for any $\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \in \Lambda$, the product $\lambda_1\lambda_2$ belongs to $\Lambda$ as well.
Let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\mathbf{T}$ be a $\sim_k$ class of trees with radius at most $r$. Let $v\in {\mathbb{N}}$ be an arbitrary vertex. We define $\mathrm{Pr}[r,\mathbf{T}]$ as the limit $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
Tr(G_n,\,v;\,v;\,r)\in \mathbf{T}\right).$$
Note that the definition of $\mathrm{Pr}[r,\mathbf{T}]$ does not depend on the choice of $v$. The goal of this section is to show that $\mathrm{Pr}[r,\mathbf{T}]$ exists and is an expression with parameters $\{\beta_R\}_{R\in\sigma}$ belonging to $\Lambda$ for any choice of $r$ and $\mathbf{T}$.
\[thm:BigTrees\] Fix $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ The following hold:
- Let $\mathbf{T}$ be a $k$-equivalence class of trees with radii at most $r$. Then $
\mathrm{Pr}[r,\mathbf{T}]
$ exists, is positive for all choices of $\{\beta_R\}_{R}\in (0,\infty)^{|\sigma|}$, and is an expression in $\Lambda$.
- Let $\overline{u}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$, and let $\pi(\overline{x})\in FO[\sigma]$ be a consistent edge sentence such that ${\mathrm{len}}(\overline{x})={\mathrm{len}}(\overline{u})$. Let $\overline{v}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be vertices contained in $\overline{u}$. For each $v\in \overline{v}$ let $\mathbf{T}_v$ be a $k$-equivalence class of trees with radii at most $r$. Then $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left( \bigwedge_{v\in \overline{v}}
Tr\left(G_n, \overline{u};\,\,v;\,\,r\right)\in \mathbf{T}_v
\, | \, \pi(\overline{u})
\right)= \prod_{v\in \overline{v}} \mathrm{Pr}[r,\mathbf{T}_v].$$
We devote the rest of this section to proving this theorem. The proof is by induction on $r$. Recall that all trees with radius zero are $k$-equivalent. Thus, the limits appearing in conditions (1) and (2) are both equal to $1$ in the case $r=0$.
Conditions (1) and (2) of are satisfied for $r=0$.
Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $r>0$. Suppose that holds for $r-1$. Given a $(k,r)$-pattern $\epsilon$ we define the expressions $\lambda_{r,\epsilon}$ and $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$ as follows. Let $(e,\tau)$ be a representative of $\epsilon$ whose root is $v$. Then for all vertices $u\in V(e)$ such that $u\neq v$ it holds that $\tau(u)$ is a $\sim_k$ class of trees with radius at most $r$ and we can set $$\lambda_{r,\epsilon}:=\prod_{\substack{u\in V(e)\ u\neq v} } \mathrm{Pr}\big[
r-1, \tau(u)\big], \quad \text{ and } \quad
\mu_{r,\epsilon}=\frac{\beta_{R(e)}}{{\mathrm{aut}}(\epsilon)}
\lambda_{r,\epsilon}.$$
Clearly the definitions of $\lambda_{r,\epsilon}$ and $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$ are independent of the chosen representative. By hypothesis it holds that $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$ is positive for all values of $\{ \beta_R \}_{R\in \sigma}\in (0,\infty)^{|\sigma|}$ and it is an expression belonging to $M$.
\[lem:poisedges\] Let $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $r>0$ and $\overline{u}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$. Let $\pi(\overline{x})\in FO[\sigma]$ be a consistent edge sentence such that ${\mathrm{len}}(\overline{x})={\mathrm{len}}(\overline{u})$. Let $\overline{v}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be vertices contained in $\overline{u}$. For each $v\in \overline{v}$ set $T_{n,v}:= {\mathrm{Tr}}\left(G_n, \overline{u};\,\,v;\,\,r\right)$. Given a pattern $\epsilon\in P(k,r)$ and $v\in \overline{v}$ we define the random variable $X_{n,v,\epsilon}$ as the number of initial edges $e\in E(T_{n,v})$ such that $(e,\tau^k_{(T_{n,v},v)})\in \epsilon$. Suppose that holds for $r-1$. Then the conditional distributions of the variables $X_{n,v,\epsilon}$ given $\pi(\overline{u})$ converge to independent Poisson distributions whose respective mean values are given by the $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$.
To avoid excessively complex notation we prove only the case where $\overline{v}$ consists of a single vertex $v$. The general case is proven using the same arguments. Set $T_n:=T_{n,v}$ and $X_{n,\epsilon}:=X_{n,v,\epsilon}$ for all $\epsilon\in P(k,r)$. By , in order to prove the result it is enough to show that for any choice of natural numbers $\{b_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}$ it holds that $$\label{eqn:binomexpedges}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{E}_{\pi(\overline{u})}
\left[
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \binom{X_{n,\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon}
\right]
= \prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \frac{(\mu_{r,\epsilon})^
{b_\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon!}.$$ Consider the numbers $\{b_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}$ fixed. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ define $$\Omega_n:=\left\{
\{E_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \quad
\Big | \quad \forall \epsilon\in P(k,r) \quad
E_\epsilon\subset Copies(\epsilon,[n],(v,\rho)),
\quad |E_\epsilon|=b_\epsilon
\right\}.$$ Informally, elements of $\Omega_n$ represent choices of $b_\epsilon$ possible initial edges of $T_n$ whose $k$- pattern is $\epsilon$ for all $(k,r)$-patterns $\epsilon$. Using we obtain $$\mathrm{E}_{\pi(\overline{u})}
\left[
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \binom{X_{n,\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon}
\right]
=
\sum_{
\{E_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon}
\in \Omega_n}
\mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})}\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}} \left(
e\in E(T_n) \bigwedge_{\substack{
u\in V(e)\\
u\neq v}} Tr(T_n,v;u)\in \tau(u)
\right)
\right).$$ We say that a choice $\{E_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon}$ $\in \Omega_n$ is **disjoint** if the edges $(e,\tau)\in\bigcup_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} E_\epsilon$ satisfy that no vertex $w\in \overline{u}$ other than $v$ belongs to any of those edges and each vertex $w\in [n]\setminus\{v\}$ belongs to at most one of those edges. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $\Omega_n^\prime\subset \Omega_n$ be the set of disjoint elements in $\Omega_n$ and set $\Omega^\prime_{\mathbb{N}}= \cup_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}} \Omega^\prime_n$. If for some $\{E_\epsilon\}_\epsilon \in \Omega_n$ we have that $e\in E(T_n)$ for all $(e,\tau)\in
\bigcup_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} E_\epsilon$ then $\{E_\epsilon\}_\epsilon$ is necessarily disjoint. This is because $T_n$ is a tree and the only vertex in $\overline{u}$ that belongs to $T_n$ is $v$ by definition. Thus, in the last sum it suffices to consider only the disjoint $\{E_\epsilon\}_\epsilon$. Because of the symmetry of the random model the probabilities in that sum are the same for all disjoint choices of $\{E_\epsilon\}_\epsilon$. Hence, if we fix $\{E_\epsilon\}_{\epsilon}\in \Omega^\prime_{\mathbb{N}}$ we obtain $$\label{eqn:aux2}
\mathrm{E}_{\pi(\overline{u})}
\left[
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \binom{X_{n,\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon}
\right]
=
|\Omega_n^\prime|
\mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})}\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}} \left(
e\in E(T_n) \bigwedge_{\substack{
u\in V(e)\\
u\neq v}} Tr(T_n,v;u)\in \tau(u)
\right)
\right).$$
Set $N:=\sum_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}
(|\epsilon|-1) b_\epsilon$. Counting vertices and automorphisms we get that $$\label{eqn:aux3}
|\Omega_n^\prime|= (n-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{u}))_{N}
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}
\frac{1}{b_\epsilon!}
\left( \frac{1}{{\mathrm{aut}}(\epsilon)} \right)^
{b_\epsilon} .$$ Let $\overline{w}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be a list containing exactly the vertices $u\in V(e)$ for all $e\in
\bigcup_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} E_\epsilon$. Clearly, the event $$\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}} e\in E(G_n)$$ can be described via an edge sentence whose variables are interpreted as vertices in $\overline{w}$. Let $\psi(\overline{x})$ be one of such edge sentences. This event is independent of $\pi(\overline{u})$ because edges are independent in $G_n$. Thus, a simple computation yields $$\mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})}
\left(\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}} e\in E(G_n)\right) = \prod_{\epsilon\in
P(k,r)} \left(
\frac{\beta_{R(\epsilon)}}{n^{ar(R(\epsilon)-1)}}
\right)^{b_\epsilon}=
\frac{1}{n^N}
\prod_{\epsilon\in
P(k,r)} \beta_{R(\epsilon)}^{b_\epsilon}.$$
Because of a.a.s if $e\in E(G_n)$ and $v\in V(e)$, then $e\in E(T_n)$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:aux4}
&\mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})}\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}} \left(
e\in E(T_n) \bigwedge_{\substack{
u\in V(e)\\
u\neq v}} Tr(T_n;\, u)
\in \tau(u)
\right)
\right)\sim \\ \nonumber
&
\left(\frac{1}{n^N}
\prod_{\epsilon\in
P(k,r)} \beta_{R(\epsilon)}^{b_\epsilon}\right)
\mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})\wedge \psi(\overline{w})}\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}}
\bigwedge_{\substack{
u\in V(e)\\
u\neq v
}}Tr(T_n;\, u)\in \tau(u)
\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The trees $Tr(T_n;u)$ in the last probability coincide with $Tr(G_n,\overline{u}^\smallfrown\overline{w};\,u;\, r-1)$ for all $u$. As a consequence, using the hypothesis that holds for $r-1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathrm{Pr}_{\pi(\overline{u})\wedge \psi(\overline{w})}
\left(
\bigwedge_{\substack{
\epsilon\in P(k,r)\\
(e, \tau)\in E_{\epsilon}
}}
\bigwedge_{\substack{
u\in V(e)\\
u\neq v
}}Tr(T_n;\, u)\in \tau(u)
\right) \sim
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} (\lambda_{r,\epsilon})^{b_\epsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this this with we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{E}_{\pi(\overline{u})}
\left[
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)} \binom{X_{n,\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon}
\right]
\sim \\
\frac{(n-{\mathrm{len}}(\overline{u}))_{N}}
{n^{N}}
\prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}
\frac{1}{b_\epsilon!}
\left( \frac{\beta_{R(\epsilon)} \lambda_{r,\epsilon}
}{{\mathrm{aut}}(\epsilon)} \right)^
{b_\epsilon} \sim \prod_{\epsilon\in P(k,r)}
\frac{\left( \mu_{r,\epsilon} \right)^
{b_\epsilon}}{b_\epsilon!}.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves and the statement.
Next lemma completes the proof of .
\[lem:singletreeprob\] Let $r>0$. Suppose that holds for $r-1$. Then it also holds for $r$.
Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. We start showing condition (1) of . Fix $\mathbf{T}$ a $\sim_k$ class of trees with radius at most $r$. Fix a vertex $v\in {\mathbb{N}}$ as well. Set $T_n:={\mathrm{Tr}}(G_n,v;\,v;\,r)$. For each $\epsilon\in P(k,r)$ let $X_{n,\epsilon}$ be the random variable that counts the number of initial edges in $T_n$ whose pattern is $\epsilon$. Let $E^1_\mathbf{T}, E^2_\mathbf{T},
\{a_\epsilon\}_\epsilon$ be as in . Then $$\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}]=
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}(T_n\in \mathbf{T})
=
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\left(
\bigwedge_{\epsilon\in E^1_\mathbf{T}}
X_{n,\epsilon}\geq k
\right) \wedge
\left(
\bigwedge_{\epsilon\in E^2_\mathbf{T}}
X_{n,\epsilon}= a_\epsilon
\right)
\right).$$ Using the previous lemma we obtain that the last limit equals the following expression: $$\left(
\prod_{\epsilon\in E^1_\mathbf{T}}
\mathrm{Poiss}_{\mu_{r,\epsilon}}(\geq k )
\right)
\left(
\prod_{\epsilon\in E^2_\mathbf{T}}
\mathrm{Poiss}_{\mu_{r,\epsilon}}(a_\epsilon)
\right).$$ Using the definition of the $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$ we obtain that the last expression belongs to $\Lambda$ as we wanted to prove. Furthermore, as the $\mu_{r,\epsilon}$ are positive, this expression is also positive for all values of $\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma}\in (0,\infty)^{|\sigma|}$. Now we proceed to prove condition (2). Let $\overline{u},\overline{v}, \{\mathbf{T}_v\}_{v\in \overline{v}}$ and $\pi(\overline{x})$ be as in the statement of (2). Using the previous lemma we obtain that the events $Tr(G_n,\overline{u};\, v;\, r)\in \mathbf{T}_v$ for all $v\in \overline{v}$ are asymptotically independent and are also independent of $\pi(\overline{u})$. Then the desired result follows from condition (1).
Almost all graphs are (k,r)-rich
--------------------------------
\[thm:rich\] Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then a.a.s $G_n$ is $(k,r)$-rich.
Let $\Sigma$ be the set of all $\sim_k$ classes of rooted trees with radii at most $r$. Let $m>k$. For each $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$ let $\overline{v}(\mathbf{T})\in ({\mathbb{N}})_m$ be tuples satisfying that all the $\overline{v}(\mathbf{T})$ are disjoint. Let $\overline{w}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be a concatenation of all the $\overline{v}(\mathbf{T})$. For each $\mathbf{T}\in
\Sigma$ define $X_{n,\mathbf{T}}$ as the number of vertices $v\in \overline{v}(\mathbf{T})$ such that $Tr(G_n,\,\overline{w};\,v;\,r)\in \mathbf{T}$. Because of the $\sim_k$ types of the trees $Tr(G_n,\,\overline{w};\,v;\,r)$ for all $v\in \overline{w}$ are asymptotically independent and given any $v\in \overline{w}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ it holds that $\mathrm{Pr}(Tr(G_n,\,\overline{w};\,v;\,r)\in \mathbf{T})$ tends to $\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}]$ as $n$ goes to infinity. Hence, the variables $X_{n,\mathbf{T}}$ converge in distribution to independent binomial variables whose respective parameters are $m$ and $\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}]$. That is, given natural numbers $0\leq l_\mathbf{T} \leq m$ for all $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$, $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma} X_{n,\mathbf{T}}=l_\mathbf{T}
\right)=
\prod_{\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma} \binom{m}{l_\mathbf{T}}
\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}]^{l_\mathbf{T}} (1-\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}] )^{m-l_\mathbf{T}}.$$ Fix $\delta>0$ such that $\delta< \Pr[r,\mathbf{T}]$ for all $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$ and fix $\epsilon>0$ arbitrarily small. Because of the Law of large numbers, if $m$ is large enough $$\label{eq:rich1}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\big| X_{n,\mathbf{T}}/m - \Pr[r,\mathbf{T}] \big| \geq \delta
\right) \leq \epsilon \quad \text{ for all $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$.}$$ Also, for $m$ large enough we have $$\label{eq:rich2}
\Pr[r,\mathbf{T}] > k/m + \delta \quad \text{for all $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$}.$$ Suppose that $m$ is large enough for both to hold. Then $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
X_{n,\mathbf{T}} < k \right) \leq \epsilon \quad \text{ for all $\mathbf{T}\in \Sigma$}$$ We define $A_n$ as the event that for any $v\in \overline{w}$ we have $N(v;r)\cap Core(G_n;r)=\emptyset$ (in particular this implies that $N(v;r)$ is a tree), and for any two $v_1,v_2\in \overline{w}$ it is satisfied that $d^{G_n}(v_1,v_2)>2r+1$. If $A_n$ holds then for all $v\in \overline{w}$ we have that $N(v;r)=Tr(G_n,\,\overline{w};\,v;\,r)$ and the $N(v;r)$ are disjoint trees. Thus, if both $A_n$ holds and $X_{n,\mathbb{T}}\geq k$ for all $\mathbb{T}$ then $G_n$ is $(k,r)$-rich. Because of a.a.s $A_n$ holds, and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\text{ $G_n$ is not
$(k,r)$-rich }
\right) &\leq
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
A_n \wedge \left(
\bigvee X_{n,\mathbf{T}}<k
\right)
\right)\\ & =
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigvee X_{n,\mathbf{T}}<k
\right)
\leq \epsilon^{|\Sigma|}.
\end{aligned}$$ As $\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small given a suitable choice of $m$ we obtain that necessarily a.a.s $G_n$ is $(k,r)$-rich, as was to be proved.
Probabilities of cycles
-----------------------
We define $\Gamma$ and $\Upsilon$ as the minimal families of expressions with arguments $\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma}$ that satisfy the following conditions: (1) given natural numbers $a_R$ for each $R\in \sigma$, a positive number $b\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a $\lambda\in \Lambda$, the expression $\frac{\lambda}{b} \prod_{R\in \sigma} \beta_R^{a_R}$ belongs to $\Gamma$, (2) given a $\gamma\in \Gamma$ and a $a\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the expressions $\mathrm{Poiss}_\gamma(a)$ and $\mathrm{Poiss}_{\gamma}(\geq a)$ both belong to $\Upsilon$, and (3) if $\upsilon_1, \upsilon_2\in \Upsilon$ then $\upsilon_1 \upsilon_2 \in \Upsilon$ as well.
Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $O\in C(k,r)$. Let $(H,\tau)$ be a representative of $O$. We define $\lambda_{r,O}$ and $\gamma_{r,O}$ in the following way: $$\lambda_{r,O}:
=\prod_{v\in V(H)}
\mathrm{Pr} \big[ r, \tau(v) \big],
\quad
\text{ and } \quad
\gamma_{r,O}:=
\frac{\prod_{R\in \sigma} \beta_R^{|E_R(H)|}}
{{\mathrm{aut}}(H,\tau)} \lambda_{r,O}.$$ Clearly the definitions of $\lambda_{r,O}$ and $\gamma_{r,O}$ are independent of the chosen representative and the expression $\gamma_{r,O}$ belongs to $\Gamma$.
Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$. For any $O\in C(k,r)$ let $X_{n,O}$ be the random variable equal to the number of connected components $H$ of $Core(G_n;\, r)$ such that $H^\prime:=Center(H)$ satisfies that $(H^\prime, \tau^k_{H})\in O$. Then the $X_{n,O}$ converge in distribution to independent Poisson variables whose respective expected values are given by the $\gamma_{r,O}$.
The proof is similar to the one of . By , to prove the result is enough to show that for any natural numbers $\{b_O\}_{O\in C(k,r)}$ it holds $$\label{eq:cycl_aux}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\binom{X_{n,O}}{b_O}
\right]= \prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\frac{(\gamma_{r,O})^{b_O}}{b_O!}.$$ For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define $$\Omega_n:=\left\{
\{F_O\}_{O\in C(k,r)} \quad \Big|
\quad \forall O\in C(k,r) \quad
F_O\subset Copies(O,[n]), \quad
|F_O|=b_O
\right\}.$$ Given a cycle $H$ such that $V(H)\subseteq [n]$ we say that $H\sqsubset G_n$ if $H=Center(H^\prime)$ for some connected component $H^\prime$ of $Core(G_n;\, r)$. Using observation we obtain $$\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\binom{X_{n,O}}{b_O}
\right]=
\sum_{\{F_O\}_{O}\in \Omega_n}
\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O
}}
\left(
H\sqsubset G_n
\bigwedge_{v\in V(H)}
Tr(G_n,v;r)\in \tau(v)
\right)
\right).$$ We call a choice $\{F_O\}_O\in \Omega_n$ **disjoint** if no vertex $v\in [n]$ belongs to two cycles $(H,\tau)\in \cup_O \, F_O$. Define $\Omega_n^\prime$ as the set of disjoint elements in $\Omega_n$ and set $\Omega_{\mathbb{N}}^\prime:=\cup_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}} \Omega^\prime_n$. If for some $\{F_O\}_O\in \Omega_n$ it holds that $H \sqsubset G_n$ for all $(H,\tau)\in \cup_O F_O$ then necessarily $\{F_O\}_O$ is disjoint. Indeed, suppose the opposite. Then for some $(H_1,\tau_1), (H_2,\tau_2)\in \cup_O F_O$ it holds that $V(H_1)\cap V(H_2)\neq \emptyset$. Then both $H_1$ and $H_2$ belong to the same connected component $H$ of $Core(G_n;\,r)$ and thus $H_1\cup H_2\subset
Center(H)$. As a consequence neither $H_1\sqsubset G_n$ or $H_2\sqsubset G_n$ hold. $(H_1,\tau_1),(H_2,\tau_2)\in \bigcup_{O\in C(k,r)} F_O$. Hence in the last sum it suffices to consider disjoint choices $\{F_O\}_O$. Because of the symmetry of the random model the probability in that sum is the same for all disjoint choices of $\{F_O\}_O$. In consequence, if we fix $\{F_O\}_{O}\in \Omega^\prime_{\mathbb{N}}$ we obtain $$\label{eq:cycl_aux1}
\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\binom{X_{n,O}}{b_O}
\right]=
|\Omega^\prime_n|
\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O
}}
\left(
H\sqsubset G_n
\bigwedge_{v\in V(H)}
Tr(G_n,v;r)\in \tau(v)
\right)
\right).$$
Set $N:=\sum_{O\in C(k,r)} |O| b_O$. We have that $$\label{eq:cycl_aux2}
|\Omega_n^{\prime}|=
\frac{(n)_N}
{\prod_{O\in C(k,r)} b_O! {\mathrm{aut}}(O)^{b_O}}.$$ Let $\overline{v}\in ({\mathbb{N}})_*$ be a list that contains exactly the vertices in $G\left(
\{F_O\}_{O\in C(k,r)} \right)$. Then the event $$\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O\\
}}
H\subset G_n$$ can be written as an edge sentence concerning the vertices in $\overline{v}$. Let $\varphi(\overline{x})$ be one of such sentences. We have that $$\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O\\
}}
H\subset G_n
\right)= \prod_{O\in C(k,r)} \left( \frac{\prod_{R\in \sigma}
\beta_R^{|E_R(O)|}}{n^{|O|}} \right)^{b_O}=
\frac{1}{n^N}
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)} \left( \prod_{R\in \sigma}
\beta_R^{|E_R(O)|} \right)^{b_O}.$$ Because of a.a.s if some cycle $H$ of diameter at most $2r+1$ satisfies $H\subset G_n$ then $H\sqsubset G_n$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\mathrm{Pr}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O
}}
\left(
H\sqsubset G_n
\bigwedge_{v\in V(H)}
Tr(G_n,v;r)\in \tau(v)
\right)
\right) \sim \\ \label{eq:cycl_aux3}
&\frac{1}{n^N}
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)} \left( \prod_{R\in \sigma}
\beta_R^{|E_R(O)|} \right)^{b_O}
\mathrm{Pr}_{\varphi(\overline{v})}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O
}}
\bigwedge_{v\in V(H)}
Tr(G_n,v;r)\in \tau(v)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ As all the vertices $v\in \overline{v}$ belong to $Core(G_n;\,r)$, the trees $Tr(G_n;\,v;\,r)$ in the last probability coincide with $Tr(G_n,\,\overline{v};\, v;\, r)$. By we have that $$\mathrm{Pr}_{\varphi(\overline{v})}\left(
\bigwedge_{
\substack{
O\in C(k,r)\\
(H,\tau)\in F_O
}}
\bigwedge_{v\in V(H)}
Tr(G_n,v;r)\in \tau(v)
\right) \sim
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)} \left(
\lambda_{r,O}
\right)^{b_O}.$$ Combining this with we obtain $$\mathrm{E}\left[
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\binom{X_{n,O}}{b_O}
\right]\sim
\frac{(n)_N}{n^N}
\prod_{O\in C(k,r)}
\frac{1}{b_O!}
\left(
\frac{\lambda_{r,O} \prod_{R\in\sigma} \beta_R^{|E_R(O)|}}{{\mathrm{aut}}(O)}
\right) \sim \prod_{O\in C(k,r)} \frac{(\gamma_{r,O})^{b_O}}{b_O!}.$$ This proves and the statement.
\[thm:agreeabilityprobabilities\] Let $k,r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\mathbf{O}$ be a simple $(k,r)$-agreeability class of hypergraphs. Then ${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n\in \mathbf{O}\right)}$ exists and is an expression in $\Upsilon$.
For each $O\in C(k,r)$ let $X_{n,O}$ be as in the previous lemma. Let $U_\mathbf{O}^1, U_\mathbf{O}^2$ and $\{a_O\}_{O\in U^2_\mathbf{O}}$ be as in . Let $A_n$ be the event that $G_n$ is $r$-simple. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(G_n \in \mathbf{O}\right)}=
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left(
A_n \wedge
\left(
\bigwedge_{O\in U_\mathbf{O}^1}
X_{n,O}\geq k
\right)
\wedge
\left(
\bigwedge_{O\in U^2_\mathbf{O}}
X_{n,O}=a_O.
\right)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Because of , a.a.s $A_n$ holds. Thus, using the last lemma the previous limit equals the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\prod_{O\in C_1}
\mathrm{Poiss}_{\gamma_{r,O}}(\geq k)
\right)
\left(
\prod_{O\in C_2}
\mathrm{Poiss}_{\gamma_{r,O}}(a_O)
\right)
.\end{aligned}$$ As all the $\gamma_{r,O}$ belong to $\Gamma$, this last expression belongs to $\Upsilon$ and the theorem is proven.
Proof of the main theorem {#sect:main}
=========================
Let $\phi\in FO[\sigma]$. Then the function $F_\phi: [O,\infty)^{|\sigma|}\rightarrow [0,1]$ given by $$\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma} \mapsto
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left(
G_n\left(\{\beta_R\}_{R}\right) \models \phi
\right)$$ is well defined and it is given by a finite sum of expressions in $\Upsilon$.
Let $k$ be the quantifier rank of $\phi$ and let $r=3^k$. Let $G_n:=G_n\left(\{\beta_R\}_{R\in \sigma}\right)$ and let $\Sigma$ be the set of $(k,r)$-agreeability classes of $r$-simple hypergraphs. Because of a.a.s $G_n$ is $r$-simple. Thus $$\label{eq:aux1}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left(
G_n \models \phi
\right)=
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\sum_{\mathbf{O}\in \Sigma} \mathrm{Pr}\left(
G_n\in \mathbf{O}
\right)
\mathrm{Pr}\left(
G_n\models \phi \,
\Big| \,
G_n\in \mathbf{O}
\right).$$ Because the set $\Sigma$ is finite, we can exchange the summation and the limit. By a.a.s $G_n$ is $(k,r)$-rich. This together with implies that for any $\mathbf{O}\in \Sigma$ $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
G_n\models \phi \,
\Big| \,
G_n\in \mathbf{O}
\right) =
\text{ $0$ or $1$ }.$$ Let $\Sigma^\prime\subset \Sigma$ be the set of classes $\mathbf{O}$ for which last limit equals $1$. Then $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left(
G_n \models \phi
\right)=
\sum_{\mathbf{O}\in \Sigma^\prime}
{\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left(
G_n \in \mathbf{O}
\right).$$ Because of we know that each of the limits inside the last sum exists and is given by an expression that belongs to $\Upsilon$. As a consequence the theorem follows.
Application to random SAT {#sec:SAT}
=========================
We define a binomial model of random CNF formulas, in analogy with the one in [@chvatal1992mick], but the generality in allows for many variants.
\[def:CNF\] Given a variable $x$, both expressions $x$ and $\neg x$ are called **literals**. A **clause** is a set of literals. A clause $C$ is called **non-tautological** if no variable $x$ satisfies that both $x$ and $\neg x$ belong to $C$. An **assignment** over a set of variables $X$ is a map $f$ that assigns $0$ or $1$ to each variable of $X$. A clause $C$ is **satisfied** by an assignment $f$ if either there is some variable $x$ such that $x\in C$ and $f(x)=1$ or there is some variable $x$ such that $\neg x\in C$ and $f(x)=0$. Given $l\in{\mathbb{N}}$ a $l$-**CNF formula** is a set of non-tautological clauses that contain exactly $l$ literals. We say that a formula $F$ on the variables $x_1,\dots, x_n$ is **satisfiable** if there is an assignment $f:\{x_1,\dots, x_n\}\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ that satisfies all clauses in $F$.
Given $n, l \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a real number $0\leq p \leq 1$ we define the random model $F(l,n,p)$ as the discrete probability space that assigns to each $l$-CNF formula $F$ on the variables $\{x_i\}_{i\in [n]}$ the probability $${\mathrm{Pr}\left(F\right)}= p^{|F|} (1-p)^{2^l\binom{n}{l}-|F|},$$ where $|F|$ is the number of clauses in $F$. Equivalently, a random formula in $F(l,n,p)$ is obtained by choosing each of the $2^l\binom{n}{l}$ non-tautological clauses of size $l$ on the variables $\{x_i\}_{i}$ with probability $p$ independently. When $p$ is a function of $n$ satisfying $p(n)\sim \beta/n^{l-1}$ we denote by $F^l_n(\beta)$ a random sample of $F(l,n,p(n))$.
We consider $l$-CNF formulas, as defined above, as relational structures with a language $\sigma$ consisting of $l+1$ relation symbols $R_0,\dots, R_l$ of arity $l$. We do that in such a way that the expression $R_j(x_{i_1},\dots,x_{i_l})$ means that our formula contains the clause consisting of $\neg x_{i_1}, \dots, \neg x_{i_j}$ and $x_{i_{j+1}},\dots
x_{i_l}$. The relations $R_1,\dots, R_l$ satisfy the following axioms: (1) given $0\leq j \leq l$ and variables $y_1,\dots, y_l$ the fact that $R_j(y_1,\dots, y_l)$ holds is invariant under any permutation of the variables $y_1,\dots,y_j$ or $y_{j+1},\dots,y_l$, and (2) for any $0\leq j \leq l$ and any variables $y_1,\dots, y_l$ it holds that $R_j(y_1,\dots, y_l)$ only if all the $y_i$ are different. Call $\mathcal{C}$ to the family of $\sigma$-structures satisfying the last two axioms. The language $\sigma$ and the family $\mathcal{C}$ satisfy the conditions in . The random model $F_l(n,p)$ coincides with the model $G(n,\{p_R\}_{R})$ of random $\mathcal{C}$-hypergraphs described in when all the $p_R$ are equal. As a particular case of we obtain the following result.
\[thm:mainsat\] Let $l>1$ be a natural number. Then for each sentence $\Phi\in FO[\sigma]$ it is satisfied that the map $f_\Phi: (0,\infty) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ given by $$\beta \mapsto {\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left( F^l_n(\beta)\models \Phi\right)}$$ is well defined and analytic.
The following is a well known result regarding random CNF formulas.
Let $l\geq 2$ be a natural number, and let $c\in (0,\infty)$ be an arbitrary real number. Let $m:{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ be such that $m(n)\sim c n$. For each $n$ let $C_{n,1},\dots, C_{n,m(n)}$ be clauses chosen uniformly at random independently among the $2^l \binom{n}{l}$ non-tautological clauses of size $l$ over the variables $x_1,\dots, x_n$. For each $n$, let $UNSAT_n$ denote the event that there is no assignment of the variables $x_1,\dots,x_n$ that satisfies all clauses $C_{n,1},\dots, C_{n,m(n)}$. Then there are two real constants $0<c_1<c_2$, such that a.a.s $UNSAT_n$ does not hold if $c< c_1$, and a.a.s $UNSAT_n$ holds if $c> c_2$.
The existence of $c_1$ is proven in [@chvatal1992mick Theorem 1]. The fact that $c_2$ exists follows from a direct application of the first moment method and is also shown for instance in [@chvatal1992mick; @franco1983probabilistic; @chvatal1988many]. We want to show that an analogous “phase transition" also happens in $F(l,n,p)$ when $p\sim \beta/n^{l-1}$. We start by showing the following
Let $l\geq 2$ be a natural number. Let $c\in (0,\infty)$ be an arbitrary real number and let $m:{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ satisfy $m(n)\sim c n$. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $F_{n,m(n)}$ be a random formula chosen uniformly at random among all sets of $m(n)$ non-tautological clauses of size $l$ over the variables $x_1,\dots, x_n$. Then there are two real positive constants $0<c_1<c_2$ such that a.a.s $F_{n,m(n)}$ is satisfiable if $c< c_1$, and a.a.s $F_{n,m(n)}$ is unsatisfiable if $c> c_2$.
For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $C_{n,1},\dots, C_{n,m(n)}$ and $UNSAT_n$ be as in the previous theorem. One can consider $F_{n,m(n)}$ to be the result of selecting clauses $C_{n,1},\dots, C_{n,m(n)}$ uniformly at random independently among all possible clauses, given the fact that no two clauses $C_{n,i}, C_{n,j}$ are equal. Hence, $$\mathrm{Pr} \left( F_{n,m(n)} \text{ is unsatisfiable } \right)
=
\mathrm{Pr} \left(UNSAT_n \, \big| \, \text{ all the $C_{n,i}$ are different }\,\right).$$ An application of the first moment method yields that for $l\geq 3$ a.a.s the number of unordered pairs $\{i,j\}$ such that $C_{n,i}=C_{n,j}$ is equal to zero. In the case of $l=2$, an application of proves that the number of such pairs $\{i,j\}$ converges in distribution to a Poisson variable. In either case all the $C_{n,i}$ are different with positive asymptotic probability. Thus the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ from the previous theorem satisfy our statement.
Let $F_{n,m(n)}$ be as in last result. Note that because of the symmetry in the random model $F(l,n,p(n))$ one can consider $F_{n,m(n)}$ to be a random sample of the space $F(l,n,p(n))$ given that the number of clauses is $m(n)$. Using this observation we can prove the following.
\[thm:phasetransition\] Let $l> 1$. Then there are real positive values $\beta_1 < \beta_2$ such that a.a.s $F^l_n(\beta)$ is satisfiable for $0<\beta<\beta_1$ and a.a.s $F^l_n(\beta)$ is unsatisfiable and for $\beta>\beta_2$.
For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $X_{n}(\beta)$ be the random variable equal to the number of clauses in $F^l_n(\beta)$. We have that $\mathrm{E}[X_n(\beta)]\sim \frac{\beta 2^l}{l!}n$. Let $c_1,
c_2$ be as in last corollary. Define $\beta_1:= \frac{c_1 l!}{2^l}$ and $\beta_2:= \frac{c_2 l!}{2^l}$. Fix $\beta\in {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $0<\beta<\beta_1$. Let $\epsilon>0$ be a real number such that $ \frac{\beta 2^l}{l!} +\epsilon< c_1$. For each $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ set $\delta_1(n):=\floor*{ \left(\frac{\beta 2^l}{l!}-\epsilon\right)n}$ and $\delta_2(n):=\floor*{ \left(\frac{\beta 2^l}{l!}+\epsilon\right)n}$.
Denote by $dp_n$ the probability density function of the variable $X_n(\beta)$. That is $dp_n(m)=\mathrm{Pr}(X_n(\beta)=m)$. Then, because of the previous equation, $$\mathrm{Pr}\left( F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable }\right)\sim
\int_{\delta_1(n)}^{\delta_2(n)}
\mathrm{Pr} \left(
F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable } \Big|
X_n(\beta)=m
\right) dp_n(m).$$ Note that the property of being unsatisfiable is monotonous. As a consequence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\delta_1(n)}^{\delta_2(n)}
\mathrm{Pr} \left(
F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable } \Big|
X_n(\beta)=m
\right) dp_n(m)\leq \\ &
\mathrm{Pr} \left(
F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable } \Big|
X_n(\beta)=\delta_2(n) \right)
\mathrm{Pr}\left( \delta_1(n) \leq X_n(\beta)
\leq \delta_2(n) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Because of the Law of large numbers, $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr}\left( \delta_1(n) \leq X_n(\beta)
\leq \delta_2(n) \right) = 1.$$ As $\delta_2(n)< c_2n$, because of the previous corollary $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}\mathrm{Pr} \left(
F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable } \Big|
X_n(\beta)=\delta_2(n) \right)= 0.$$ Combining the previous equations we obtain that for any $\beta < \beta_1$ it holds that $F^l_n(\beta)$ a.a.s is satisfiable, as it was to be proven. Showing that for any $\beta > \beta_2$, a.a.s $F^l_n(\beta)$ is unsatisfiable is analogous.
A direct consequence of the last theorem, due to A. Atserias (personal communication, July, 2019), is the following
\[thm:satapplication\] Let $l>1$ be a natural number. Let $\Phi\in FO[\sigma]$ be a first order sentence that implies unsatisfiability. Then for all $\beta>0$ a.a.s $F^l_n(\beta)$ does not satisfy $\Phi$.
Let $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ be as in . As $\Phi$ implies unsatisfiability ${\mathrm{Pr}\left(F^l_n(\beta)\models \Phi \right)}\leq
{\mathrm{Pr}\left(F^l_n(\beta) \text{ is unsatisfiable } \right)}$. Thus, by , we get that for all $\beta\in (0,\beta_1]$ $${\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}}{\mathrm{Pr}\left(F^l_n(\beta)\models \Phi \right)}=0.$$ By , last limit varies analytically with $\beta$. It vanishes in the proper interval $(0,\beta_1]$ then by the Principle of analytic continuation it has to vanish in the whole $(0,\infty)$, and the result holds.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement ERC-2014-CoG 648276 AUTAR).
I would like to thank both my supervisor Marc Noy and Albert Atserias for suggesting the topic of this research. I am grateful to M. Noy for introducing me to the topic of zero-one laws and for helpful discussions on the subject. I am also thankful to A. Atserias for his insight on random SAT problems and for suggesting the proof of . The feedback given by both of them has been very helpful.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this review we describe recent observational and theoretical developments in our understanding of pulsar winds and pulsar-wind nebulae (PWNe). We put special emphasis on the results from observations of well-characterized PWNe of various types (e.g., torus-jet and bowshock-tail), the most recent MHD modeling efforts, and the status of the flaring Crab PWN puzzle.'
author:
- Oleg Kargaltsev
- Benoît Cerutti
- Yuri Lyubarsky
- Edoardo Striani
bibliography:
- 'biblio\_total\_final\_13Feb.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
subtitle: Recent Progress in Observations and Theory
title: 'Pulsar-Wind Nebulae '
---
300[$d_{300}$]{} [[Astrophys. J.]{}]{}[ApJ]{}
Observations of PWNe.
=====================
Introduction
------------
Only $\sim 1\%$ of the total pulsar spin-down luminosity is emitted as pulsed electromagnetic radiation, the majority of the spin-down luminosity of a pulsar being carried away by a relativistic and highly magnetized pair plasma. These particles are generally believed to be accelerated and randomized in their pitch angle either upstream or at the pulsar wind termination shock. The radiation produced but these particles downstream of the termination shock is often seen as a pulsar-wind nebula (PWN).
Most of the recent progress in our understanding of PWNe has been spurred by X-ray and TeV $\gamma$-ray observations. The majority of PWNe has been discovered in one of these bands, and many are seen in both (see @2013arXiv1305.2552K). To study PWN emission, it is important to disentangle the pulsar and pulsar wind contributions either by spatially resolving the nebula from the pulsar or by isolating the PWN component in the spectrum (e.g., the PWN contribution is expected to dominate in TeV). High-resolution images from [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{} (*Chandra* hereafter) revealed two dominant PWN morphologies: torus-jet and bowshock–tail[^1]. In addition, a few objects with varying and puzzling morphologies can be seen in images [@2008AIPC..983..171K]. The PWN properties (size, morphology, and spectrum) can be expected to depend on the pulsar parameters (spin-down properties, pulsar velocity, and the angles between the spin, magnetic dipole, and velocity vectors) and on the environment (e.g., ambient pressure, magnetic field, and radiation field). The limited angular resolution of the ground-based TeV arrays (such as H.E.S.S. and VERITAS) does not allow us to detect TeV emission from the same particles that produce bright and compact X-ray nebulae in the vicinity of the pulsar. Instead, TeV images reveal much larger structures filled with the aged particles that may have accumulated over substantial part of pulsar’s lifetime (see @2009ASSL..357..451D). The TeV emission is usually attributed to inverse Compton (IC) scattering of background optical/IR photons off aged electrons, although, in denser environments, the contribution of neutral pion decay to the $\gamma$-rays emission could play an important role (if the pulsar winds indeed contain the so far elusive relativistic protons).
A general overview of PWN physics and X-ray observations was presented by [@2006ARAandA..44...17G] and [@2008AIPC..983..171K], while PWN theory was recently reviewed by [@2014IJMPS..2860160A] and [@2014IJMPS..2860162B]. Here we focus on some of the most recent observational results[^2] and their implications (§1), discuss the latest theoretical advances in MHD modeling (§2), and review the non-MHD scenarios that can explain the puzzling Crab PWN flares (§3).
The Crab and Vela PWNe as prototypes of young PWNe in SNRs.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Crab and Vela PWNe are often considered to be archetypal representatives of torus-jet PWNe. Since the Vela PWN is a factor of 10–20 older than the Crab PWN, one can look for evolutionary changes by comparing the two[^3]. PWNe of this type are usually found around young pulsars whose velocities are smaller than the speed of sound inside their host SNRs. These environments can be characterized by relatively high pressures and temperatures [@2010ApJ...709..507B]. There is also evidence that pulsars powering torus-jet PWNe are likely to have substantial misalignment between the spin and magnetic dipole axes (e.g., Crab and Vela pulsars; @1999ApJ...522.1046M and @2005MNRAS.364.1397J, respectively) which may play a pivotal role in formation of this type of morphology.
### Multiwavelength properties of the Crab
The Crab nebula has been studied with nearly all major telescopes since its discovery (see @2008ARAandA..46..127H and references therein). However, it was not until the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}; @1995ApJ...448..240H) and [@2000ApJ...536L..81W] era when the intricate and complex structure of the nebula was revealed (see Figure \[linefree\] for the feature nomenclature introduced by @1995ApJ...448..240H). These observations have also shown that the bright inner part of the nebula is very dynamic, with apparent velocities corresponding to up to 0.5c (in projection onto the sky) as measured, e.g., from the shifts in wisp positions [@2002ApJ...577L..49H]. The changes in the nebula are more complex than simple translational motion (e.g. steady expansion). They include variations in brightness (e.g., Inner Knot; @2005ApJ...633..931M) and shape (e.g., Sprite; @2004ApJ...615..794B [@2002ApJ...577L..49H]). The wisp shapes can also be very different and while most of the wisps can be described as a ripple pattern with ripples moving away from the pulsar some of the wisps appear at the same location (e.g., Thin Wisp in Figure \[linefree\]). The prominent south-eastern (SE) jet (see Figure \[linefree\]) also shows quite remarkable changes in its shape, based on X-ray images (taken over 14-year baseline), which could be explained by either precession of the curved jet or by the motion of kinks along the jet [@2012int..workE...4W; @2007ApJ...656.1038D]. Finally, the unexpected detection of $\gamma$-ray flares by [*Fermi*]{} LAT and [*AGILE*]{} [@2012ApJ...749...26B; @2011Sci...331..739A; @2011Sci...331..736T] suggests a significant energy release rate (which can reach $4\times 10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$; @2012ApJ...749...26B) on timescales of hours [@2013ApJ...775L..37M]; however, it was not possible so far to pinpoint the location of the flaring region because of the lack of a “smoking gun” at lower frequencies. Consequently, the lack of information about the site of the flare in the PWN has led to a variety of models being suggested (see § \[sect\_flares\]). Given the lack of contemporaneous variability at lower frequencies, it might be possible that some of the energy released during the process associated with the $\gamma$-ray flares will manifest itself as more gradual flux changes at lower frequencies[^4] occurring on much longer timescales (e.g., hard X-ray variability reported by @2013PASJ...65...74K [@2011ApJ...727L..40W]).
As a baseline for further comparison a multiwavelength (MW), high-resolution snap-shot of the PWN was obtained within a single day (Krassilchtchikov et al. 2015 in preparation; K+15 hereafter). Figure \[crabmw\] shows [*Chandra*]{}, [*HST*]{} (NIR, optical), and Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (JVLA) images from this latest MW campaign. These data are ideally suited for measuring the contemporaneous spectra of the prominent PWN features. Both the radio and optical (broad-V band) images reveal prominent filaments of which only some are coincident (which implies different MW spectra). Also, the SE jet (“1” in Fig. \[crabmw\]), which is prominent in the X-ray image, appears to have counterparts in the optical and NIR images but not in the radio image, in agreement with the earlier findings of [@2004ApJ...615..794B]. On the other hand, a jet-like structure (“2” in Fig. \[crabmw\]) located to the east of the SE X-ray jet in the JVLA image does not have an X-ray or NIR counterpart and coincides with one of the thermal optical filaments[^5]. Finally, in the NIR image, to the west of the bright X-ray jet (“1” in Fig. \[crabmw\]) there is another bright linear feature (“3” in Fig. \[crabmw\]) extending southward from pulsar. The feature has a radio counterpart, a very faint X-ray counterpart, and does not coincide with any of the optical filaments. The faintness of the X-ray counterpart suggest that emission from this feature is a synchrotron continuum may be produced by a cooled population of particles. It is, however, difficult to explain the presence of this low-energy feature in the conventional axisymmetric paradigm with equatorial and polar outflows, where only one jet and one counter-jet are expected[^6]. On the other hand, the “line-free” (F550M) optical image shown in Figure \[linefree\] supports the axial outflow paradigm by revealing better than ever the other side of the axial “backbone” of the torus (dubbed as a counter jet, or NW jet). We note that at the brightness/contrast level chosen in the F550M image (Fig. \[linefree\], bottom left panel) the counterpart of the SE X-ray jet is barely seen, while the NW jet and the SE “jet-like” feature (see above) are clearly seen. Similar to the SE X-ray jet, the counter-jet appears to be hardly discernible in the radio images (see e.g., right panel in Fig. \[f55mvla\]) but it stands out in the 2-epoch difference image produced by [@2014arXiv1409.7627B] and shown in the bottom right panel of Figure \[linefree\]. Finally, the counter-jet is so faint in X-rays (if preset at all) that it cannot be discerned from the torus emission. Therefore, the frequency-dependent differences in brightness between the jet and counter-jet appear to be more complex than those expected for a simple scenario with the frequency-invariant Doppler boost (see e.g., @2013MNRAS.433.3325S).
K+15 found that the location of the bright optical/NIR wisp (“4” in Fig. \[crabmw\]) only approximately coincides with the X-ray ring[^7], and the wisp brightness in the NIR image drops much faster with the distance from the symmetry axis of the nebula compared to the X-ray ring brightness. This supports the [@2013MNRAS.433.3325S] findings (based on earlier optical and X-ray monitoring) who concluded that the X-ray and optical emission must be produced by different populations of particles. Furthermore, according to [@2013MNRAS.433.3325S], the fits with the Doppler-boosted tilted ring model require noticeably different (higher) flow velocities for the optical wisps ($\approx0.9c$) compared to the X-ray wisps, which made [@2013MNRAS.433.3325S] question the simple “boosted-ring” model (see, however, @2015MNRAS.449.3149O). K+15 also found that for most individual features of the PWN (e.g., wisps) the NIR-optical-FUV spectra are harder than the contemporaneously measured X-ray spectra suggesting either an additional narrow spectral component or other kind of complex behavior between optical and soft X-rays.
![The top panel introduces the most prominent features of the Crab PWN and their “conventional” names (from [@1995ApJ...448..240H]). The bottom left panel shows the 12.5 ks exposure image obtained with [*HST*]{} ACS F550M. The image has been produced by a combining series of auxiliary images obtained during the 09/2005–12/2005 polarimetry campaign [@2008ARAandA..46..127H]. The F550M filter avoids any strong emission lines and provides a relatively unobstructed view of the synchrotron nebula. The “?” mark enigmatic feature discussed in §1.2.1 (also labeled as “3” in Fig. \[crabmw\], top right panel). Notice that the feature labeled as the counter-jet in the F550M image also appears to show large variability in the difference image (shown in the bottom right panel) produced from 2 JVLA observations obtained on 2001 April 16 and 2012 August 26 (from @2014arXiv1409.7627B). []{data-label="linefree"}](crab_wfpc2.pdf "fig:"){width="98.00000%"} ![The top panel introduces the most prominent features of the Crab PWN and their “conventional” names (from [@1995ApJ...448..240H]). The bottom left panel shows the 12.5 ks exposure image obtained with [*HST*]{} ACS F550M. The image has been produced by a combining series of auxiliary images obtained during the 09/2005–12/2005 polarimetry campaign [@2008ARAandA..46..127H]. The F550M filter avoids any strong emission lines and provides a relatively unobstructed view of the synchrotron nebula. The “?” mark enigmatic feature discussed in §1.2.1 (also labeled as “3” in Fig. \[crabmw\], top right panel). Notice that the feature labeled as the counter-jet in the F550M image also appears to show large variability in the difference image (shown in the bottom right panel) produced from 2 JVLA observations obtained on 2001 April 16 and 2012 August 26 (from @2014arXiv1409.7627B). []{data-label="linefree"}](crab_cjet2.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
The overall morphology of the Crab nebula has been reproduced in the relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations with anisotropic energy flux (most recently by ). The simulated images display wisp-like features and other variable structures along the symmetry axis. In the MHD simulations these features are formed due to the combination of flow dynamics (i.e. fluid vortices produced near the TS due to magnetosonic oscillations; see e.g., [@2015MNRAS.449.3149O] and references therein) and Doppler boosting. The emission from the oblique termination shock that has been also associated with the Crab’s Inner Knot (@2003MNRAS.344L..93K [@2015arXiv150607282L; @2015arXiv150608121Y]; see, however @2005ApJ...633..931M and references therein for alternative interpretations). On the other hand, some challenges to the MHD models still remain [@2014RPPh...77f6901B]. The predicted bright arc due to the emission from the relativistic post-shock flow originating from the termination shock is absent in the X-ray images where we instead see the patchy (likely consisting of multiple knots) inner ring which may or may not appear to be brighter on the northwestern side (depending on the observation epoch). In this sense the optical (or NIR) images featuring a bright wisp NW of the pulsar appear to be in a better correspondence with the predictions of the MHD models. The models also predict co-spatial small-scale structures in the optical and X-rays while this is generally not observed (see above). Only parts of the X-ray inner ring are seen in the optical and most (if not all) optical wisps also do not appear to have co-spatial X-ray counterparts (e.g., the Thin Wisp[^8] labeled in the top panel of Figure \[linefree\] is lacking any nearby counterpart while other wisps are offset from the possibly associated X-ray bright features; see @2013MNRAS.433.3325S and K+15). Therefore, it yet remains to be shown whether more advanced models can fully capture the rich MW structure and variability of the Crab PWN. It seems that a complex injection spectrum may be required to achieve this, hinting that there may be multiple acceleration sites throughout the PWN with possibly different acceleration mechanisms. The most recent, advanced 3D models predict somewhat disordered structure of the magnetic field and suggest the need for the in-situ particle acceleration outside the termination shock region [@2014MNRAS.438..278P]. Diffusion transport may become more important in the case of disordered magnetic field.
![False color MW images of the Crab PWN (see the legends in the panels) based on the observations described and analyzed in K+15. Numbers refer to the PWN features mention in the text. []{data-label="crabmw"}](crab3.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
![ [**Left:**]{} 12.5 ks exposure image of the Crab PWN obtained with [*HST*]{} ACS F550M. The image has been produced by combining a series of auxiliary images obtained during the 09/2005–12/2005 polarimetry campaign [@2008ARAandA..46..127H]. The F550M filter avoids any strong emission lines and provides a relatively unobstructed view of the synchrotron nebula. [**Right:**]{} JVLA image of the Crab (from @2014arXiv1409.7627B).[]{data-label="f55mvla"}](crab_f555m2.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![ [**Left:**]{} 12.5 ks exposure image of the Crab PWN obtained with [*HST*]{} ACS F550M. The image has been produced by combining a series of auxiliary images obtained during the 09/2005–12/2005 polarimetry campaign [@2008ARAandA..46..127H]. The F550M filter avoids any strong emission lines and provides a relatively unobstructed view of the synchrotron nebula. [**Right:**]{} JVLA image of the Crab (from @2014arXiv1409.7627B).[]{data-label="f55mvla"}](crab_vla_mike2.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
### Multiwavelength properties of the Vela PWN
The Vela pulsar is a factor of 20 older than Crab, hence some evolutionary differences are expected. In addition, the differences can be attributed to a different progenitor type, different ISM, and different properties of the pulsar (e.g., magnetic field, angles between the spin and magnetic dipole axis, or the orientation and magnitude of the pulsar velocity). Figure 4 (bottom left) shows a deep [*Chandra*]{} ACIS image of the Vela PWN (see also zoomed-in view of the compact nebula in Fig. \[veladeep\]) produced by combining images from the latest observational campaign (comprised of eight 40 ks observations taken with one-week intervals; see @2013ApJ...763...72D. The overall morphology of the bright compact PWN can be described as an axisymmetric double-arc structure with two axial jets having different brightnesses and widths. The bright, compact X-ray PWN is located inside the larger double-lobe radio PWN [@2003MNRAS.343..116D]. Interestingly, the radio lobes appear to be filled by fainter X-ray emission which is particularly clearly seen in the ACIS hard band (1-8 keV; see Figure 4) thus suggesting that the radiating particles have not cooled much. Therefore, the pure advection model proposed by [@1984ApJ...283..694K] may need to be augmented with some other transport mechanism (e.g., diffusion) capable of moving the energetic particles away from the pulsar more rapidly. We also note that the bright, double-lobed radio nebula is surrounded by a much larger ($\sim 2^{\circ}$ in diameter) radio-emitting structure called Vela X (see §1.5.4) which is filled with bright filaments and fainter diffuse continuum (Figure \[crab\_vela\], bottom right).
![Comparison of the Crab and Vela PWNe. The top panels show the combined X-ray (red) and radio (blue) images of the Crab (top left) and Vela (top right) PWNe. The bottom panels show X-ray and radio images of the Vela PWN. The [*Chandra*]{} ACIS image (bottom left) shows that faint X-ray emission seems to fill in the radio lobes (shown by the contours). The larger radio image on the right shows the entire Vela X complex (radio image from [@1997ApJ...475..224F]) within the Vela SNR. The inset shows the compact radio nebula (blue color) and brightest part of the X-ray nebula (red). []{data-label="crab_vela"}](vela_crab2.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
![ Deep [*Chandra*]{} ACIS and HRC (inset) images of the compact Vela PWN [@2013MmSAI..84..588L].[]{data-label="veladeep"}](vela_super_deep_comb){width="99.90000%"}
### The Crab and Vela PWNe: similarities and differences
The double-arc X-ray morphology of the Vela PWN is quite different from the Crab PWN, with its single ring, and torus (likely comprised of multiple wisps) seen in the ACIS images (see Fig. \[crab\_vela\]). These differences can hardly be attributed to the larger age of the Vela PWN (because the X-ray emission from compact PWN mostly comes from freshly injected electrons) or different ambient (SNR) medium properties (these could become progressively more important further away from the termination shock). It is also unlikely to be due to the difference in the angles between the pulsar spin axis and the line of sight because these angles are believed to be similar ($127^{\circ}$ for Vela \[@2001ApJ...556..380H\] and $\approx120^{\circ}$ for Crab \[@2012ApJ...746...41W\]). The only other important parameters could be the angle between the spin and magnetic dipole[^9] axis (still rather poorly constrained, e.g., $\sim43^{\circ}$ for Vela \[@2005MNRAS.364.1397J\] and $\approx 45^{\circ}-70^{\circ}$ for Crab \[@2013Sci...342..598L\]) and different pulsar velocities[^10] (the projected onto the sky velocities are $60d_{0.3}$ and $\sim120d_{2}$ km s$^{-1}$ for Vela and Crab, respectively[^11]). These velocities are smaller than the typical sound speed inside the young SNR, and therefore the Mach number $\mathcal{M}$ should be $\lesssim1 $ for both pulsars[^12]. Thus the differences in the compact PWN morphologies are more likely to be attributed to the different angles between the spin and magnetic dipole axis. It is also possible that the different degrees of deviation of the NS magnetic field from that of an ideal, centered dipole have some impact on the PWN. Even for the compact parts of the PWNs some of the differences in X-ray morphologies could still be attributed to the longer synchrotron cooling time for the Vela PWN which is expected to have weaker magnetic field [@2003ApJ...591.1157P].
We also note that the physical connection between the bright inner jets in the Vela PWN and the fainter large-scale outer jets (see e.g., Fig. \[crab\_vela\] bottom left panel) has not been established yet. The bright SE inner jet of the Vela pulsar suddenly appears out of the orthogonal bar-like feature (shock in the polar backflow? @2003MNRAS.344L..93K) at about $5.4''$ from the pulsar and then nearly as abruptly fades away at about $10.5''$ from the pulsar (see Fig. \[veladeep\], left panel). In the very deep Vela PWN image the outer jets are visible up to much larger scales ($\simeq2-3'$); however, we do not see any smooth transition from the inner axial jets and hence we cannot establish a firm link between the two (except that both structures are extending along the PWN symmetry axis[^13]). Note that simulated X-ray images based on MHD models (e.g. ) do not show such structures. In the Crab PWN the dynamical feature called “Sprite” (possibly an analog of the bar feature in the Vela PWN) seems to be the place from which the SE jet originates. However, the Crab’s SE jet does not undergo any dramatic transitions in brightness until it bends and terminates at about $1.2'$ from the pulsar. Morphologically, this “kinked” jet resembles the outer jets of the Vela PWN rather than the straight and bright inner jets. This leaves no obvious analog to the bight inner jets of the Vela PWN in the Crab PWN (see, however, @2007ApJ...656.1038D). As it has been discussed by [@2003ApJ...591.1157P] and [@2013ApJ...763...72D], the fact that the NW outer jet of the Vela PWN is brighter than the SE jet is at odds with the 3D orientation inferred from the arc brightness distribution. The optical image of the Crab in Figure \[linefree\] demonstrates a similar discrepancy assuming that the above mentioned optical “counter-jet” is the actual NW jet.
Unfortunately, the compact Vela PWN has not been detected in the optical despite considerable efforts [@2003ApJ...594..419M; @2014MNRAS.445..835M] hence direct comparison with the Crab PWN is not possible in this band. [@2013ApJ...775..101Z] recently reported the extended feature seen in the NIR (K$_s$ band) which could be associated with bar at the base of the SE jet or could be analog of the Crab’s inner knot. However, this result still requires confirmation.
It is also interesting to contrast the radio morphologies of the Crab and Vela PWNe. The filamentary structure of the Crab resembles that of Vela X, however, the latter has a much larger angular extent ($r\approx60'$ for Vela vs. $\approx2.2'$) and it is much more asymmetric. On the other hand, the Vela PWN is a factor of $7$ closer (hence, it should appear larger) and a factor of $10-20$ older (hence, it had more time to expand). Therefore, the different angular sizes are not surprising. We also note that in the Vela PWN the TeV emission comes from the region of brightest radio filament [@1997ApJ...475..224F; @2006AandA...448L..43A] which is filled with the ejecta (based on the X-ray spectra; @2008ApJ...689L.121L) thus providing denser target for the putative relativistic hadrons that might be present in the pulsar wind. Therefore, it may turn out that some of the prominent thermal Crab filaments are TeV bright. If confirmed, it could provide evidence for the elusive hadronic component in pulsar winds [@1998MmSAI..69..989A]. Unfortunately, current resolution of the HESS and VERITAS telescopes does not allow to test this hypothesis (the existing data only suggest that the TeV emission is confined to within $<1.7'$ from the pulsar; @2006AandA...457..899A). Although it is plausible that the filamentary radio morphology from the Crab PWN is analogous to that of Vela X, there is no analogy in the Crab for the compact radio PWN found in Vela by [@2003MNRAS.343..116D]. The ATCA images reveal a double lobe structure, with the lobes being on each side of the X-ray PWN symmetry axis. The radio lobes, extending out to $3'-4'$, exceed the size of the X-ray arcs by a factor of 5 but nonetheless they appear to be filled with the faint X-ray emission which is well seen in the harder (1$-$8 keV) band (see Figure \[crab\_vela\]). Even if a similar structure in the Crab would be smaller by a factor of $10-100$, it should have been resolved in the JVLA images (unless it is buried under the much brighter filamentary structure). We also note that no wisp-like structures are seen in the X-ray, optical, or radio images of the Vela PWN.
The X-ray spectral indices of the Crab and Vela PWNe are very different. Figure \[pwnmaps\] shows spectral maps for the Crab and Vela PWNe. One can see that the spectra are the hardest (photon indices are the smallest) for the inner ring (in Crab PWN) or for the arcs (in Vela PWN) suggesting that these structures are associated with freshly injected accelerated particles. Interestingly, for the outer arc in Vela PWN the spectrum softens noticeably away from the symmetry axis while this is not the case for the inner arc in the Vela PWN or the inner ring in the Crab PWN.
![ Photon index maps for Crab [@2004ApJ...609..186M] and Vela PWNe [@2013ffep.confE...7K] obtained from [*Chandra*]{} ACIS data. The color bar at the bottom shows photon index values. []{data-label="pwnmaps"}](2_spectral_maps_v2){width="50.00000%"}
Bow shocks and tails: PWNe around supersonically moving pulsars.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pulsar average 3D velocities have been found to be $\sim400$ km s$^{-1}$ for isotropic velocity distribution (see @2005MNRAS.360..974H). This implies that the majority of pulsars stay within their host SNR environment for a few tens of thousands years although some particularly fast-moving pulsars can leave it earlier. Once the pulsar leaves the SNR[^14], it moves in a very different environment which has a much lower sound speed. For comparison, the sound speed in the middle-aged SNR(such as Vela SNR) can be on the order of a few hundred km s$^{-1}$. The transition between the two very different environments should have a dramatic effect on the PWN of the high-speed pulsar. Once the pulsar is moving in the medium where its speed substantially exceeds the ambient sound speed (i.e. Mach number $\mathcal{M}=v_p/c_s\gg 1$, where $v_p$ and $c_s$ are the pulsar and sound speeds, respectively), the PWN shape should be strongly distorted by the ram pressure of the medium. If initially the wind was isotropic (this is obviously a great oversimplification, see above) the PWN would acquire a cometary shape with the pulsar wind being confined to within the surface formed by the contact discontinuity (CD) separating the shocked ambient medium and the shocked pulsar wind (see Fig. \[schematic\]). Typically, it is assumed that the pulsar wind is shocked in the termination shock (TS) at distances, $r_s$, substantially smaller than the distance to the contact discontinuity, $r_{cd}$, even at the apex of the bowshock (see Figure \[schematic\]). For very fast moving pulsars $r_{cd}$ may become so small that for some of the X-ray emitting electrons the gyration radius, $r_g$, would become $\sim r_s\sim r_{cd}$ which may lead to leakage of the electrons from the apex of the bowshock (@2008AandA...490L...3B; see also below). Numerical simulations by [@2005AandA...434..189B] indicate high flow speeds ($\gg v_p$) in the shocked pulsar wind outflow behind the moving pulsar, suggesting that an extended pulsar wind tail should form[^15]. For realistically anisotropic pulsar winds (with equatorial and polar outflows), in addition to the Mach number, the appearance of the head of the bow shock PWNe and properties of the pulsar tails (to within a few $r_s$ from the pulsar) should also depend on the angle between the velocity vector and the spin axis of the pulsar. These effects have been investigated numerically by [@2007MNRAS.374..793V] in the limit of non-relativistic 3D hydrodynamics who found that the bow shock morphology is only weakly affected by the pulsar wind momentum flux anisotropy but the morphology of the pulsar wind flow in the tail is strongly affected[^16]. On the other hand, the ambient medium non-uniformity was found to be greatly affecting the bow shock symmetry and shape. Overall, [@2007MNRAS.374..793V] concluded that “the anisotropy of the wind momentum flux alone cannot explain the observed bow shock morphologies”. The simulations also show that Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instabilities can develop if the ambient medium exhibits a large pressure gradient. These could be further amplified if the relativistic nature of the pulsar wind flow is taken into account due to the increased velocity shear [@2005AandA...434..189B]. In such situation it is possible that the shocked ambient material can be entrained in the pulsar wind flow altering its structure, dynamics, and emission properties. The entrainment of ambient matter in the pulsar wind is largely an unexplored area (see, however, @2003MNRAS.339..623L [@2015arXiv150501712M]). Further simulations of bow shock PWNe combining these effects (relativistic velocities, ambient medium non-uniformity and entrainment, pulsar wind anisotropy and dynamical role of the magnetic fields, 3D geometry and instabilities) can provide a realistic picture for comparison with the observations. It may also be possible to make progress by advancing the analytical models of these outflows. [@2005ApJ...630.1020R] has constructed a model of a pulsar magnetotail for the axisymmetric case (the pulsar velocity is co-aligned with its spin axis). In this model the pulsar wind remains collimated at large distances from the pulsar forming a magnetotail where an equipartition is reached between the magnetic energy and the relativistic particle energy. The model predictions for the shape of the magnetotail appear to agree with the data in some cases (e.g., PSR J1101–6101; @2014arXiv1410.2332H and PSR J1747–2958; @2004ApJ...616..383G, @2005AdSpR..35.1129Y) and disagree in others (e.g., PSR J1509–5850; @2008ApJ...684..542K), possibly, discriminating between the axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric cases.
![ A schematic representation of PWNe around the pulsar at rest (left) and supersonically moving pulsar (right) for an idealized case of isotropic pulsar wind.[]{data-label="schematic"}](schematic2.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
![ X-ray (red) and radio (blue) images of pulsar tails produced from archival and JVLA data. The J1509-5850 radio image is based on the [@2010ApJ...712..596N] analysis of Australia Telescope Compact Array observation. []{data-label="tailsheads"}](tails_heads3.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
![ [*Chandra*]{} ACIS images of the head regions of B0355+54, J1509–5058, and Mouse PWNe (left to right). Notice very different morphologies of B0355+54 and J1509–5058 PWNe. The images are produced from archival data.[]{data-label="heads"}](heads.pdf "fig:"){width="66.00000%"} ![ [*Chandra*]{} ACIS images of the head regions of B0355+54, J1509–5058, and Mouse PWNe (left to right). Notice very different morphologies of B0355+54 and J1509–5058 PWNe. The images are produced from archival data.[]{data-label="heads"}](mouse_head.pdf "fig:"){width="33.00000%"}
[*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations provided for the first time X-ray images of PWNe around supersonically moving pulsars (see examples in Figures \[geminga\], \[tailsheads\], \[heads\], and \[puzzling\]). Some of these images display structures (see e.g., Figs. \[tailsheads\] and \[heads\] ) that are broadly consistent with the theoretical expectations. Indeed, in the X-ray images shown in Fig. \[tailsheads\] one can identify bright PWN heads accompanied by much fainter extended tails (see Fig. \[tailsheads\]). Interestingly, the X-ray bright PWN head may or may not be bright in the radio \[c.f. PWN of PSR J1747-2958 (“Mouse”) and PWN of PSR J1509–5058\]. Radio polarimetry of two extended tails (Mouse and J1509–5058; @2005AdSpR..35.1129Y and @2010ApJ...712..596N) shows that the magnetic field direction is predominantly transverse in the case of the J1509–5058 tail and aligned with the tail in the case of the Mouse tail. This may suggest that the spin axis is more aligned with the velocity vector for J1509–5058 than for the Mouse pulsar (see Fig. 3 from @2005ApJ...630.1020R). Recently, deep, high-resolution observations with [*Chandra*]{} revealed interesting structures of the bright bow shock PWN heads. Images of J1509–5058 and B0355+54 PWNe, shown in Figure \[heads\], exhibit contrasting morphologies. The head of the B0355+54 PWN shows symmetric, filled “mushroom cap” morphology with emission being somewhat brighter near the center than on the sides. On the other hand, the head of the J1509–5058 PWN, comprised of two bent arcs resembling a bow structure (the arcs, however, do not quite connect to the pulsar), is mostly “empty” except for the slight extension just behind the pulsar. This structure remarkably resembles that of the nearby ($d\approx250$ pc) Geminga PWN (see Figure \[geminga\]) as it would be seen at a much larger distance of J1509–5058 ($d\approx 4$ kpc). The bow-shaped X-ray emission can either be associated with the forward shock in the ambient medium (unlikely, because the pulsar velocity must be very high to produce X-rays by heating ISM) or pulsar jets. In the latter scenario the outflows from J1509–5058 and Geminga must be dominated by the luminous jets rather than the equatorial component (cf. Crab and Vela PWNe). This may be difficult to reconcile in the [@2004MNRAS.349..779K] model where the jet formation is intimately connected to the diverted by the magnetic field hoops stress equatorial outflow (backflow) which helps to collimate the polar outflow. Furthermore, the recent 3D simulations (see §2.2 and 2.3) suggest reduced axial compression and weaker jets compared to the 2D simulations. On the other hand, most numerical simulations are designed to reproduce the Crab and Vela structures with a large angle between the NS magnetic dipole and spin axis. If this angle is small, the outflow dynamics could be substantially different. If the side arcs of J1509 are indeed jets, it would also be difficult to explain the ordered helical magnetic field morphology in the extended tail (revealed by the radio polarimetry; @2010ApJ...712..596N) because such a structure would be more natural for the axially symmetric case [@2005ApJ...630.1020R]. Thus, although it is plausible that qualitative morphological differences in the appearances of compact PWNe can be attributed to the geometrical factors (i.e. angles between the line-of-sight, velocity vector, spin axis, and dipole axis), these dependencies are yet to be understood.
![ 570-ks ACIS image of Geminga PWN (Posselt et al. in prep.). []{data-label="geminga"}](geminga_cxo.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
Particularly interesting and puzzling is the transition region between the bright PWN head and the faint extended tail. For instance, in the B0355+54 PWN (“Mushroom”) the drop in the surface brightness at the trailing edge of the Mushroom “cap” is nearly as sharp as at the leading edge (this makes it unlikely to be due to the synchrotron burn-off). In the conventional (isotropic pulsar wind) bow-shock tail models this could be associated with the back surface of the bullet-shaped termination shock [@2005AandA...434..189B; @2004ApJ...616..383G]. However, this interpretation does not appear to work for the J1509–5058 PWN which lacks the emission from putative back surface of the termination shock. The transition is also much smoother in the Mouse PWN (see Fig. \[heads\], right panel). The B0355+54 PWN image also shows much fainter, narrow “stem” attached to the Mushroom cap which makes it tempting to associate the bright trailing edge of the Mushroom cap with the equatorial termination shock that has been pushed back by the ram pressure. In this scenario the stem and the brighter middle part of the Mushroom cap would be associated with polar outflow (a jet). However, even in this case the drop in the brightness at the trailing edge of the Mushroom cap may be too abrupt. For instance, in the deep images of the compact Vela PWN one can see the effect of the motion onto the inner ring (commonly associated with the termination shock) with the particles being blown back off the inner ring (see Fig. \[veladeep\], right panel) . We do not observe such a smooth transition behind the Mushroom “cap” (Klingler in prep.).
The PWNe behind several very fast-moving pulsars display puzzling morphologies (see Figure \[puzzling\]). These are the “Lighthouse nebula” with PSR J1101-6101 [@2014arXiv1410.2332H; @2011AandA...533A..74P; @2012ApJ...750L..39T], the “Guitar nebula” with PSR B2224+65 [@2010MNRAS.408.1216J; @2007AandA...467.1209H], and the “Turtle nebula” with PSR J0357+3205 [@2013ApJ...765...36M]. The first two display bizarre extended features [*orthogonal*]{} to the pulsar’s proper motion directions. The third PWN represents a long and luminous tail in the direction opposite to that of the pulsar’s motion; however, close to the pulsar the tail is very faint (undetectable) with no sign of a bright “head” (or compact nebula) near the pulsar (cf. Mouse, B0355+54, or J1509–5058 PWNe). Similar puzzling behavior is seen for PSR J1101-6101 in the Lighthouse PWN. To explain these structures, several hypothesizes have been suggested. Sideways structures in PSRs J1101-6103 and B2224+65 could be pulsar jets (e.g., @2010MNRAS.408.1216J [@2014AandA...562A.122P]), although the one-sidedness and high X-ray efficiencies ($L_X/\dot{E}$) of these structures remain puzzling. The leakage of the wind particles from the apex of the bow shock pushed too close to the termination shock may be an alternative possibility [@2008AandA...490L...3B]. In the latter case, the morphologies of the sideways features are expected to follow the morphology of the magnetic field in the surrounding ambient medium (which, in these cases, is the ISM well outside the pulsar’s host SNRs).
![ Puzzling PWN morphologies are seen in the images of three high-speed pulsars. The arrows show pulsar proper motion directions. In two cases (left panels) the extended structures are orthogonal to the pulsar proper motion. For PSR J0357+3205 (right panel) the extended X-ray emission brightens further away from the pulsar while it is very dim in the immediate vicinity of the pulsar (shown in the inset). See [@2014AandA...562A.122P; @2013ApJ...765L..19D; @2010MNRAS.408.1216J] for detailed analysis.[]{data-label="puzzling"}](puzzling3.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
The bowshock PWNe with tails are often found around older pulsars moving fast through the rarefied ISM (perhaps due to the observational bias; see KP08). Unlike torus-jet PWNe, the bowshocks are often seen in H$_{\alpha}$. However, H$_{\alpha}$ bowshocks and bright X-ray tails are rarely seen together (exceptions are PSR J1741-2054, PSRs J2124-3358, and binary B1957+20). The scarcity of such cases suggests that the pre-ionization of the oncoming ISM by the high-energy radiation from the compact PWN and/or pulsar can play an important role. The cases with both H$_{\alpha}$ and radio emission are also very rare but this may be due to the limited number of objects observed sufficiently deep in the radio. The sizes of extended pulsar tails can reach 7–8 pc in X-rays (e.g., PWN of PSR J1509–5850) and up to $\sim17$ pc in radio (e.g., Mouse PWN). These two PWNe, well studied both in X-rays and radio, show remarkably contrasting behavior. The Mouse PWN appears to be the brightest closer to the pulsar [*both in radio and X-rays*]{} while the radio emission from the J1509–5850 PWN is lacking near the pulsar and becomes brightest only a few arc minutes away from the pulsar (see Fig. \[tailsheads\]). This could be attributed to the fact that the Mouse PWN is seen more of a head-on but the very long radio tail argues against the very small angle between the pulsar velocity and the line-of-sight (see Figure 1 in @2005AdSpR..35.1129Y). The morphology of the radio PWN of PSR J1101–6101 is similar to that of J1509–5850 radio PWN. Furthermore, the radio polarization measurements indicate that in the Mouse tail the magnetic field direction is predominantly parallel to the tail [@2005AdSpR..35.1129Y], in the J1509–5850 PWN it is mostly perpendicular to the tail [@2010ApJ...712..596N]. The differences may be related to different angles between the pulsar velocity and spin axes in these two PWNe. Alternatively a different ambient density and entrainment rate could play a role.
PWNe with $H_{\alpha}$ bow shocks are particularly interesting because the $H_{\alpha}$ emission allows one to map the structure of the forward shock not only in coordinate space but also in velocity space through the measurements of the Doppler shifts in hydrogen lines across the forward shock [@2010ApJ...724..908R; @2014ApJ...784..154B]. For instance, [@2010ApJ...724..908R] performed spectroscopic observations for J1741–2054 and measured the radial velocities up to $\simeq50$ km s$^{-1}$ consistent with the bowshock model implying pulsar speed of $\sim150$-200 km s$^{-1}$ and inclination angle[^17] of about $75^{\circ}$ (see also @2015arXiv150103225A).
![ $H_{\alpha}$ (left) and far-UV (right) images of the bow shock around PSR J0437–4715. Faint, amorphous diffuse emission seen around the pulsar in the right panel is the instrumental artifact (thermal glow of [*HST*]{}/SBC detector) while the structure seen at the bottom is a background galaxy. Both right and left panel images show the same area of sky. (Rangelov et al. in prep.) []{data-label="J0437"}](bow_Halpha_sm.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ $H_{\alpha}$ (left) and far-UV (right) images of the bow shock around PSR J0437–4715. Faint, amorphous diffuse emission seen around the pulsar in the right panel is the instrumental artifact (thermal glow of [*HST*]{}/SBC detector) while the structure seen at the bottom is a background galaxy. Both right and left panel images show the same area of sky. (Rangelov et al. in prep.) []{data-label="J0437"}](bow_new1_sm.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Measurements of spectral line ($H_{\alpha}$ or/and $H_{\beta}$) fluxes can provide accurate diagnostics of the ambient medium density if other parameters (pulsar velocity $V_{\rm psr}$, distance to the pulsar $d$, and the stand-off distance $r_{cd}$) are well constrained. A nearby millisecond PSR J0437–4715 with $\dot{E}=5.5\times10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$ represents an example of such kind. The pulsar, located at the (parallax) distance of $d=156$ pc and moving with $V_{\rm psr}=134$ km s$^{-1}$ (for the inclination $i=53^{\circ}$ inferred from the bowshock shape), shows a prominent H$_{\alpha}$ bow shock (Fig. \[J0437\]) with a stand-off distance $r_s=2.2\times 10^{16}$ cm. This implies ISM density $n_{H}=\dot{E}/4\pi c r_{s}^2 m_H V_{\rm psr}^2 =0.1$ cm$^{-3}$. For slow ($V_{\rm psr}<10^{3}$ km s$^{-1}$) bowshocks the H$_{\alpha}$ yield (i.e., number of H$_\alpha$ photons per incoming neutral) is $\epsilon_{H_{\alpha}}=0.6(v/100~{\rm km s}^{-1})^{-1/2}$ according to [@2007ApJ...654..923H] and the H$\alpha$ flux $f_{H_{\alpha}}\approx0.0074(v/134~{\rm km s}^{-1})^{1/2}(r_s/2.2\times 10^{16}~{\rm cm})^2(d/156~{\rm pc})^{-2}(n_{H}/0.1~{\rm cm}^{-3})\xi_{HI}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (see e.g., @2002ApJ...575..407C [@2014ApJ...784..154B]). The measured H$_{\alpha}$ flux from the J0437–4715’s bow shock apex, $f_{H_{\alpha}}=6.7\times10^{-3}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ [@2014ApJ...784..154B], implies that the neutral $H$ fraction $\xi_{HI}\approx 0.9$. This is somewhat surprising because the classical Strömgren radius for the ionizing radiation produced by the pulsar appears to be much larger than the distance to the H$_{\alpha}$ bowshock apex indicating that the classical formula is probably inapplicable when ionizing radiation is X-rays and the ionizing source is moving fast . PSR J0437–4715 bow shock is the only one from which the far-UV (FUV; see Fig. \[J0437\]) emission has been detected (other pulsars with H$_{\alpha}$ bowshocks may simply be too far, so FUV photons are easily absorbed). The measurement of the FUV spectral slope, $\alpha\sim 1.5$ (for $F_{\nu}\propto\nu^{-\alpha}$), suggests either a non-thermal emission mechanism (synchrotron?) with radiation coming from the vicinity of the forward shock (FUV and H-alpha bow-shocks coincide within the measurements errors, $\simeq 0.5''$) or line emission (with multiple unresolved lines resulting in an effectively flat PL spectrum). No firm detection of X-ray emission has been reported for the pulsar wind of J0437–4715 yet, although an analysis of archival [*Chandra*]{} ACIS data indicates that a compact, $r\simeq2''-3''$, asymmetric (most of the emission is ahead of the pulsar) PWN with the luminosity of $3.8\times10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ may be present (Rangelov et al. in prep.).
So far B1951+32, J1509–5850, and J2124–3358 are the only three solitary pulsars where both X-rays and H$_{\alpha}$ have been detected. However, in J1509–5850, H$_\alpha$ emission is believed to come from the photo-ionized medium rather than from the bow shock (see the discussion in @2014ApJ...784..154B) and for B1951+32 the surrounding environment is complex due to possible contribution to H$_\alpha$ from the filaments of the host SNR CTB 80. Therefore, it is important to perform deep H-alpha imaging and spectroscopy of nearby pulsars with X-ray bow shocks to study the connection between the pulsar wind and shocked ambient medium regions.
PWNe in binaries.
-----------------
Sufficiently energetic non-accreting binary pulsars may be able to power detectable PWNe. In binary systems, in addition to the pulsar parameters, the PWN morphology and appearance would depend on the properties of the binary companion and parameters of the binary orbit. Even if the companion star is lacking any wind itself (e.g., it is a cold white dwarf or old low-B neutron star) the pulsar wind will be affected by the ram pressure due to its own orbital motion if the ram pressure caused by the orbital motion is comparable to or larger than the ambient pressure (or ram pressure due to the motion of the binary as a whole). Thus, binary motion can strongly affect the pulsar wind flow (and morphology of the magnetic field) downstream of the termination shock or even the termination shock itself (see e.g., ). If the companion star has a powerful wind the interaction becomes even more complex with the outcome critically dependent on the ratio of momentum fluxes of the two winds $\eta=\dot{E}c^{-1}/\dot{M}_w v_w$ (where $\dot{M}_w$ and $v_w$ are the mass loss rate and the massive star wind velocity), a key parameter in colliding wind binaries (see [@2013AandARv..21...64D]). If $\eta\gg1$, the pulsar wind dominates (e.g., for B1957+20 - the original “black widow” system) while in the opposite case the companion star wind will be dynamically dominant. In general, $\eta$ can vary with the orbital position (1) if the pulsar wind (or the massive star wind) is anisotropic, and the spin axis of the pulsar (or the massive star) do not coincide with the orbital angular momentum vector or (2) if the orbit is highly eccentric.
The most famous example of a pulsar binary system where all these effects play a significant role is LS 2883 with the young energetic pulsar B1259–63 (B1259 hereafter) in an eccentric 3.4-year orbit around a massive O-star. Although direct observations of pulsar wind in B1259 may not be feasible (except perhaps for the VLBI imaging observations; see @2012AIPC.1505..386M), there are indirect ways to learn about the pulsar and stellar wind properties and their interaction. These include multi-wavelength spectrum and flux measurements as a function of orbital phase [@2014MNRAS.439..432C], pulsar radio signal variability measurements (@2014MNRAS.437.3255S and references therein), and, a high-resolution X-ray imaging, which recently revealed a dynamic structure associated with the binary [@2014ApJ...784..124K; @2015ApJ...806..192P]. An X-ray emitting cloud was found to be moving away from the binary with the velocity of $\approx0.07c$ [@2015ApJ...806..192P], which, together with the lack of deceleration, implies either a hadronic cloud with very large mass $\gtrsim 10^{27} n (d/2.3~{\rm kpc})^{2}$ g moving in the O-star wind with density $n$ or a lighter cloud moving in the rapidly expanding, [*unshocked*]{} relativistic pulsar wind (implies $\eta\gg1$ in the polar O-star wind). The former scenario implies that the cloud was ejected from the binary during the 2011 periastron passage, when the pulsar interacted with the excretion disk of the massive O-star. However, the corresponding kinetic energy of the cloud must be very large, $\sim2\times10^{45}$ erg, and it must have been launched via a complex interaction between the pulsar wind and excretion disk of the O-star with the energy source being problematic (pulsar’s $\dot{E}$ can only provide $\sim 10^{42}$ erg during the disk passage). The latter scenario is at odds with the common assumption of $\eta\lesssim1$ for such kind of binaries but it does not require extreme values of mass and energy for the cloud [@2015ApJ...806..192P].
We note that there are other systems where pulsars (albeit these may not be as young and energetic) might orbit massive (often Be or O type) stars, and it is plausible that other TeV gamma-ray binaries (e.g., LS 5039, LS I +61 303, and HESS J0632+057) also host pulsars (@2013AandARv..21...64D [@2014AN....335..301K] and references therein). Indeed, [@2011ApJ...735...58D] reported evidence for amorphous arcminute-scale X-ray emission with a hard spectrum around LS 5039 which was interpreted as synchrotron radiation from ultrarelativistic (pulsar wind?) particles escaping from the system.
Among other types of binaries which can shed light on the properties of pulsar winds at smaller distances from the pulsar through the interaction with the companion are the famous double pulsar (see e.g., @2005ASPC..328...95A), recently reported very eccentric binary with PSR J2032+4127 [@2015arXiv150201465L], and black widow pulsar B1957+20 [@2012ApJ...760...92H].
[]{data-label="b1259"}](frame1_bin05_sm05pix.pdf "fig:"){width="32.20000%"} []{data-label="b1259"}](frame2_bin05_sm05pix.pdf "fig:"){width="32.20000%"} []{data-label="b1259"}](frame3_bin05_sm05pix.pdf "fig:"){width="32.20000%"}
PWN spectra
-----------
It is commonly accepted that radio-to-MeV emission in PWNe is the synchrotron emission. This naturally explains the observed high degree of polarization in X-rays, optical, and radio [@2013MNRAS.433.2564M; @2004ApJ...615..794B; @1978ApJ...220L.117W]. Multiwavelength observations and modeling show that IC scattering on Cosmic Microwave Background and NIR/IR background starts to dominate PWN spectra in GeV [@2013ApJ...773...77A] and completely dominates synchrotron at TeV energies (@1996MNRAS.278..525A, , @2009ApJ...703.2051G, @2013MNRAS.436.3112T, and @2014MNRAS.438.1518O; see the Crab and Vela PWN spectra in Fig. \[mwspectra\] for example). The theoretical models of particle acceleration and non-thermal emission in PWNe predict, in the ideal MHD framework, a cutoff around 150 MeV (see §3.1). These models well reproduce the observed cutoff in the Crab Nebula spectrum (see left side of Fig. \[mwspectra\]). However, the slow acceleration rates of ideal MHD models (as, e.g., diffusive shock acceleration) do not allow fast variability in the nebular emission (see §3 for Crab flares). The questions about the location and distribution of acceleration sites as well as acceleration mechanism in the pulsar winds and PWNe also remain open (see §2.4).
If the pulsar wind contains relativistic protons, it is possible that hadronic emission (due to neutral pion decay) contribution can become appreciable in dense environments [@2008MNRAS.385.1105B]. Multiwavelength emission from bow shock PWNe (including pulsar tails) produced by pulsars moving in a low-density ISM (outside their host SNRs) should be purely leptonic. However, surprisingly few of these objects have been detected in TeV (one of the deepest limits, $0.1\%$ of $\dot{E}$ in 1–10 TeV, is obtained with VERITAS for the tail of B0355+54; Brett McArthur, private communication). Recent review of the observational X-ray and TeV properties for the population of 91 PWNe can be found in [@2013arXiv1305.2552K].
![ Multiwavelength spectra of the Crab (left; from ) and Vela PWN (right; spectrum from $r=6'$ from pulsar shown in color while the relic Vela X plerion spectrum is in grey; from @2011ApJ...743L..18M).[]{data-label="mwspectra"}](Crab_VelaX_spectra.pdf){width="99.90000%"}
[rlc]{} PWN & $\Gamma$ & p\
Crab & $1.80\pm0.05$ & 2.6\
Vela & $1.30\pm0.05$& 1.6\
3C58& $1.9\pm0.07$& 2.8\
G320.4-1.2& $1.4\pm0.1$& 1.8\
Kes 75& $1.9\pm0.1$& 2.8\
G21.5-0.9& 1.40$\pm0.06$& 1.8\
G11.2-0.3& $1.5\pm0.1$& 2.0\
CTB 80& $1.7\pm0.1$& 2.4\
G54.1+0.3& $1.50\pm0.05$& 2.0\
### Spatially resolved X-ray spectra
Deep [*Chandra*]{} ACIS observations of a few bright PWNe allow us to create spectral maps with high-spatial resolution [@2013ffep.confE...7K]. These maps are expected to provide manifestation of synchrotron burn-off (X-ray spectra should become softer farther away from the pulsar) which depends on the strength of magnetic field and bulk flow speed [@1984ApJ...283..710K; @2001ApJ...559..275W; @2009ApJ...703..662R] but they may also contain signatures of spatially distributed (in-situ) particle acceleration or rapid particle diffusion. These spectral maps demonstrate that the pulsar spectra measured just downstream of the termination shock can differ substantially. From Table \[table2\] one can see that although for the Crab PWN the inferred (assuming synchrotron emission model) slope of the electron SED, $p=2\Gamma-1$, is consistent with the $p=2.1-2.8$ expected from the commonly invoked Fermi acceleration mechanism [@2001MNRAS.328..393A; @2009ApJ...698.1523S; @2011ApJ...726...75S], for the Vela PWN the spectrum is much harder ($p\approx 1.6$) suggesting that a different mechanism might be at work (e.g., magnetic reconnection; @2014ApJ...783L..21S). At least some of the long pulsar tails (e.g., tail of PSR J1509–5850) tend to show very little evidence of cooling (in terms of spectral softening in X-rays) which either suggests ongoing in-situ acceleration along the tail or extremely fast bulk flow (Klingler et al. in prep.).
### X-ray and TeV efficiencies of PWNe
The substantial number of PWNe detected in X-rays and TeV allows one to investigate the population properties. Here we will only consider X-ray and TeV radiative PWN efficiencies ($\eta_{\rm \gamma,X}=L_{\rm \gamma,X}/\dot{E}$) and refer the readers to [@2013arXiv1305.2552K] for the analysis of other TeV and X-ray properties of PWNe. Figure \[pwneff\] (based on the information collected in Tables 1–3 in @2013arXiv1305.2552K, with some updates) shows the X-ray and TeV luminosities of PWNe (and PWN candidates for TeV). Notice a very large spread of X-ray efficiencies and a noticeably smaller spread for the TeV efficiencies. While there is a clear correlation between $\dot{E}$ and $\eta_{X}$ there is no noticeable correlation in TeV. Finally, the majority of PWNe that are underluminous in X-rays appears to be around $\gamma$-ray loud, radio-emitting pulsars with small magnetic inclination angles (based on @2014arXiv1410.3310R).
![[*Top*]{}: X-ray luminosities of PWNe and PWN candidates vs. pulsar’s $\dot{E}$. TeV PWNe and TeV PWN candidates are shown in red. The dotted straight lines correspond to constant X-ray efficiencies; the upper bound, $\log L_X^{\rm cr} = 1.51\log{\dot{E}}-21.4$, is shown by a dashed line [@2012ApJS..201...37K]. The PWNe detected in GeV by [*Fermi*]{} are marked by stars. Blue filled circles are the pulsars with confidently measured small ($<10^{\circ}$) magnetic inclination angles from [@2014arXiv1410.3310R]. [*Bottom:*]{} TeV luminosities of PWNe and PWN candidates vs. pulsar’s $\dot{E}$. Thin error bars mark questionable associations. The PWNe undetected in X-rays are marked by circles. PWNe detected by [*Fermi*]{} are marked by stars. The dotted lines correspond to constant values of the TeV $\gamma$-ray efficiency $\eta_\gamma=L_\gamma/{\dot{E}}$. The detection of TeV emission from Geminga region is, so far, based solely on Milagro result [@2009ApJ...700L.127A] which has not been confirmed by any other observatories (e.g., VERITAS). []{data-label="pwneff"}](lxray2.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"} ![[*Top*]{}: X-ray luminosities of PWNe and PWN candidates vs. pulsar’s $\dot{E}$. TeV PWNe and TeV PWN candidates are shown in red. The dotted straight lines correspond to constant X-ray efficiencies; the upper bound, $\log L_X^{\rm cr} = 1.51\log{\dot{E}}-21.4$, is shown by a dashed line [@2012ApJS..201...37K]. The PWNe detected in GeV by [*Fermi*]{} are marked by stars. Blue filled circles are the pulsars with confidently measured small ($<10^{\circ}$) magnetic inclination angles from [@2014arXiv1410.3310R]. [*Bottom:*]{} TeV luminosities of PWNe and PWN candidates vs. pulsar’s $\dot{E}$. Thin error bars mark questionable associations. The PWNe undetected in X-rays are marked by circles. PWNe detected by [*Fermi*]{} are marked by stars. The dotted lines correspond to constant values of the TeV $\gamma$-ray efficiency $\eta_\gamma=L_\gamma/{\dot{E}}$. The detection of TeV emission from Geminga region is, so far, based solely on Milagro result [@2009ApJ...700L.127A] which has not been confirmed by any other observatories (e.g., VERITAS). []{data-label="pwneff"}](ltev.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
### Search for new PWNe in GeV $\gamma$-rays.
PWNe are the most numerous source class that emerged from the H.E.S.S. Galactic Plane Survey [@2013arXiv1307.4690C], and about 100 PWNe or PWNe candidates are known in X-ray. Nevertheless only very few sources are detected in the MeV–GeV range, because this energy range falls between the tail of the synchrotron emission and the rising part of the IC emission and because of the lack of sensitive MeV instrumentation with good angular resolution. Often, search for PWN at GeV energies has to be carried out in the presence of $\gamma$-ray-loud pulsar by looking for the off-pulse emission which could come from the PWN [see @2013ApJS..208...17A]. In [@2013ApJ...773...77A], a search for GeV emission from 58 TeV PWNe and unidentified sources was performed, with the requirements of (1) good GeV and TeV spectrum connection and (2) extended emission. A total of thirty sources were detected in the GeV range, for energies above 10 GeV; among them, 11 sources are PWN candidates, and three are reliably identified as new PWNe. These new sources are associated with young (age between 1 and 30 kyr) and powerful pulsars with $\dot{E}$ between $10^{36}$ and $10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It is interesting to study how the multiwavelength properties of the PWNe evolve with the properties of the host pulsar. It was found in [@2013ApJ...773...77A] that there is no correlation between the GeV luminosity and the age and the spin-down luminosity of the pulsars, and the same for the GeV-to-TeV luminosity ratio. On the other hand, the GeV-to-X-ray luminosity ratio appears to increase with age in agreement with theoretical models(see e.g., @2013MNRAS.436.3112T). Even less is known about PWN emission at the MeV energies due to the poor imaging capabilities of the MeV telescopes. The dip is expected to occur at these energies in the spectra of $\sim$10 to $\sim$100 kyr-old PWNe which are most frequently found in X-rays and TeV. Measuring the cut-off energy of the synchrotron spectrum in hard X-rays constrains maximum energies of the electrons in PWNe.
### Multiwavelength spectra
Spatially-resolved spectroscopy is primarily done in X-rays, thanks to the superb resolution of [*Chandra*]{}. It remains rather challenging to obtain spatially-resolved spectral measurements at other frequencies. In the optical-NIR this is primarily due to the faintness of the PWN emission (except for the Crab PWN) and contamination by various background sources. In the radio, this is challenging because of the interferometric nature of high-resolution observations and difficulties in combing the requirements of imaging both the large- and small-scale structures. At higher energies (MeV, GeV and TeV), the resolution of the existing telescopes is often insufficient to resolve PWNe, and in those cases when large relic PWNe can be resolved [@2006ApJ...636..777A; @2012AandA...548A..38A] the limited signal-to-noise ratio typically precludes spatially resolved studies (see, however, @2006AandA...460..365A [@2011ApJ...742...62V]). Therefore, the MW spectra of most PWNe are, by necessity, spatially-integrated which in many cases introduces bias and systematic uncertainties that are difficult to account for [@2011ApJ...742...62V]. Indeed, as one can see from Fig. \[mwspectra\], the MW spectrum of the compact Vela PWN is very different from the MW spectrum of the relic plerion Vela X (which may be a peculiar one in other respects also, see below). The PWN luminosities shown in Fig. \[pwneff\] are calculated for very different regions in most PWNe and therefore should be treated as such (i.e. cannot be treated as if both X-ray and TeV photons are emitted from the same PWN region). If both TeV and X-ray efficiencies (luminosities) of PWNe are compared to those derived from a one-zone PWN model, one should be aware of the limitations of this approach. Multi-zone models, taking into account both advection and diffusion, appear to be the next logical step in theoretical development and in preparation for Cherenkov Array Telescope (CTA; see e.g., @2013APh....43..287D [@2015AAS...22533603F]).
As an example (albeit perhaps an unusual one) of a relic PWN one can consider Vela X. The nearby Vela SNR ($\sim8^{\circ}$ in diameter) has a large region of non-thermal radio emission surrounding the Vela pulsar (see e.g., @1998MmSAI..69..919B). One of the brightest radio filaments in Vela X, positioned at the southwest of the pulsar, was detected in X rays with [*ROSAT*]{}, [*ASCA*]{}, [*Suzaku*]{}, and [*XMM-Newton*]{} [@1995Natur.375...40M; @1997ApJ...480L..13M; @2008cosp...37.2105M; @2008ApJ...689L.121L] and, more recently, in GeV $\gamma$-rays with [*AGILE*]{} [@Pellizzoni2010] and [*Fermi*]{} LAT [@Abdo_Vela] and very high energies (0.5–70 TeV) with HESS and CANGAROO [@2006ApJ...638..397E]. The bright X-ray and VHE emission regions are positionally coincident (they sometimes referred to as a “cocoon”), and have been commonly dubbed a relic PWN displaced to the south by the unequal pressure of the reverse shock propagating within the SNR. However, subsequent deeper observations with H.E.S.S. [@2012AandA...548A..38A] and [*Fermi*]{} LAT [@2013ApJ...774..110G] revealed a fainter extended emission whose morphology appears to correlate with the the double-lobe, large ($\sim2^{\circ}$ in extent) structure found at 61 GHz in the WMAP images. This yields strong support to the scenario where two different populations of electrons are needed to reproduce the radio/GeV halo and the X-ray/TeV cocoon, respectively [@2008ApJ...689L.125D].
Theory of PWNe
==============
General properties of pulsar winds and structure of PWNe
--------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical studies of PWNe concentrated on interaction of the relativistic pulsar wind with the surrounding plasma. The morphology of nebulae is described in the scope of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models, which proved to be very successful. In order to understand the radiation spectra, one has to develop realistic particle acceleration models; this is a much more difficult task. Here we shortly review the recent development of the PWNe theory; for more comprehensive reviews, see, e.g. @Kirk_Lyubarsky_Petri09 [@2012SSRv..173..341A; @2014RPPh...77f6901B].
The general features of PWNe are basically dictated by the physics of the pulsar wind:
- The pulsar wind is composed predominantly of electron-positron pairs, may be with some admixture of ions. The pair content of PWNe suggests that the pair density in the wind is rather high, more than enough to ensure that the wind could be described as an MHD flow [@1996ApJ...457..253D; @Bucciantini_etal11].
- The wind is strongly magnetized; most of the energy is transferred, at least initially, as Poynting flux.
- The wind is highly anisotropic: the Poynting flux is maximal in the equatorial belt and goes to zero at the axis [@Michel73; @Bogovalov99; @Tchechovskoy_etal13].
- An obliquely rotating magnetosphere produces variable electromagnetic fields that propagate in the wind as MHD waves; specifically in the equatorial belt, where the magnetic field changes sign every half of period, the so called striped wind is formed.
The PWN is in fact a bubble filled predominantly by relativistic particles and magnetic fields; it is inflated by the pulsar wind that continuously pumps into the surrounding medium the energy in the form of relativistic particles and magnetic fields. Within the nebula, the fields and the particles are roughly in equipartition therefore the main question is how the Poynting flux in the pulsar wind is converted into the energy of particles (the so called $\sigma$-problem).
Even though the details of the energy transformation process remain obscure, the general picture is robust: most of the energy is transferred in the wind by alternating electro-magnetic field; and the energy is transferred to the plasma when the alternating field dissipates. This conclusion follows from the strong anisotropy of the MHD wind, in which energy is predominantly transferred in the equatorial belt where the striped wind is formed. Of course the fraction of the energy transferred by alternating fields depends on the angle between the magnetic and rotational axes of the pulsar: an aligned rotator does not produce alternating fields at all whereas the energy from a perpendicular rotator is totally transferred by alternating fields. Due to the strong anisotropy of the pulsar wind, most of the energy is transferred by alternating fields even in a moderately oblique case. @2013MNRAS.428.2459K calculated the fraction of the energy flux due to alternating fields making use of the split monopole model of the pulsar wind [@Michel73; @Bogovalov99], in which the Poynting flux is distributed as $\sin^2\theta$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle. He found that even if the angle between the rotational and magnetic axes is $45^o$, as much as 72% of the total energy is transferred by alternating fields. In real pulsar winds, this fraction is even larger because the Poynting flux in the wind from a rotating dipole magnetosphere is more concentrated to the equatorial belt than in the monopole wind; according to numerical simulations by @Tchechovskoy_etal13, the angular distribution of the Poynting flux is close to $\sin^4\theta$ in this case.
Even though the dissipation mechanisms for variable fields in pulsar winds are still debated, one has to stress that the particle Larmor radii within the nebula significantly exceed the wavelength of the waves in the pulsar wind. Therefore these waves could not penetrate into the nebula in any case; even if they survive within the wind, they dissipate at the termination shock front . Therefore the post-shock flow must be the same as it would be if the dissipation has already been fully completed in the wind. The structure of the nebula is determined by the distribution of the total energy and mean magnetic field in the wind. In the equatorial belt, where most of the energy is transferred, the mean field is weak therefore relatively weakly magnetized plasma is injected into the nebula in this region. At higher latitudes, the magnetic field does not change sign and the variable magnetic fields could propagate in the form of fast magnetosonic waves. These waves efficiently decay as a result of non-linear steepening [@Lyubarsky03fms] however, they could not transfer a large fraction of the Poynting flux so that the flow magnetization in this region remains large even after they decay.
Taking into account the above properties of the pulsar wind, the observed morphology of PWNe, and first of all the characteristic disk-jet structure [@2000ApJ...536L..81W; @2006ARAandA..44...17G], is naturally explained [@Lyubarsky02]. Namely, the disk is formed by the relatively weakly magnetized equatorial flow, which transfers most of the energy. In the Crab, such a disk is clearly seen in the [*Chandra*]{} map because the X-ray emitting electrons rapidly loose their energy thus making X-rays a tracer for the freshly injected plasma. In other PWNe, like Vela, the disk may even not be seen at all because the high energy electrons fill a much larger volume. The high latitude flow remains magnetized therefore it is compressed by the magnetic hoop stress to form a jet-like feature at the axis. An important point is that in the highly relativistic, super-sonic (more exactly, super-fast-magnetosonic) wind, the magnetic collimation is inefficient; the “jet” is formed beyond the termination shock where the flow is decelerated. Inasmuch as the pulsar wind is anisotropic, the termination shock is highly non-spherical: it lies much closer to the pulsar in the polar regions than in the equatorial belt; therefore the “jet” appears to originate from the pulsar (see also @Bogoval_Khang02).
This general conjecture has been confirmed by axisymmetric MHD simulations . These simulations were able to explain also nontrivial features of the fine structure, such as a mysterious knot, which is located within 1" from the Crab pulsar [@1995ApJ...448..240H]. Namely, the knot is a Doppler-beamed emission from the patch of the highly oblique termination shock where the post-shock flow is still relativistic and directed towards the observer [@2004MNRAS.349..779K]. Simulations with a better resolution and therefore with a lower numerical viscosity [@2009MNRAS.400.1241C] revealed bright fine filaments moving away from the termination shock with a good fraction of the speed of light. These are highly reminiscent of the so-called wisps of Crab nebula [@1995ApJ...448..240H].
In spite of all these successes, important basic problems have remained unresolved. Namely, axisymmetric simulations reproduce the observed structure of the nebula only if the wind magnetization at high latitudes was chosen to be relatively small, significantly smaller than one could expect from theoretical considerations. This discrepancy was resolved only recently when fully 3D simulations have been performed [@2014MNRAS.438..278P]. Let us describe these recent developments in more details.
The $\sigma$-problem and 3D simulations of PWNe {#sect_sigmapb}
-----------------------------------------------
The problem of the magnetic to the plasma energy transformation in pulsar winds is generally referred to as the $\sigma$-problem because the flow magnetization, defined as the ratio of the Poynting to the plasma energy fluxes, is typically denoted by $\sigma$. The pulsar wind starts as a highly Poynting dominated ($\sigma\sim 10^4 - 10^6$); on the other hand, there is a pervasive belief that one can account for the morphology of PWNe, including the remarkable jet-torus structure, only if just upstream of the termination shock, $\sigma$ does not exceed 0.01. Such a tremendous drop in the flow magnetization looks so mysterious that the problem was sometimes referred to as the $\sigma$-paradox. However, one has to stress that what we really need to consider is the mean field because alternating fields inevitably decay. As it was mentioned above, they transfer most of the energy in the pulsar wind therefore the magnetization due to the mean field is not large, which makes the $\sigma$-problem not so severe. Let us discuss the issue in a bit more details.
First of all one has to stress that the strong constraints on the wind magnetization at the termination shock mentioned above were obtained in spherically or axially symmetric models of PWNs [@Rees_Gunn94; @1984ApJ...283..694K; @emmeringchevalier87; @begelmanli92]. The reason for the required low value of $\sigma$ is that in these models, the magnetic field strength grows with radius within the nebula so that the field would exceed the equipartition value and pinch the flow too much if the magnetization at the termination shock is not extremely small. The behavior of the magnetic field could be easily understood if one takes into account that the field in the far zone of the wind is practically azimuthal, and in the axisymmetric flow, the field lines remain coaxial circular loops. The radius of the field line increases when the flow expands, the field strength being determined by the conservation of the magnetic flux within the toroidal magnetic tube. At the termination shock, the flow compresses so that the magnetic field increases three times. The flow within the nebula is subsonic therefore the pressure and the density of the plasma do not change significantly. Therefore the volume of the toroidal magnetic tube remains roughly constant. In this case, the cross section of the tube decreases when the tube radius increases, which implies an increase in the magnetic field roughly linearly with the radius.
Taking into account that the size of the nebula is about an order of magnitude larger than the radius of the termination shock, one finds that in the axisymmetric flow, the field strength in the main body of the nebula exceeds that in the wind just upstream of the shock $\sim 3\times 10=30$ times whereas $\sigma$ grows roughly three orders of magnitude. The problem can be alleviated if the kink instability destroys the concentric field structure in the nebula [@1998ApJ...493..291B]. Then the magnetic loops could come apart and one expects that in 3D, the mean field strength is not amplified much by expansion of the flow. In this case, $\sigma$ just upstream of the termination shock might not need to be so unreasonably small as was found in axisymmetric models.
This idea can be checked only by 3D simulations of plasma flow within the nebula. As the first step, @2011ApJ...728...90M simulated the 3D evolution of a simple cylindrical model of PWNe developed earlier by @begelmanli92. This model describes a static cylindrical configuration with a relativistically hot plasma such that the thermal pressure is balanced by the hoop stress of a purely toroidal magnetic field. The simulations clearly demonstrated that the kink instability does develop in the system and destroys the regular concentric structure of the magnetic field thus relaxing the hoop stress and triggering magnetic dissipation. This proves that 3D effects play crucial role in the evolution of PWNe. However, these simulations do not claim to model PWN, simply because the continuous injection of magnetic flux and energy into PWN by their pulsar winds is not accounted for.
The first realistic 3D simulations of PWNe were performed by @2014MNRAS.438..278P. They used qualitatively the same setup as in 2D simulations, namely, the nebula is pumped by a strongly anisotropic pulsar wind with the magnetization determined only by the mean magnetic field as if the alternating component of the field has completely dissipated. The difference was in the magnetization at high latitudes, where the magnetic field does not change sign. In 2D simulations, the observed morphology was reproduced only if the high latitude $\sigma$ was chosen to be as small as 0.1 even though according to the pulsar wind theory, it should remain significant, not less than a few. @2014MNRAS.438..278P took $\sigma=1\div 3$ at high latitudes, as it should be.
According to the results of their 3D simulations, the azimuthal component of the magnetic field is still dominant in the inner part of the nebula, which is filled mainly with freshly injected plasma. The hoop stress of this field is still capable of producing noticeable axial compression close to the termination shock and driving polar outflows, required to explain the Crab jet, and jets of other PWNe (Fig. \[fig\_porth1\]). However, these are much more moderate than in 2D models. In the main body of the nebula, the highly organized coaxial configuration of magnetic field is largely destroyed by the kink instability (Fig. \[fig\_porth2\]) therefore the global evolution of the PWN in 2D and 3D cases differs radically (Fig. \[fig\_porth3\]). If the high latitude magnetization is large, the 2D models develop extremely strong polar jets, which burst through the supernova shell. In contrast, in the 3D models the $z$-pinch configuration is destroyed by the kink instability so that the polar outflows are less powerful and eventually lose collimation, as observed.
![Formation of the polar outflow in the 3D MHD simulations by @2014MNRAS.438..278P. The colour images show the distribution of $\lg\beta$ in the yz plane, where $\beta$ is the ratio of the thermal to the magnetic pressure. The black lines show the momentary streamlines and the red line the termination shock.[]{data-label="fig_porth1"}](betaSliceD10.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
{width="75.00000%"}
{width="75.00000%"} {width="75.00000%"}
Important observational constraints are imposed by polarization measurements that reveal a high degree of polarization in the central part of the Crab nebula with the polarization vector parallel to the pulsar axis, which may be considered as direct evidence for the azimuthal field [@2008ARAandA..46..127H]. The simulations do show that in spite of the strong disruption of the azimuthal magnetic field, the polarization remains substantial, particularly in the inner part of the nebula. The polarization direction on the scale of the torus clearly indicates an azimuthal field because the photon magnetic vector appears to curve around the torus.
The 3D simulations also show a bright knot, which was discovered in the previous 2D simulations [@2004MNRAS.349..779K] and identified with the inner knot observed in the Crab nebula [@1995ApJ...448..240H]. This emission comes from the immediate vicinity of the termination shock, it is highly Doppler beamed and originates in the high-speed part of the post-shock flow. A correlation was found between the knot position and the flux, such that brighter states correspond to a smaller offset between the knot and the location of the pulsar, which is in excellent agreement with the recent optical observations of Crab’s knot [@2013MNRAS.433.2564M]. The simulated polarization degree and polarization angle in the knot also agree with observations.
The termination shock is found to be unsteady due to an intricate feedback mechanism between the shock and the nebula flow. The inhomogeneities, formed in the post-shock flow as a result of this variability, appear as wisps emitted from the shock location, in a qualitative agreement with the observations of the Crab nebula.
In the main body of the nebula, the kink instability not only destroys the regular magnetic field structure; the excited turbulence yields efficient magnetic dissipation. In simulations, this occurs at the grid scale via numerical resistivity. To become efficient, it requires creation of ever smaller scale structures in the magnetic field distribution. However, it is important that the processes which drive the development of such structures occurs on scales above the grid scale so that the dissipation rate is determined sufficiently accurately. The simulations with doubled resolution show the same dissipation rate, which suggests that the high degree of dissipation observed in these simulations is not far from being realistic. This also agrees with the observations of synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission of the Crab nebula, which show that the magnetic field is energetically sub-dominant to the population of relativistic electrons by a factor of $\sim 30$ [@Hillas98].
The above results suggest that the magnetic dissipation inside PWNe is a key factor of their dynamics. Combined with the magnetic dissipation in the striped zone of the pulsar wind, it allows to reconcile the observations of the Crab nebula with the expected high magnetization of such winds, thus finally resolving the long-lasting $\sigma$-problem.
The structure of the highly magnetized region in PWNe
-----------------------------------------------------
Even after decay of the alternating fields, the pulsar wind remains highly magnetized at high latitudes. The energy and momentum flux in this domain of the wind is relatively small therefore the termination shock approaches significantly closer to the pulsar near the axis than at the equator. This region is not quite well resolved in simulations; they just show rapid disruption of the flow by the kink instability. On the other hand, the highly magnetized region is of special interest because the recently discovered strong, short gamma-ray flares from the Crab nebula [@2011Sci...331..739A; @2011Sci...331..736T] are generally attributed to a rapid magnetic energy release via, e.g., reconnection (see Sect. \[sect\_flares\]), which assumes a magnetically dominated region within the nebula. @2012MNRAS.427.1497L developed a simple model clarifying the structure of the high latitude flow.
In a highly magnetized flow, only weak shocks could arise therefore the termination shock at high latitudes is weak; and the postshock flow in this region remains radial and relativistic. @2012MNRAS.427.1497L found a simple analytical solution for such a relativistic postshock flow. According to this solution, the flow initially expands and decelerates but eventually becomes to converge because the magnetic hoop stress is not counterbalanced either by the poloidal field or by the plasma pressure. In the converging flow, magnetic energy is converted into the plasma energy therefore the plasma accelerates and heats. If the flow remained axisymmetric, it would eventually be focused at the axis, the magnetic energy being transferred to the plasma. The focus occurs on the axis of the system at the distance from the pulsar $\sim\theta_0^2a$, where $\theta_0$ is the opening angle of the highly magnetized part of the wind, $a$ the equatorial radius of the termination shock. This point may be identified with the base of the observed jet.
An important point is that in a converging flow, even small perturbations eventually destroy the regular structure. The reason is that if converging loops are initially shifted one with respect to another by a displacement much less than their radius, the distortion becomes strong when the radius of the loops approaches the initial displacement. One has to conclude that when the axisymmetric flow is focused into a point at the axis, the magnetic loops inevitably come apart close enough to the converging point giving rise to a specific turbulence of shrinking magnetic loops. Hence one can expect that the energy of the highly magnetized part of the pulsar wind is released in a small region close to the converging point; this gives rise to the observed jet. Relativistic turbulent motions in highly magnetized plasma imply $E\approx B$ so that in the energy release region, particles could be efficiently accelerated either via the second order Fermi mechanism or via the magnetic reconnection. Therefore the synchrotron gamma-ray emission in the hundreds MeV band, both persistent and flaring, could come from a small region at the base of the jet.
The unsolved problem: origin of PWN spectra
-------------------------------------------
One sees that the overall morphology of PWNe is now well understood in the scope of MHD models. However, our ignorance of the physical processes giving rise to particle acceleration forces us to treat the injection particle spectra in PWNe as free parameters , and this freedom in interpreting the data limits the level of scrutiny to which MHD models can be subjected. The radiation spectrum carries information about the particle acceleration processes. Most of the observed radiation (from the radio up to a few hundred MeV) is synchrotron emission, with only the peak in the very high energy gamma-ray band being attributed to the inverse Compton scattering of synchrotron photons off high-energy electrons and positrons. The observed strong polarization in the radio, optical and X-ray bands is a supporting evidence for the synchrotron origin of the nebula emission.
The synchrotron part of the spectrum may be described as a broken power-law. The generic observational feature of PWNe is a flat radio spectrum, ${\cal F}_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$, with $\alpha$ between $0$ and $0.3$, extending in some cases out to the infrared. At high frequencies, the spectrum softens, and in the X-ray band, $\alpha>1$. Such an injection spectrum suggests an unusual acceleration process. The observed radio spectrum implies a power-law energy distribution of injected electrons, $N(E)\propto E^{-\kappa}$, with a shallow slope $1<\kappa<1.6$. Such an energy distribution is remarkable in that most of the particles are found at the low energy end of the distribution, whereas particles at the upper end of the distribution dominate the energy density of the plasma. Specifically in the Crab Nebula, the observed emission spectrum implies that the particles in the energy range from $E_{\rm min}<100$ MeV to $E_{\rm break}\sim 1$ TeV are injected into the nebula with a spectral slope $\kappa=1.6$, so most of the injected energy ($\sim 5\cdot 10^{38}$ erg/s) is carried by TeV particles, whereas $\sim 100$ times more particles are found at low energies of less than 100 MeV. This means that the acceleration process somehow transfers most of the total energy of the system to a handful of energetic particles, leaving only a small fraction of the energy for the majority of the particles. This is not what one would normally expect from the conventional first-order Fermi acceleration process, in which the particle flow is randomized at the shock and only a fraction of the upstream kinetic energy is deposited in highly accelerated particles.
@2003MNRAS.345..153L proposed that the flat energy distribution is formed in the course of the particle acceleration by driven reconnection of the alternating magnetic field at the pulsar wind termination shock. As a model for such a process, @LyubarskyLiverts08 have performed PIC simulations of driven magnetic reconnection in a pair plasma. Two stripes of opposite magnetic polarity were compressed by means of an external force, which would imitate the effect of a shock. They found that driven magnetic reconnection can produce flat non-thermal particle spectrum, with $\kappa\approx 1$. Realistic 3D PIC simulations of the shock in a striped wind were performed by @2011ApJ...741...39S. They found that the spectrum of accelerated particles depends on the parameter $\xi=\lambda/ \sigma r_l$, where $\lambda$ is the stripe wavelength, $r_L=mc^2\Gamma/eB$ the Larmor radius corresponding to the upstream Lorentz factor of the flow, $\Gamma$, and the upstream magnetic field, $B$. It turns out that broad particle spectra with flat slopes ($1<\kappa<2$) could be formed by the shock-driven reconnection only if the above parameter is not less than a few hundreds. In the opposite case, the spectrum resembles a Maxwellian distribution.
Note that $\sigma\Gamma$ is in fact the Lorentz factor the particles would achieve if the whole spin-down energy were equally distributed between them. Therefore the parameter $\xi$ is in fact equal, to within a numerical factor, to the ratio of the pulsar light cylinder radius to the Larmor radius acquired by the particles when a significant fraction of the Poynting flux is converted to the plasma energy. The latter is generally very large because the magnetic field at the pulsar wind termination shock is weak therefore $\xi$ could hardly exceed unity. The condition for the formation of the non-thermal tail could be achieved only if the pulsar wind is overloaded by pairs; then the energy per particle may be small enough so that the Larmor radius remains small. At present, there is no reason, neither observational not theoretical, to believe in such an necessary extraordinary large pair production in pulsars. Therefore the problem of flat particle energy spectra in PWNe remains unsolved.
Implications of the Crab flares {#sect_flares}
===============================
The rapid variability is now a well-established intrinsic property of the Crab Nebula in the GeV gamma-ray band[^18] [@2011Sci...331..736T; @2011Sci...331..739A]. The flares were not predicted by the models and they generally do not fit in the framework of the classical theory of pulsar wind nebulae and particle acceleration. This unexpected phenomenon is also a challenge for observers, because the Nebula is routinely used as a standard candle for cross-calibrating X-ray and gamma-ray instruments. We explain why the flares are so challenging for the models of the Crab Nebula in Sect. \[sect\_puzzle\], and we briefly review some of the current attempts to model the flares in Sect. \[sect\_model\] (see also the reviews by @2012SSRv..173..341A [@2014RPPh...77f6901B]).
The puzzling features of the flares {#sect_puzzle}
-----------------------------------
With more than 6 years of data, we know that the mysterious engine at the origin of the gamma-ray flares turns on about once or twice a year for about a week[^19]. Outside of these spectacular events, identified as the “flares”, the $>100~$MeV lightcurve remains apparently restless with continuous small variations of the flux [@2012ApJ...749...26B; @2013ApJ...765...52S], as if the engine never really switches off. The duration of the flares indicates that the emitting region must be surprisingly small compared with the size of the Nebula. For a typically week-long episode, the length-scale of the accelerator is of order $ct_{\rm flare}\sim 10^{16}~$cm, i.e., much smaller than the size of the termination shock radius, which is of order $0.1~$pc. The brightest events present intra-flare variability timescales as short as about $8~$hrs (see Fig. \[fig\_lc\], and ), which put even more severe constraints on the size of the particle acceleration site. Consequently, a tiny fraction of the Crab Nebula is radiating $\sim 10$ times more flux than the entire quiescent Nebula in the GeV band. During the April 2011 flare, the gamma-ray flux peaked at about $1\%$ of the spin-down power of the pulsar ($L_{\rm sd}=5\times 10^{38}$ erg/s) [@2012ApJ...749...26B]. This is putting strong constraints on the energetic budget required to power the flares.
![Gamma-ray lightcurve above $100$ MeV of the April 2011 super-flare, measured by the [Fermi]{}-LAT [@2012ApJ...749...26B]. The horizontal dashed blue line shows the “quiescent” synchrotron flux $>100$ MeV.[]{data-label="fig_lc"}](fig_lc.pdf){width="12cm"}
The gamma-ray flare spectrum appears at the high-energy end of the quiescent synchrotron spectrum, and extends up to about 1 GeV. The flaring component is usually attributed to synchrotron radiation emitted by $10^{15}~$eV (or PeV) electron-positron pairs in a $\sim$ milli-Gauss magnetic field. Other radiative processes such as inverse Compton scattering or Bremsstrahlung are far too inefficient to cool down the particles over the duration of the flare[^20]. It was already known that the Crab Nebula accelerates particles up to PeV energies (e.g., @1992ApJ...396..161D). What is new, however, is the evidence that such particles are accelerated over such a short timescale (the rise and decay timescales of the flares range between 6 hours and few days). In fact, the gyration time of the PeV particles is of order the duration of the flare themselves. Hence, the particles must be accelerated over a sub-Larmor timescale, i.e., the acceleration process must be extremely efficient. Diffuse shock-acceleration is not adequate to explain the flares because it operates only over multiple gyrations of the particles moving back and forth through the shock front. In addition, the inferred flaring particle spectrum can be as hard as $d{\rm N}/d\gamma\propto \gamma^{-1.6}$ [@2012ApJ...749...26B] which is inconsistent with the steep power-law (i.e., of index $\lesssim -2$) usually expected in diffuse shock-acceleration (e.g., @1987PhR...154....1B [@2009ApJ...698.1523S]).
Multiwavelength follow-up of Crab PWN flares
--------------------------------------------
During the gamma-ray flares the Crab was observed in radio, infrared, optical, X-ray and TeV energies, but no substantial variation in the flux emission at these wavelengths was measured. After the discovery of the gamma-ray flares, the Chandra X-ray observatory started to observe the Crab approximately every month. Five observations were carried out during the major gamma-ray flare of April 2011. The bright Anvil region (see Figure \[linefree\]) and several other regions (that are known to be active) exhibit time variability during the flaring activity time. Nevertheless, despite these hints in the X-ray data, there is no evidence for statistical significant variations associated with the flare [@2013ApJ...765...56W]. The near-IR observations performed by Keck’s NIRC2 revealed that the inner knot (knot-1) was slightly brighter when compared to previous observations. Indeed knot-1, which is the brightest feature from the Nebula in the near infrared energy band, was reported to show flux variation at this wavelength of the order of $\simeq 35\%$. However this variation is well within the range typically observed from this region. The radio observations performed with VLA did not reveal anything interesting. No other point source, a part from the pulsar, was found. Therefore, no “smoking gun” has been identified from the X-ray, near-IR and radio observations.
In terms of X-ray and optical counterparts of the Crab flares, we can describe two scenarios:
1. A simultaneous brightening of X-rays and optical locations associated with the gamma-ray flares. This scenario would favor “shock-driven” power-law models of particle acceleration;
2. A delayed response of the optical/X-ray emission, with a timescale that depends on the radiative cooling properties of the accelerated particle population. This scenario would favor an extremely efficient acceleration mechanism, likely to saturate the particle energy to a maximum value, and that could be modeled with a quasi-monoenergetic particle distribution;
The absence of a strongly enhanced X-ray and/or optical location in the Nebula in coincidence with the gamma-ray flares tends to exclude the first scenario. However in [@2013ApJ...765...56W] the possibility to model the photon spectrum of the flare of April 2011 with a power-law with index $\Gamma \sim 1.3$ connecting gamma rays and X rays was investigated and could not be ruled out.
Because of the poor angular resolution of gamma-ray telescopes, localizing the emission site of the Crab flares is a big challenge. Several regions can be considered as candidate for the acceleration and emitting region. Among them, we can identify 3 particularly interesting possibilities:
1. instabilities in the Anvil at the South-East jet base. Variability in this region was detected by optical and X-ray observations both during the September 2010 and April 2011 gamma-ray flares [@2011Sci...331..736T; @2013ApJ...765...56W]. MHD simulations of the Crab South-East jet [@2013MNRAS.436.1102M] revealed substantial jet deviation and magnetic dissipation. The jet, fed by highly magnetized and relativistic plasma [$\sigma \sim 1\--10$, @2013MNRAS.436.1102M], could be a region of magnetic reconnection. Kink instability in the jet could trigger magnetic reconnection and consequent particle acceleration.
2. tearing mode and reconnection on the termination shock “ring”. This region is known to be highly variable. The three most variable spots during the April 2011 flare are located along the ring. The highly variable wisps are observed to originate from this region. Recent simulations [@2014MNRAS.438..278P] recently proposed that efficient magnetic reconnection could take place in the Nebula right after the termination shock;
3. variation in the observed emission from knot-1. Variability up to $\sim 20\--30\%$ is known. Its variability is interpreted as a variable Doppler factor $\delta$, but no indication for optical variability has been observed so far. Simulations [@2009MNRAS.400.1241C; @Komissarov2011] show that at 100 MeV the inner knot is the brightest feature of the Nebula, and that the magnetic field can be up to 10 times larger than the average Nebular magnetic field.
![Measured gamma-ray spectra of the Crab Nebula in the 1 MeV-10 GeV band. Black data-points show the “quiescent” spectra of the Nebula. The green, magenta, and blue points are respectively the $>100$ MeV spectra during the April 2011, September 2010 and February 2009 flares measured by the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT [@2014RPPh...77f6901B]. The red solid line is the spectra obtained with 3D PIC simulations with radiation reaction of a reconnecting current sheet in the Crab Nebula [@2014ApJ...782..104C]. The model assumes that the Nebula is 2 kpc away.[]{data-label="fig_spectra"}](fig_spectra.pdf){width="12cm"}
Proposed models of the flares {#sect_model}
-----------------------------
It is usually expected that synchrotron spectrum observed in astrophysical sources cuts off far below 100 MeV [@1970RvMP...42..237B; @1983MNRAS.205..593G]. This limit is given by the balance of two antagonist forces acting on the particles: (i) the accelerating electric force, and (ii) the radiation-reaction-force opposite to the particle’s motion due to the emission of synchrotron photons. Hence, there is a maximum energy limited by synchrotron losses rather than by the size of the accelerator (e.g., @2002PhRvD..66b3005A [@2003PhRvE..67d5401M]). Then, one can show that the maximum (critical) synchrotron photon energy should be $$\epsilon^{\rm sync}_{\rm max}=\frac{9m_{\rm e}c^2}{4\alpha_{\rm F}}\left(\frac{E}{B_{\perp}}\right)\approx 160\times\left(\frac{E}{B_{\perp}}\right)~{\rm MeV},$$ where $m_{\rm e}$ is the rest mass of the electron, $\alpha_{\rm F}\approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant, $E$ the electric field, and $B_{\perp}$ the magnetic field perpendicular to the particle’s direction of motion. A particle accelerated above the radiation reaction limit would radiate away most of its energy within a sub-Larmor cycle. In most cases, ideal MHD applies, $E\ll B$, so the synchrotron spectrum should cut $\ll 100~$MeV. This rule of thumb generally applies well to astrophysical sources, and in particular to the quiescent Crab Nebula where the synchrotron spectrum turns over at about the 100 MeV limit [@1996ApJ...457..253D; @2010ApJ...708.1254A]. However, the flaring emission is systematically extending significantly above 160 MeV, up to about 1 GeV (see Fig. \[fig\_spectra\]). Unless the emitting region moves at highly relativistic speeds ($\gtrsim 0.9~c$), it implies that $E\gtrsim 5 B_{\perp}$, suggesting that a non-ideal MHD process may be at work. This is, once again, difficult to explain with classical models of particle acceleration.
All of the estimates derived above from observations are quite conservative, in a sense that we ignored the effect of beaming (geometrical or relativistic), spatial and/or temporal inhomogeneities. Every model proposed so far is taking advantage of one or more of these effects to alleviate the tight constraints imposed by the flares. For instance, one feature commonly invoked in models is a strong inhomogeneity of the flaring region, in particular in the magnetic field structure. @2012MNRAS.421L..67B proposed that the flares occur around the equatorial belt where the annihilation of the striped pulsar wind at the shock accelerates particles and, crucially for this model, generates magnetic turbulence. They find that a concentration of fluctuating magnetic field can generate an intermittent, strongly polarized gamma-ray signal that is most pronounced at the high-energy end of the synchrotron spectrum. In this model, synchrotron photons above $100~$MeV can be emitted if the magnetic field varies over a timescale shorter than the synchrotron cooling time of the particles which is determined only on the RMS value of the field. The observed gamma-ray variability would then be given by the statistical properties of the magnetic fluctuations (lifetime, amplitude).
The model by @2013ApJ...763..131T also relies on a highly inhomogeneous turbulent flow, but in which the coherence length of the magnetic field, $\lambda_B$, is extremely short compared with the cooling length of the particles and even compared with the formation length of the synchrotron photons, $\lambda_{\rm sync}=m_{\rm e}c^2/eB\gg \lambda_B$, [^21]. In this regime, the particles emit the so-called “jitter” radiation rather than the classical synchrotron radiation (see, e.g., @2000ApJ...540..704M). The cooling rate of the particles is identical to synchrotron but the emitted spectra can differ significantly. In particular, the critical photon energy increases by a factor $\epsilon_{\rm jitt}/\epsilon_{\rm sync}\sim\lambda_{\rm sync}/\lambda_B\gg 1$ in the jitter regime, and hence $>100$ MeV gamma rays could be emitted even by particles below the radiation reaction limit. In addition, jitter radiation can produce a harder spectrum than synchrotron, specifically, $F_{\nu}\propto\nu$ instead of $F_{\nu}\propto \nu^{1/3}$ for a mono-energetic population of particles. However, we note that jitter radiation is not needed to explain the flare spectra. So far, observations are fully consistent with synchrotron radiation [@2012ApJ...749...26B; @2013ApJ...765...56W], but this could be tested in the future.
A more natural way to explain the Crab flares is to invoke a relativistic bulk motion of the flaring region with a modest Lorentz factor $\Gamma\gtrsim 2$. Indeed, the relativistic motion of the source can boost $\lesssim 100~$MeV synchrotron photons emitted in the co-moving frame by a $\sim\Gamma$ factor above the radiation reaction limit [@2011ApJ...730L..15Y; @2011MNRAS.414.2229B; @2011MNRAS.414.2017K; @2012MNRAS.422.3118L; @2012MNRAS.426.1374C]. A Doppler boost would also relax the tight constraints on the size of the region and the duration of the flare in the co-moving frame, and beam the emission in the frame of the observer which would also help at reducing the energetic constraints[^22]. Lastly, the Doppler beaming would explain the observed correlation between the gamma-ray flux and the cut-off energy in the spectra during the April 2011 flare [@2012ApJ...749...26B]. Although this simple solution solves many problems at once, there is still no definite evidence that such a relativistic flow exists in the Crab Nebula. Observations show only mildly relativistic flows with proper motion of order half the speed of light (e.g., @2008ARAandA..46..127H). However, in principle, highly relativistic flows could emerge in the polar regions of the Nebula because the relativistic shock is oblique and magnetized (weak shock) at high latitudes (e.g., @2012MNRAS.427.1497L [@2013MNRAS.428.2459K]). In particular, @2011MNRAS.414.2017K argued that the flares may originate from the emission from the oblique shock Doppler-boosted towards the observer, that they associate with the well-known bright compact structure near the pulsar (the so-called “inner knot”). Unfortunately, the brightness of the knot does not show any variations correlated with the gamma-ray flares (see and references therein) contrary to what the model predicts.
Alternatively, @2011ApJ...737L..40U proposed that magnetic reconnection could accelerate particles well above the radiation reaction limit, and hence result in the emission of $>100~$MeV synchrotron radiation. Indeed, as pointed out by @2004PhRvL..92r1101K, inside a reconnection layer the magnetic field is small and even vanishes at its center while the reconnection electric field is maximum, i.e., we are in the situation where $E\gg B$. Thus, in principle, a particle trapped deep inside the reconnection layer could be linearly accelerated by the electric field to arbitrary high energies with little synchrotron losses. The maximum energy of the particle would be limited only by the length of the reconnection layer $L$, i.e., $\mathcal{E}_{\rm max}\sim e E L=e\beta_{\rm rec}B_0 L$ where $\beta_{\rm rec}=E/B_0$ is the dimensionless reconnection rate, $E$ is the reconnection electric field and $B_0$ is the reconnecting magnetic field. Using a test-particle approach with prescribed static fields, and @2012ApJ...746..148C showed that the high-energy particles are naturally trapped and confined deeply inside the layer, where they follow the relativistic analog of Speiser orbits [@1965JGR....70.4219S; @2011ApJ...737L..40U]. This scenario was successfully tested using state-of-the-art particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of 2D and 3D relativistic reconnection with guide field and, more importantly, with the radiation reaction force [@2013ApJ...770..147C; @2014ApJ...782..104C]. Furthermore, these studies revealed that a natural outcome of relativistic reconnection is the strong beaming and bunching of the energetic particles (see also @2012ApJ...754L..33C). The combination of both effects results in several bright ultra-rapid synchrotron flares above $100$ MeV consistent with the observed intra-flare variability ($\lesssim 6$ hrs) if, by chance, the beam crosses the line of sight of a distant observer. Thanks to beaming, this model can also explain the overall energetics of the flares (Fig. \[fig\_spectra\]), the flux/cut-off energy correlation and, at least qualitatively, the hard particle spectrum[^23].
The reconnection scenario works best in a highly magnetized flow (i.e., $\sigma\gg 1$) which may be hard to find in the nebula, except in the polar regions and in the jets. As predicted by @1998ApJ...493..291B and as recently shown by @2011ApJ...728...90M [@2014MNRAS.438..278P; @2013MNRAS.436.1102M], the polar regions and the jets are subject to kink instabilities which results in important magnetic dissipation (see Sect. \[sect\_sigmapb\]), and may ultimately power the Crab flares [@2012ApJ...746..148C; @2012MNRAS.427.1497L; @2013MNRAS.428.2459K; @2013MNRAS.436.1102M].
Comparison with GeV flares in the PSR B1259–63/LS 2883 binary {#sect_model}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The gamma-ray binary PSR B1259$-$63 that contains a 48-ms pulsar in a 3.4-yrs eccentric orbit around an O star (see Sect. 1.4), is a well-known TeV gamma-ray emitter . The very-high energy radiation is often interpreted as inverse Compton scattering of the UV stellar photons on relativistic pairs accelerated near the shock front between the pulsar wind and the stellar wind (e.g., @1997ApJ...477..439T [@1999APh....10...31K; @2007MNRAS.380..320K]). The model predicts a maximum of GeV gamma-ray emission close to periastron which was indeed observed for the first time by the Fermi-LAT during the 2010 periastron passage [@2011ApJ...736L..10T; @2011ApJ...736L..11A]. A few weeks after the peak of the periastron emission faded away, and against all expectations, a bright flare appeared in the Fermi data. The flare is about 10-times brighter than the predicted emission at periastron, which represents a gamma-ray luminosity comparable to the pulsar spin-down power. A radiative efficiency close to 100% is in principle achievable with inverse Compton scattering, but the density of stellar photons is far too low to explain the flux at these phases, unless there are extra sources of radiation close to the pulsar (see, e.g., ), or significant Doppler boosting of the emission towards the observer . The flare peaks at 300 MeV and is seen only in the GeV band, which suggests that the particle energy distribution must be very narrow. These properties remind us of the Crab-flare events (see Sect. \[sect\_puzzle\]). Although both flares share similar properties, they have also important differences. The week-long flares in the Crab reach at most 1% of the Crab pulsar spin-down power, whereas the highest day-average flux reaches nearly 100% of the pulsar spin-down flux during flaring period associated with the second disk passage. Unlike Crab PWN the flares in B1259–63 appear to be periodic. i.e. they occurred at similar binary phases (close to the second disk passage) during the past two binary cycles [@2015ApJ...798L..26T; @2015arXiv150406343C].
While it may be that the underlying nature of flares in both cases is the synchrotron radiation associated with reconnection in the magnetized relativistic plasma, the details should differ. In the Crab PWN, the reconnection can be driven by the growth of instabilities or other random process, while in B1259–63, it can be driven by the magnetic field distortion and compression caused by the pulsar passage through the excretion disk. It is possible that the reconnection happens in the tail of the PWN after the pulsar passage through the disk which could explain the delay between the GeV flare and the peak of X-ray flux [@2015ApJ...798L..26T; @2015arXiv150406343C]. An alternative scenario, considered by [@2012ApJ...752L..17K], where the flare is due to the IC radiation associated with the increase in volume occupied by the unshocked pulsar wind when the excretion disk is strongly perturbed, also remains a possibility. One may be able to differentiate between the two scenarios once the $\gamma$-ray variability timescales and the state of the disk during the pulsar passage are better probed by the observations.
We thank George Pavlov for his valuable comments and discussions. We are grateful to Blagoy Rangelov for creating the merged F550M Crab image from the archival [*HST*]{} data and help with the manuscript editing. We acknowledge support from NASA grants GO3-14084X, GO3-14057C, G03-14082A, NNX09AC81G, NNX09AC84G, HST-GO-13043.09, and G02-13085C. BC acknowledges support from the Lyman Spitzer Jr. Fellowship awarded by the Department of Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University, and the Max-Planck/Princeton Center for Plasma Physics. YL acknowledges support from Israeli Science Foundation under the grant 719/14.
[^1]: Such classification is possible only for sufficiently bright and relatively nearby PWNe.
[^2]: A more detailed overview of the observational properties of population of relic PWNe can be found in [@2013arXiv1305.2552K].
[^3]: Since the PWN properties and evolution depend on the environment, one should not forget that the progenitor and SNR properties may be quite different for the Crab and Vela pulsars.
[^4]: See animation at [http://home.gwu.edu/$\sim$kargaltsev/Crab.html](http://home.gwu.edu/~kargaltsev/Crab.html)
[^5]: Overall, the large degree of correlation between the radio structure and optical filaments suggests than most of the radio emission is related to the SNR filaments.
[^6]: However, one can imagine that the jet stayed at one position (“3” in Fig. \[crabmw\]) for a long time and then relatively quickly moved to the other position (“1” in Fig. \[crabmw\])
[^7]: The outer edge of the optical/NIR wisp is about $1''$ further away from the pulsar, with the X-ray ring emission trailing behind or possibly being sandwiched between the bright wisp and the fainter wisp.
[^8]: Here we are following nomenclature introduced by [@1995ApJ...448..240H], see Fig. \[linefree\] (top panel).
[^9]: In principle, the magnetic field may deviate from the dipolar configuration more for the Vela pulsar than for the Crab pulsar. Indeed, braking indices, $n$, of the Crab ($n=2.5$) and Vela ($n=1.4$) are very different, and the Vela pulsar is much more “glitchy” compared to Crab.
[^10]: The parameter that determines to what degree a PWN is affected by the pulsar motion is the ratio of the pulsar velocity to the local ambient sound speed (Mach number $\mathcal{M}$). The medium within the younger Crab SNR is hotter than in the Vela SNR.
[^11]: Here the distances are scaled as $d_{0.3}=d/(300$ pc) and $d_{2}=d/2,000$ pc.
[^12]: It is likely that the Mach number is somewhat larger for the Vela PWN where we see some effect of the motion [@2003ApJ...591.1157P].
[^13]: In the [@2001AandA...379..551R] model the arcs are the traces of the particle beams from the two magnetic poles and the inner jets are the Doppler-boosted projections of the beams.
[^14]: Alternatively, an old SNR can break-up and dissolve.
[^15]: The simulations of [@2005AandA...434..189B] do not extend further than $25r_{cd,0}$ (where $r_{cd,0}$ is the scant-off distance at the apex of the bowshock) from the pulsar due to numerical challenges. Also, the model neglects the impact of the magnetic field on the flow dynamics. It is reasonable to expect that the pulsar tail physics may have some similarities with that of leptonic AGN jets for the case when the pulsar spin axis are parallel to its velocity vector (except that magnetic hoop stress may turn out to be larger in the case of pulsar tails). Therefore, some of the AGN jet simulations may be relevant for the pulsar tails.
[^16]: The simulations by [@2007MNRAS.374..793V] only extended for a few $r_{cd,0}$ from the pulsar, much smaller than the scales of extended tails seen in X-rays).
[^17]: The angle between the line of sight and the pulsar velocity vector.
[^18]: The X-ray flux of the Crab Nebula is also variable but to a $\sim 10\%$ level over a year-timescale [@2011ApJ...727L..40W]. This will not be discussed here, because this phenomenon does not appear to be directly connected to the flares.
[^19]: See <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/msl_lc/source/Crab_Pulsar>
[^20]: The flux of the inverse-Compton component above $>100~$GeV remains constant during the flares .
[^21]: This might be challenging to achieve in relativistic shocks [@2009ApJ...707L..92S].
[^22]: This solution is often proposed to account for the ultra-rapid gamma-ray flares in blazars.
[^23]: Recent studies show that reconnection produces hard particle spectra $d{\rm N}/d\gamma\propto \gamma^{-1},~\gamma^{-1.5}$ for $\sigma\gg1$ [@2014ApJ...783L..21S; @2014PhRvL.113o5005G; @2014arXiv1409.8262W].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
As machine learning has become more prevalent, researchers have begun to recognize the necessity of ensuring machine learning systems are fair. Recently, there has been an interest in defining a notion of fairness that mitigates over-representation in traditional clustering.
In this paper we extend this notion to hierarchical clustering, where the goal is to recursively partition the data to optimize a specific objective. For various natural objectives, we obtain simple, efficient algorithms to find a provably good fair hierarchical clustering. Empirically, we show that our algorithms can find a fair hierarchical clustering, with only a negligible loss in the objective.
author:
- |
Sara Ahmadian\
Google\
`sahmadian@google.com`\
Alessandro Epasto\
Google\
`aepasto@google.com`\
Marina Knittel\
University of Maryland\
`mknittel@cs.umd.edu`\
Ravi Kumar\
Google\
`tintin@google.com`\
Mohammad Mahdian\
Google\
`mahdian@google.com`\
Benjamin Moseley\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`moseleyb@andrew.cmu.edu`\
Philip Pham\
Google\
`phillypham@google.com`\
Sergei Vassilvtiskii\
Google\
`sergeiv@google.com`\
Yuyan Wang\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`yuyanw@andrew.cmu.edu`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Fair Hierarchical Clustering
---
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper describes how a Case Management Modeling and Notation (CMMN) implementation can use Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) to implement the CMMN information model. The interaction between CMMN and CMIS is described in detail, and two implementation alternatives are presented. An *integration* alternative where any external CMIS repository is used. This alternative is useful to process technology vendors looking to integrate with CMIS compliant repositories. An *embedded* alternative where a CMIS repository is embedded within the CMMN engine. This alternative is useful to content management vendors implementing CMMN. In both alternatives a CMIS folder is used as the case file containing the case instance data. The CMIS repository can also be used to store the CMMN models to take advantage of CMIS versioning and meta-data. Extensive Java pseudocode is provided as an example of how a CMMN implementation can use a CMIS repository to implement the CMMN information model. No extensions to CMIS are needed, and only minor extensions to CMMN are proposed.'
author:
- |
Mike A. Marin$^{1,2}$, and Jay A. Brown$^{1}$\
$^{1}$ IBM Analytics Group\
3565 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 U.S.A.\
`{mikemarin,jay.brown}@us.ibm.com`\
$^{2}$ University of South Africa\
Pretoria, South Africa
title: 'Implementing a Case Management Modeling and Notation (CMMN) System using a Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) compliant repository'
---
**Keywords**: Case Handling, Case Management, Case Management System, Case Management Modeling and Notation, CMMN, CMMN Implementation, Content Management, Content Management System, Content Management Interoperability Services, CMIS
Introduction
============
In May 2014, the Object Management Group (OMG) formally released version 1.0 of the Case Management Modeling and Notation (CMMN) [@Omg2014cmmn] standard specification. The specification is intended to support case management applications [@Marin2013cmmn]. CMMN is based on two models, a behavioral model and an informational model. The CMMN specification indicates that the information model can be implemented using the Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) [@OASIS2012cmis] specification, however no details are given. This paper addresses that gap by describing how an CMMN implementation can use CMIS effectively. This paper is intended for implementors of CMMN, and should be read in conjunction with the CMMN specification [@Omg2014cmmn] and the CMIS specification [@OASIS2012cmis]. Familiarity with the CMMN and CMIS specifications is assumed.
Case management [@Clair2009; @Swenson2010; @Hill2012] is intended to support the needs of knowledge workers when engaged in knowledge intensive goal oriented processes. It is common for knowledge workers to interact via documents (e.g. text documents, word processor documents, spreadsheets, presentations, correspondence, memos, videos, pictures, etc.). Case management shares most of the knowledge intensive processes characteristics as defined by Di Ciccio *et. al.* which are knowledge driven, collaboration oriented, unpredictable, emergent, goal oriented, event driven, constraint and rule driven, and non repeatable [@Ciccio2015]. Therefore, it makes sense that a platform to support knowledge workers provide content management and collaboration capabilities. Case management is defined by Forrester as:
> ”A highly structured, but also collaborative, dynamic, and information-intensive process that is driven by outside events and requires incremental and progressive responses from the business domain handling the case. Examples of case folders include a patient record, a lawsuit, an insurance claim, or a contract, and the case folder would include all the documents, data, collaboration artifacts, policies, rules, analytics, and other information needed to process and manage the case.” [@Clair2009]
This paper starts with a short introduction to CMMN in section \[sec:Main-CMMN\] and CMIS in section \[sec:Main-CMIS\]. These introductions describe the main concepts, classes, and objects that will be used in the rest of the paper. Section \[sec:Main-Alternatives\] describes the two implementation alternatives. Section \[sec:Main-Interaction\] describes how the CMMN information model could be implemented in a CMIS repository. Section \[sec:Main-Models\] describes the implications for the CMMN models and for process interchange of case models. An example is given in Section \[sec:Main-Example\]. The example describes some of the functionality the end users will observe in a CMMN implementation that uses a CMIS repository as described in this paper. Conclusions are presented in section \[sec:Main-Conclusions\]. Two appendixes are included. Appendix \[sec:App-metamodels\] shows the CMMN and CMIS meta-models for reference purposes. Finally, appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] provides an example Java pseudocode showing a possible implementation of the CMMN information model in CMIS.
**CMMN information model class** **Corresponding CMIS class**
---------------------------------- ------------------------------
CaseFile cmis:folder
CaseFileItem cmis:object
CaseFileItemDefinition cmis:object Type
Property cmis:property Type
: Mapping CMMN information model to CMIS meta-model[]{data-label="table:Mapping"}
Case Management Modeling and Notation (CMMN) {#sec:Main-CMMN}
============================================
The CMMN information model starts with a `CaseFile` that contains `CaseFileItem`s. The important classes in the information model (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) are,
`CaseFile`:
: The container for all the information in a case instance. The information in a `CaseFile` can be structured like discrete properties and variables, or unstructured like documents, pictures, voice recordings, video clips, etc. There is a single `CaseFile` in a case instance. It seems natural to implement the `CaseFile` as a folder (or directory) in a content management system (or file system).
`CaseFileItem`:
: A piece of information in a case instance. All the `CaseFileItem`s of a case instance are stored in the case’s `CaseFile`. A case instance may have a large number of `CaseFileItem`s. When using content management system (or file system), it seems natural to implement each `CaseFileItem` as a document or a folder. In most content management systems, both folders and documents have properties that can be used to store structured information. For example, a folder could be used to represent a customer. That folder may have properties like the name, customer number, phone number, physical and email address of the customer, etc. The folder may be used to store all the emails and documents related with that customer. That folder and all its information maybe part of a case instance, and so stored in the `CaseFile`.
`CaseFileItemDefinition`:
: Corresponds to the type of a `CaseFileItem`.
`Property`:
: Corresponds to a property or field of a `CaseFileItem`. A `CaseFileItem` may have many properties. In a content management system, properties are often referred as the meta-data of the documents or folders in the system.
The CMMN information model is shown in Figure \[fig:CMMNhighlevel\] and Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]. Figure \[fig:CMMNhighlevel\] shows the high level case model, and Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\] shows the details of the case file model. Note that a `CaseFileItem` has two self-referencing relationships:
- A composition relationship between `parent` and `children` that can be used to represent a folder structure, where the folder (`CaseFileItem`) contains either documents (other `CaseFileItem`s) or other folders (also `CaseFileItem`s).
- A reflexive association between `sourceRef` and `targetRef` that can be used to represent relationships between documents or folders.
![Integration alternative[]{data-label="fig:IntegrationOp"}](option1){width="4in"}
Implementation using CMIS
-------------------------
In CMIS, we will use a folder to represent the case instance’s `CaseFile`, and it will contain all the case `CaseFileItem`s for that case instance. The `CaseFileItem`s will be documents or other folders. In CMIS as in CMMN, `CaseFileItem`s (documents or folders) are typed. A `CaseFileItem` is an instance of a `CaseFileItemDefinition`. This model can be easily mapped into CMIS as described in Table \[table:Mapping\].
Although there are multiple alternatives to implement the CMMN information model using CMIS, this paper explores just two alternatives:
- The *integration* alternative where an external CMIS repository is used. This alternative will be attractive to process technology vendors that want their technology to integrate with one or more existing CMIS compliant repositories.
- The *Embedded* alternative where a CMIS repository is embedded within the CMMN engine. This alternative will be attractive to content management vendors implementing CMMN over their CMIS compliant repository.
In both cases, the CMIS repository is used to store all or part of the CMMN information model. In both cases, the design tool could create CMIS declarations (mutable types), and the runtime user interface may provide access to both the CMMN engine and the CMIS repository. Figures \[fig:IntegrationOp\], and \[fig:EmbeddedOp\] show a high level view of the two options.
An example of a simple case instance is shown in Figure \[fig:Example\]. There are five entities in the figure, two `cmis:folder`s and three `cmis:document`s. Each entity starts with three text lines. The first line indicates the name of the entity. The second line indicates the CMIS object that implements the entity, and the third line indicates the CMMN object that is being implemented. For illustration purposes, each entity has two or three properties. The example shows a case file instance (`CaseFile`) with four `CaseFileItem`s. Data A is a `cmis:document` that is being used for structured data so it has no document content (blob). From a CMIS perspective, Data A is a `cmis:document` that is missing the `ContentStream` (See the CMIS meta-model in Figure \[fig:CMISmetamodel\]). This type of documents are normally called content less documents, and they could be implemented as `cmis:item` instead of `cmis:document`. Incoming documents is a folder used to store picture B and document C. Both picture B and document C are real documents with blobs. Picture B is an image of a house, and document C is a report. There is a relationship between document C and picture B, as probably picture B is mentioned in the report.
For simplicity purposes this paper assumes the full CMMN information model is stored in a CMIS repository. Some implementations may decide to implement part of the information model in another database. The Java pseudocode presented in this paper is intended as an example on how a CMMN implementation may access CMIS, and it is not intended to be used as is. It is assumed that `CaseFile` can contain properties as any other `cmis:folder`, which is not allowed in CMMN. Hints on how to implement security, versions, and the mapping of CMIS events to CMMN events are given but not fully described in the Java pseudocode.
![Embedded alternative[]{data-label="fig:EmbeddedOp"}](option3){width="4in"}
Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) {#sec:Main-CMIS}
===================================================
The CMIS specification is an open standard for dealing with Enterprise Content Management (ECM) repositories. It defines a common domain model and a set of three protocol bindings, each exposing the same domain model but serving a different type of client (SOAP, AtomPub, and JSON). OASIS approved CMIS as an official Specification in May 2010 and CMIS 1.1 was approved in December 2012 [@OASIS2012cmis] and it remains the current version of the specification. The specification states:
> ”The CMIS interface is designed to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems and their existing programmatic interfaces. It is not intended to prescribe how specific features should be implemented within those CM systems, nor to exhaustively expose all of the CM system’s capabilities through the CMIS interfaces. Rather, it is intended to define a generic/universal set of capabilities provided by a CM system and a set of services for working with those capabilities.” [@OASIS2012cmis]
The CMIS domain model consists of a set of nine services (below) and a data model (also discussed below). It does not attempt to address all aspects of a typical ECM repository (e.g. Administrative functions, workflow, etc.) rather just the functions typically used at runtime by ECM client applications. The model’s nine services are detailed below.
![Example of a case instance in a CMIS repository[]{data-label="fig:Example"}](example2){width="6in"}
CMIS Services and Data Model
----------------------------
CMIS defines a set of 9 services which include:
Repository Services:
: Used to discover info and capabilities of the connected repository.
Navigation Services:
: Used to traverse the repository’s folder hierarchy.
Object Services:
: Used to perform Create Read Update and Delete functions on objects.
Multi-Filing Services:
: Allows for multi-filing documents (not folders) within folders.
Discovery Services:
: Exposes Query (based on SQL 92) and getChanges which returns accumulated changes to the repository for indexers.
Versioning Services:
: Used to checkout documents and work with document versions.
Relationship Services:
: Used to discover and manage an object’s relationships.
Policy Services:
: Used to apply, remove, and query for policies.
ACL Services:
: Used to discover and manipulate ACLs (and ACEs) on an object.
The CMIS data model consists of a Repository object that reports all of the capabilities of the ECM repository, and a hierarchy of objects that are stored in the repository (see Figure \[fig:CMISmetamodel\]). Each of these objects has a corresponding type or property definition (Shown in Figure \[fig:CMIStypes\]). The important objects of the data model are,
`cmis:object`:
: Base for `cmis:document`, `cmis:folder`, `cmis:relationship`, `cmis:policy`, and `cmis:item`.
`cmis:document`:
: Describes documents in a content management system. Documents can be of any type, including pictures, video, voice recordings, work processor documents, spreadsheets, etc.
`cmis:folder`:
: Describes folders in a content management system. CMIS supports a hierarchical folder structure.
`cmis:relationship`:
: Can be used to establish a relationship between any two objects.
`cmis:policy`:
: Is an object that can be applied to other `cmis:object`s. The CMIS specification does not describes any specific behavior for these objects.
`cmis:item`:
: Used to model other object types that does not fit document, folder, relationship or policy types. An example could be content less documents.
`cmis:secondary`:
: Define a set of properties that can be dynamically applied to an object. They can be used as markers to create dynamic collections of objects.
CMIS implementations exist for the most popular platforms and languages in Apache Chemistry [@Chemistry2014]. These include libraries for Java, .Net, Python, JavaScript, PHP, Android and iOS (Objective-C). Finally a complete client development guide [@Muller2013] and a server development guide [@Brown2014] are available in addition to all the materials available on the Apache Chemistry site [@Chemistry2014].
![Extending CMMN meta-model for CMIS Integration (integration alternative)[]{data-label="fig:CombinedIntegrated"}](combined2){width="5in"}
![Integrated CaseFile[]{data-label="fig:CaseFileIntegrated"}](CaseFileIntegrated){width="6.5in"}
Alternatives {#sec:Main-Alternatives}
============
In this section the two alternatives are described, *integration* and *embedded* alternatives. The *integration* alternative will be appealing to process technology vendors, because it allows their CMMN implementations to use external CMIS repositories from other vendors. This may allow those process technology vendors to support one or more CMIS compliant repositories. The *embedded* alternative will be appealing to content management vendors, because it allows them to implement CMMN within their CMIS compliant repositories. Content management vendors entering the process space may prefer the *embedded* alternative.
![Extending CMMN meta-model for embedding CMIS (embedded alternative)[]{data-label="fig:CombinedEmbeded"}](combined){width="6.5in"}
Integration alternative
-----------------------
In this alternative the CMIS repository is external to the CMMN engine, and it could be implemented using any CMIS 1.1 compliant repository. This may allow a CMMN implementation to be compatible with one or more CMIS 1.1 repositories. Figure \[fig:IntegrationOp\] shows a high level view of the integration alternative showing the touch points required to implement it. The external CMIS repository is used to store all or part of the CMMN information model.
Figure \[fig:CombinedIntegrated\] shows the CMMN meta-model extended to integrate with a CMIS repository, and Figure \[fig:CaseFileIntegrated\] shows a case file implemented by a `cmis:folder`. To support the *integration* alternative, the CMMN meta-model needs to be enhanced by adding references to the CMIS objects, as follows
- The `CaseFile` now has a `CMISObjectId` attribute to reference the `cmis:folder`’s `Id` that implements the case instance in the CMIS repository.
- The `CaseFileItem` now has a `CMISObjectId` attribute to reference the corresponding `cmis:object`’s `Id` in the CMIS repository. In addition, it also has a `index` to implement the multiplicity concept in CMMN.
- The `CaseFileItemDefinition` now has a `CMISTypeId` attribute to indicate the `Id` of a `cmis:object Type`.
- The `Property` now has a `CMISPropertyId` attribute to indicate the `Id` of a `cmis:property Type`
The CMMN design tool and the CMMN runtime client user interface may or may not be aware of the CMIS repository. An implementation in which the CMMN design tool is aware of the CMIS repository may allow users to create CMIS declarations (mutable types) corresponding to different document or folder types (`CaseFileItem` types’ `CaseFileItemDefinition`s). Because both `cmis:folder`s and `cmis:documents` can contain properties, the complete CMMN information model can be implemented in CMIS. For example an implementation may use properties in the `cmis:folder` to store case `CaseFile` properties.
The runtime user interface could include a CMIS client, giving the end users the ability to inspect and modify all the cases (`CaseFile`’s `cmis:folder`s) based on his or her level of security access. When an end user modifies a case (`cmis:folder`) by adding documents, folders, or modifying the case folder documents or folders or their properties. The corresponding events are raised by CMIS and the CMMN implementation should react by evaluating and triggering the correct sentries’ `onPart`s.
![Embedded CaseFile[]{data-label="fig:CaseFileEmbeded"}](CaseFileEmbedded){width="6.5in"}
Embedded alternative
--------------------
The *embedded* alternative is the implementation of both CMIS and CMMN in the same engine. In this alternative, the CMIS repository is embedded within the CMMN engine. Figure \[fig:EmbeddedOp\] shows a CMIS repository embedded in a CMMN implementation.
Figure \[fig:CombinedEmbeded\] describes the merged meta-model between CMMN and CMIS. Figure \[fig:CaseFileEmbeded\] shows the case file implemented by a `cmis:folder`. To support the *embedded* alternative, the CMMN meta-model needs to be enhanced as follows,
- The `CaseFile` becomes a generalization of `cmis:folder`.
- The `CaseFileItem` becomes a generalization of a `cmis:object`, and now has a `index` to implement the multiplicity concept in CMMN.
- The `CaseFileItemDefinition` becomes a generalization of `cmis:Object Type`.
- The `Property` becomes a generalization of `cmis:property Type`
Everything that can be implemented with the *integration* alternative is also possible in *embedded* alternative. In addition, the *embedded* alternative provides advantages over the *integration* alternative. In particular the CMMN and CMIS design and runtime information may be stored in the same database. For example, event propagation can be done more efficiently, because a push model could be implemented versus the pull model described in this paper and in the Java pseudocode section \[sec:event\].
A CMIS repository as the CMMN information model {#sec:Main-Interaction}
===============================================
Independent of the alternative implemented (*integration* or *embedded*) the interaction between CMMN and CMIS will follow similar patterns and the CMMN implementation will use similar CMIS APIs. The simple way to use the CMIS API is to use one of the Apache Chemistry libraries [@Chemistry2014]. Appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] shows Java pseudocode using the OpenCMIS Java API from Apache Chemistry [@OpenCMIS2015] to describe at a high level how a CMMN implementation can invoke CMIS functionality.
It is important to notice that the CMMN meta-model in Figures \[fig:CMMNhighlevel\] and \[fig:CMMNcasefile\] describe a modeling time meta-model that can be used for process interchange. While the CMIS meta-model in Figure \[fig:CMISmetamodel\] is a runtime model representing objects in a content management repository. The CMIS types meta-model in Figure \[fig:CMIStypes\] can be considered both a modeling and runtime meta-model. In here we combine all of those two meta-models and use them for both modeling and runtime execution.
[|p[2.7cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[9cm]{}|]{} **CMIS Object-type** & **CMMN Definition Type** & **CMMN CaseFileItemDefinition Type’s URI**\
cmis:folder & CMIS Folder & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISFolder`\
cmis:document & CMIS Document & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISDocument`\
cmis:relationship & CMIS Relationship & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISRelationship`\
-- & XML-Schema Element & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `XSDElement`\
-- & XML Schema Complex Type & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `XSDComplexType`\
-- & XML Schema Simple Type & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `XSDSimpleType`\
-- & Unknown & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `Unknown`\
-- & Unspecified & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `Unspecified`\
\
cmis:policy & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISPolicy`\
cmis:item & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISItem`\
cmis:secondary & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISSecondary`\
\
cmis:object & *any of:* CMIS Folder CMIS DocumentCMIS Relationship -- -- -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISFolder` `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISDocument` `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISRelationship` `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISPolicy` `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISItem` `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/` `CMISSecondary`\
CMMN Information Model
----------------------
The information model in CMMN is based on a `CaseFile` (see Figure \[fig:CMMNhighlevel\] and Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]). When implementing using CMIS, there are at least two options that can be used to implement the `Casefile`,
Use a `cmis:folder`
: to represent the `CaseFile`. An *integration* alternative, as shown on Figure \[fig:CaseFileIntegrated\], may include a `CMISObjectId` in the `CaseFile` as a reference to the `cmis:folder` representing the case instance in CMIS. An *embedded* alternative, as shown in Figure \[fig:CaseFileEmbeded\], may implement the `CaseFile` as a generalization of a `cmis:folder`. Each case instance will have a `cmis:folder` containing all the case file items for that case. A `cmis:folder` can contain properties, and so, case properties can also be implemented in the `cmis:folder` implementing the `CaseFile`. The `cmis:folder` will probably outlive the case instance lifecycle, which is a good side effect, because all the case file items for a case instance will remain in the `cmis:folder` after the case is completed.
Use a database
: to implement the `Casefile`, with references to its content in the CMIS repository. Under this option, there is no CMIS representation of the case file, and so, the implementation will need to keep track of the CMIS objects stored in the case (most likely documents and folders) by storing their `cmis:objectId` in the database.
This paper describes the first option of using a `cmis:folder` to represent the `CaseFile`. The CMMN information model matches well to the CMIS model. In both meta-models, CMMN and CMIS, there is a class that represents an object, a class that represents the type of that object, and a property class. Therefore, we can map between the two specifications as shown in Table \[table:Mapping\]. All the content in a CMIS repository can be represented by `cmis:object`s and their descendants. Similarly in CMMN the information model is represented by `CaseFileItem`s. Therefore, we can map `CaseFileItem`s to `cmis:object`s. That allows the `CaseFileItem`s to describe all the CMIS objects, including documents and folders. Note that in CMMN, `CasefileItem`s representing folders use the `children` relationship (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) to point to the `CaseFileItem`s stored in the folder. As we described before, a `CaseFile` can be mapped to a `cmis:folder`. A `CaseFileItemDefinition` naturally maps into `cmis:object Type`, because `CaseFileItemDefinition` describes the type of a `CaseFileItem`, and so, it is similar to a `cmis:object Type` which defines the type of a `cmis:object`. `Property` and `cmis:property Type` represent the same concept. Therefore, the mapping in Table \[table:Mapping\] allow us to describe the full CMMN information model using CMIS.
The only high level CMIS objects not included in Table \[table:Mapping\] are `cmis:policy`, `cmis:item`, and `cmis:secondary`. They are optional in CMIS and probably not required for most CMMN implementations. However, below we describe how they could be implemented if needed, by indirectly mapping them to `CaseFileItem`s (see Table \[table:objTypes\]).
We use `cmis:folders` to implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing composition relationship between `parent` and `children` (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]). We use `cmis:relationship` to implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing reflexive association between `sourceRef` and `targetRef` (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]).
### Objects and data types
In CMMN a `CaseFileItem` can represent many objects, and the `CaseFileItemDefinition` defines the type by using a URI. In CMIS each object has its own class that is a specialization of `cmis:object`. Therefore to represent a CMIS object in CMMN, we need to set the correct URI value in the CMMN’s `CaseFileItemDefinition`’s `definitionType`, while assigning the correct CMIS object via `cmis:object` specialization to the `caseFileItem`.
#### Objects
Table \[table:objTypes\] compares the object types in CMIS with the CMMN information model. The object types in CMMN are defined by the `DefinitionTypeEnum`. The CMMN’s `CaseFileItemDefinition` describes the type of the `CaseFileItem` using an URI that includes some CMIS types. Table \[table:objTypes\] does an explicit mapping between CMIS object types and CMMN’s `CaseFileItemDefinition` types. The CMIS types described by the CMMN’s URIs should be enough for most implementations, but if needed three more URIs can be added for `cmis:policy`, `cmis:item`, and `cmis:secondary`, as described in Table \[table:objTypes\]. Note that CMIS policy, item, and secondary are optional in CMIS, and some implementions may not implement them.
#### Data types
CMMN and CMIS property types are based on the XML Schema types [@W3C2004Schema]. CMMN uses most of the XML Schema types, while CMIS uses a limited set of types. This makes it easy to map CMIS types to CMMN. Table \[table:fieldTypes\] maps the CMIS types onto CMMN types. To fully support CMIS, the CMMN property `type` URI needs to be extended with `xsd:decimal`, `Id`, and `HTML`.
[|l|l|l|]{} **Type** & **CMIS Type** & **CMMN Property Type’s URI**\
string & xsd:string & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/string`\
boolean & xsd:boolean & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/boolean`\
integer & xsd:integer & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/integer`\
float & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/float`\
double & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/double`\
duration & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/duration`\
dateTime & xsd:dateTime & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/dateTime`\
time & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/time`\
date & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/date`\
gYearMonth & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/gYearMonth`\
gYear & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/gYear`\
gMonthDay & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/gMonthDay`\
gDay & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/gDay`\
gMonth & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/gMonth`\
hexBinary & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/hexBinary`\
base64Binary & -- & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/base64Binary`\
anyURI & xsd:anyURI & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/anyURI`\
QName & & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/QName`\
\
-- & xsd:decimal & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/decimal`\
-- & Id & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/Id`\
-- & HTML & `http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/HTML`\
### Navigating the information model
CMMN describes a standard set of seven `CaseFileItem` operations (see the CMMN specification [@Omg2014cmmn] section 7.3.1 CaseFileItem operations) for the behavioral model to navigate the information model. The Java pseudocode in section \[sec:ops\] in appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] shows a potential implementation of these operations. All the operations described here work over `CaseFileItem`s in a case instance. As described before, all the `CaseFileItem`s are contained within the `CaseFile` of the case instance (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]). All the operations return ether a `CaseFileItem` (see Table \[table:objTypes\]) instance; or an `Element` which corresponds to a property of a CMIS object (see Table \[table:fieldTypes\]). Note that to implement CMMN’s `multiplicity` for `CaseFileItem`s an `index` has been added to `CaseFileItem` for both integration or embedded alternatives (see Figure \[fig:CaseFileIntegrated\], Figure \[fig:CaseFileEmbeded\], Figure \[fig:CombinedEmbeded\], and Figure \[fig:CombinedIntegrated\]). The `index` must be maintained by the implementation and should be incremented when multiple `cmis:object`s within the same case instance (`CaseFile`) have the same `cmis:name`. For most implementations that may imply that a CMIS property `index` must be added to all the `cmis:object`s that can be stored in a case folder (`CaseFile`).
The operations defined in the CMMN specification are intended to be used in CMMN expressions. Therefore these operations are intended to be implemented as part of the CMMN expression support (see the CMMN specification [@Omg2014cmmn] section 5.4.7 Expressions). The default expression language in CMMN is XPath, however CMMN implementations may support other expression languages. Note that an implementation will need to wrap the operations shown in section \[sec:ops\] to expose them in the supported expression languages. Therefore, the Java pseudocode in appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] is intended as an example, and may not implement the CMMN operations exactly as they will be exposed in an expression language.
### Modifying the information model
The previous section describes how to implement the required CMMN operations to navigate a case instance (`CaseFile`) information model using the CMIS API. This section will describe how to use the CMIS API to modify a case instance (`CaseFile`) information model. The Java pseudocode in section \[sec:other\] in appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] shows an implementation of operations to create `CaseFileItem`s and relationships between them. Operations to create documents (`createCaseFileItem DocumentInstance`), folders (`createCaseFileItemFolderInstance`), and relationships (`createCaseFileItem Relationship`) are described.
The `createCaseFileItemFolderInstance` is used to create `cmis:folder`s to implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing composition relationship between `parent` and `children`. The `createCaseFileItemRelationship` is used to create `cmis:relationship`s to implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing reflexive association between `sourceRef` and `targetRef`. Those two `CaseFileItem` self-referencing relationships are shown in Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\].
The update and deletion of `cmis:document`s, `cmis:folder`s, or `cmis:relationship`s can be trivially accomplished using Apache Chemistry OpenCMIS [@OpenCMIS2015], with existing method calls and so, are not included in the Java pseudocode.
![CaseFileItem lifecycle[]{data-label="fig:CMMNFig71"}](CMMNFig71){width="4in"}
CaseFileItem Lifecycle event propagation
----------------------------------------
For CMMN’s sentries to work correctly, events generated from the CMIS objects must be propagated to the corresponding sentry `onPart`. CMMN describes a lifecycle for the `CaseFileItem` as shown in Figure \[fig:CMMNFig71\]. From a CMIS perspective, we can separate the lifecycle state transitions between `cmis:folder`s as described in Table \[table:Folder\], and other CMIS objects (`cmis:document`, `cmis:relationship`, `cmis:policy`, `cmis:item`, and `cmis:secondary`) as described in Table \[table:Docs\].
The Java pseudocode in section \[sec:event\] in appendix \[sec:App-pseudocode\] shows how to pull the CMIS repository for events. Those CMIS events then can be used to evaluate and trigger sentry’s `onPart`. Calling the `GetContentChangesForEventPropagation` method in section \[sec:event\] , will place the thread into an infinite loop pulling for CMIS events. The implementor will need to complete the `PushChangeEvents` Java pseudocode method to propagate the events into the CMMN implementation. OpenCMIS `Enum ChangeType` has only four values for change events, CREATED, DELETED, SECURITY, and UPDATED. So the developer will have to map these to the the events in Table \[table:Folder\] and Table \[table:Docs\]. This exercise is left to the reader.
Versioning and Roles
--------------------
Although CMIS supports versioning, the CMMN specification states that for purposes of CMMN modeling, only the last version is assumed, but implementations can use versioning if required (see the CMMN specification [@Omg2014cmmn] section 5.3.2.1 Versioning). When implementing CMMN using CMIS, it makes sense to take advantage of the CMIS versioning capabilities.
Roles in CMMN are used for human tasks and are not associated with `CaseFileItems`, however when using CMIS it makes sense to use the CMIS security features to support the CMMN role concept. Each CMIS object (`cmis:object`) can have a `ACL` associated with it to implement security.
**CMIS folder event** **CMMN CaseFileItem event** **Description**
----------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
file in folder addChild A new object has been added to the folder
create relationship addReference A new cmis:relationship to the folder has been added
create folder create The folder has been created
delete folder delete The folder has been deleted
unfile document removeChild An object has been removed (un-filed) from the folder
delete relationship removeReference A cmis:relationship that pointed to the folder was removed
delete + create replace The complete folder was replaced with a new version
update folder update The folder properties have been modified
: CMIS folder events[]{data-label="table:Folder"}
**CMIS document, relationship, policy, item, or secondary event** **CMMN CaseFileItem event** **Description**
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
create relationship addReference A new cmis:relationship to the object has been added
create create The object has been created
delete delete The object has been deleted
delete relationship removeReference A cmis:relationship that pointed to the object was removed
delete + create replace A new version of the object has replaced the previous version
update update The object properties have been modified
: CMIS document, relationship, policy, item, or secondary events[]{data-label="table:Docs"}
CMMN models {#sec:Main-Models}
===========
This section describes how to store the CMMN models in the CMIS repository. It also describe the effects of using CMIS as described in this paper on process interchange.
Storing the CMMN Models
-----------------------
The CMIS repository can be used by the CMMN modeler tool to store the models. The modeler tool can take advantage of the versioning offered by most CMIS repositories to maintain the versions of its models. It can also take advantage of the CMIS folders to create project folders with the ability to create sub-folders to store the multiple assets of a project. In general, the CMIS repository can be used as the modeler repository for CMMN models and other modeling artifacts. The CMMN models and other artifacts can be represented as `cmis:document`s and stored in specialized `cmis:document Type`s and `cmis:folder Type`s. The CMMN model documents can have specialized meta-data for the CMMN modeler tool to use. For example, project name, department, etc. Standard CMIS meta-data can also be used by the CMMN modeler tool to keep track of its models. For example, `cmis:name`, `cmis:description`, `cmis:createdBy`, `cmis:creationDate`, `cmis:lastModifiedBy`, `cmis:lastModificationDate`, `cmis:versionLabel`, etc.
CMMN Extensions
---------------
In order for the CMMN implementation to take full advantage of the capabilities offered by CMIS, few extensions to CMMN are required, as follows.
`Property` types
: can be extended as shown in Table \[table:fieldTypes\] to support `xsd:decimal`, `Id`, and `HTML` types. Note that if a CMMN application is exclusively using a CMIS repository then it would never encounter one of these types. So these extensions may be optional.
`CaseFileItem` types
: may need to be extended as shown in Table \[table:objTypes\]. This is optional, because not all implementations will need to support all the CMIS objec types. Implementations that need to support `cmis:policy`, `cmis:item`, or `cmis:secondary` will need to extend the `CaseFileItemDefinition definitionType`’s URI as described in Table \[table:objTypes\].
Extended attributes
: are needed in both alternatives. The *embedded* alternative requires extended attributes to support,
- `index` as an attribute of `CaseFileItem`
The *integration* alternative requires extended attributes to support,
- `CMISObjectId` as an attribute of `CaseFile` and `CaseFileItem`
- `index` as an attribute of `CaseFileItem`
- `CMISTypeId` as an attribute of `CaseFileItemDefinition`
- `CMISPropertyId` as an attribute of `Property`
In CMMN 1.0, these extensions affect process interchange. Future versions of the CMMN specification may introduce extensible attributes and rules on how to preserve extended URIs in `CaseFileItemDefinition definitionType`’s URI and `Property Type`’s URI.
Currently, tools wishing to preserve CMIS 1.0 process interchange may need to introduce an option when saving CMMN models to indicate if the model must be CMMN 1.0 compatible, and if so, the following transformations will be required, to remove extensions:
- Remove the extended attributes as follows,
`index`
: from `CaseFileItem`
`CMISObjectId`
: from `CaseFile` and `CaseFileItem`
`CMISTypeId`
: from `CaseFileItemDefinition`
`CMISPropertyId`
: from `Property`
- Map extended `Property Type`s as follows,
`xsd:decimal`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/decimal`) to\
`double` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/double`)
`xsd:Id`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/Id`) to\
`string` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/string`)
`xsd:HTML`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/HTML`) to\
`string` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/PropertyType/string`)
- Map extended `CaseFileItemDefinition definitionType`s as follows,
`cmis:policy`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/CMISPolicy`) to\
`Unknown` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/Unknown`)
`cmis:item`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/CMISItem`) to\
`Unknown` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/Unknown`)
`cmis:secondary`
: (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/CMISSecondary`) to\
`Unknown` (`http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/DefinitionType/Unknown`)
- Review the generalizations from CMIS classes in the *embedded* alternative, which are,
`CaseFile`
: generalization of `cmis:folder`
`CaseFileItem`
: generalization of `cmis:object`
`CaseFileItemDefinition`
: generalization of `cmis:Object Type`
`Property`
: generalization of `cmis:property Type`
Example {#sec:Main-Example}
=======
This example describes an hypothetical CMMN implementation using a CMIS repository to implement the case file and to store CMMN models, as described in this paper. In this example, the implementation has two end user front end tools, the modeling tool and the client tool. Both front ends may be integrated into a single user interface. The modeling tool allows users to create CMMN case models, and so, implements the design time aspects of CMMN. The modeling tool is used by business analysts or case workers to create, update, and manage CMMN models. Case models are serialized into machine readable files as described in the CMMN specification. The files could be XMI or CMMN XML-Schema (XSD) compliant files. Those files are stored in the CMIS repository as documents. The client tool allows case workers to interact with a case instance, and so, implements the runtime aspects of a CMMN implementation. Case workers using the client tool are able to create case instances, interact with case instances by adding content, executing tasks and stages, engaging in planning by adding discretionary items to the case instance plan, collaborating with other case workers to complete case instances, etc. The case instance information model is implemented in CMIS as `cmis:folder` representing the case file. Therefore, each case instance will have its unique CMIS folder. The user using the client tool can see the state of the case instance in the CMIS folder and associated content. An example of a case file is shown in Figure \[fig:Example\]. In that figure, the case instance for project XX has a `CaseFileItem` Data 1 with some properties, and a sub-folder for incoming documents with two documents, a house picture and a report document.
In a system with a clear separation between design and runtime, a business analyst may create a case model and save it in the CMIS repository using the modeling tool. The modeling tool may expose the CMIS versioning capability. Taking advantage of these capabilities, the business analysts may maintain multiple versions of the case model and may decide to deploy to a production system one of those versions.
In a system with no separation between design and runtime, a case worker may create a CMMN model starting from scratch or using a template stored in the CMIS repository. In both cases, the resulting model may be stored in the CMIS repository for future usage as a template. In systems with no clear separation between design and runtime, models will normally start incomplete and will evolve as the case workers process the instance. These case models will continually evolve, and so, the version capabilities of CMIS will be used to keep track of the evolution of the model.
Eventually a case instance will be created and case workers will collaborate to complete the case using the client tool. Documents of multiple types maybe required to process the case instance. For example, emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, pictures, videos, voice recordings, case comments, etc. Those documents will be stored in the case folder. To organize those documents, the case workers may decide to create a folder structure under the case folder. For example, it may be useful to create a sub-folder for correspondence. That correspondence sub-folder may be further subdivided into an incoming correspondence sub-folder and an outgoing correspondence sub-folder.
In addition to the client tool that allows the case workers to interact with the case instance, other CMIS client programs could also interact with the case folder. Documents in the case instance may be created by the case workers or it may be placed in the case instance by computer programs using the CMIS API to access the case file. Events are raised when documents are added to the case, are modified, or are removed. Because both documents and folders are `CaseFileItem`s, those events can be used in entry or exit criterion to tasks, stages, or milestones. So, as the case file is modified by either the case workers using the client tool or CMIS clients interact with the case file, then entry or exit criterion may be triggered.
Conclusion {#sec:Main-Conclusions}
==========
This paper described how to implement the CMMN information model using CMIS. There is no need to extend CMIS to be used by CMMN, and only minor extensions to CMMN are proposed in this paper. Two implementation alternatives were described. An *integration* alternative where an external CMIS repository is used and an *embedded* alternative where a CMIS repository is embedded within the CMMN engine. The *integration* alternative will be appealing to process technology vendors, and the *embedded* alternative will be appealing to content management vendors. In both cases, the CMIS repository can be used to store the CMMN models to take advantage of CMIS versioning and meta-data. Extensive sample Java pseudocode is provided and analysis of the meta-models was done to guide implementors.
[10]{}
. . http://chemistry.apache.org/, 2015. .
. . http://chemistry.apache.org/java/opencmis.html, 2015. .
J. Brown and F. Muller. . https://github.com/cmisdocs/ServerDevelopmentGuidev2, 2nd edition edition, 2014. .
L. C. Clair, C. Moore, and R. Vitti. . Technical report, Forrester, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
C. Di Ciccio, A. Marrella, and A. Russo. . , 4(1):29–57, 2015.
J. B. Hill. . Technical Report June, Gartner, 2012.
M. A. Marin, R. Hull, and R. Vaculín. . In M. Rosa and P. Soffer, editors, [*Business Process Management Workshops*]{}, volume 132, pages 24–30. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Tallinn, Estonia, Sept. 2013.
F. Muller, J. Brown, and J. Potts. . Manning Publications Co., 2013. ISBN 978-1-617-29115-9.
OASIS. . http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.1/csprd01/CMIS-v1.1-csprd01.pdf, 2012. .
OMG. , 2014. Document formal/2014-05-05.
K. D. Swenson. . Landmark Books. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa, Florida, USA, 2010.
W3C. , October 2004.
CMMN and CMIS Meta-models {#sec:App-metamodels}
=========================
The CMMN and the CMIS meta-models are provided here for reference purposes. The four figures shown here have been copied from the formal specifications [@Omg2014cmmn; @OASIS2012cmis].
Figure \[fig:CMMNhighlevel\] describes the CMMN high level meta-model showing the relationship between the `Case` and the `CaseFile` that implement the CMMN information model. Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\] describes how the `CaseFile` contains all the `CaseFileItem`s in the case. In addition, it shows that `CaseFileItem`s can be used to create a folder structure using the composition relationship between `parent` and `children`; and it also shows that relationships between `CaseFileItem`s can be implemented using the reflexive association between `sourceRef` and `targetRef`. These CMMN meta-models describe a CMMN model at modeling time and can be used for process interchange.
Figure \[fig:CMISmetamodel\] describes the CMIS objects meta-model, and Figure \[fig:CMIStypes\] describes the CMIS type system. These CMIS meta-models describe a content repository runtime, by describing the objects stored in the content repository at execution time.
![CMMN High level meta-model[]{data-label="fig:CMMNhighlevel"}](cmmn10-highlevel-uml){width="6.5in"}
![CMMN case file item meta-model[]{data-label="fig:CMMNcasefile"}](cmmn10-casefile-uml){width="6.5in"}
![CMIS meta-model[]{data-label="fig:CMISmetamodel"}](cmis11-highlevel-uml){width="6.5in"}
![CMIS Types[]{data-label="fig:CMIStypes"}](cmis11-types-uml){width="6.5in"}
Java pseudocode {#sec:App-pseudocode}
===============
All the sample Java pseudocode present here is uses Apache Chemistry OpenCMIS which is a standard CMIS reference client library for Java [@OpenCMIS2015]. This pseudocode is an example of how to use OpenCMIS to implement the CMMN information model. It is not intended for production usage and so it lacks error recovery pseudocode. There are few methods that use `System.out.println` in areas that are left as exercise to the reader to complete the methods.
This appendix lists the complete Java pseudocode in file . It starts as follows,
CaseFile navigation operations {#sec:ops}
------------------------------
This section describes the CMMN standard set of `CaseFileItem` operations for the behavioral model to navigate the information model (see the CMMN specification [@Omg2014cmmn] section 7.3.1 CaseFileItem operations).
The class `CaseFileItemOperations` is used to define all the methods described in this paper. The class constructor requires a CMIS session and a root folder that serves as the `CaseFile` for the case instance. Most of the methods operate on a case instance (`CaseFile`). For illustration purposes, some methods in this class can operate outside the case instance.
### `CaseFileItem` instances
The CMMN specification describes two overloaded operations to navigate `CaseFileItem` instances. The first has a single input parameter (`itemName`).
` getCaseFileItemInstance(`**`IN`**` itemName : String, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem instance)`
Get a `CaseFileItem` (a `cmis:object` most likely a document or folder) instance with `itemName` (`cmis:name`) within the `CaseFile` container. If no `CaseFileItem` instance for the given `itemName` exists, an empty `cmis:document` (`CaseFileItem`) instance is returned. If more than one `CaseFileItem` instance name has the same `itemName` (`cmis:name`), an arbitrary one should be returned.
This Java pseudocode provides three implementations for this operation. One returning a `cmis:object` (`getCaseFileItemInstance`), one returning a `cmis:document` (`getCaseFileItemDocumentInstance`), and finally one returning a `cmis:folder` (`getCaseFileItemFolderInstance`).
The second has two input parameters (`itemName` and `index`).
` getCaseFileItemInstance(`**`IN`**` itemName : String, `\
` index : Integer, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem instance)`
Get a `CaseFileItem` (a `cmis:object` most likely a document or folder) instance with `itemName` (`cmis:name`) and `CaseFileItem`’s `index` (see Figure \[fig:CaseFileIntegrated\] and Figure \[fig:CaseFileEmbeded\]) within the `CaseFile` container. This operation is to be used for `CaseFileItem` (a `cmis:object` instances with a multiplicity greater than one. The `index` is used to identify a concrete `CaseFileItem` (a `cmis:object` most likely a document or folder) instance from the collection of `CaseFileItem` instances. If no `CaseFileItem` instance for the given `itemName` exists, or if the `index` is out of the range of `CaseFileItem` instances, an empty `CaseFileItem` instance is returned.
Note that Java does not provide methods overloading, so a number 2 was appended to the method names. This Java pseudocode provides three implementations for this operation. One returning a `cmis:object` (`getCaseFileItemInstance2`), one returning a `cmis:document` (`getCaseFileItemDocumentInstance2`), and finally one returning a `cmis:folder` (`getCaseFileItemFolderInstance2`).
### `CaseFileItem` properties
` getCaseFileItemInstanceProperty (`**`IN`**` item : CaseFileItem instance,`\
` propertyName : String,`\
` `**`OUT`**` Element)`
Get the value of a `CaseFileItem` instance property. If `propertyName` refers to a non-existing property of the `CaseFileItem` instance, an empty `Element` MUST be returned. The Element returned MUST be of the specified property type for the `CaseFileItem` instance.
### Using `CaseFileItem`s as folders
The methods in this section are used to navigate `cmis:folders` when they implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing composition relationship between `parent` and `children` (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]).
` getCaseFileItemInstanceChild(`**`IN`**` item : CaseFileItem instance,`\
` childName : String, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem)`
Get a child `CaseFileItem` instance for a given `CaseFileItem` instance. This operation is valid for `CaseFileItem`s implemented as `cmis:folder`s (`cmis:folder`). The value of parameter `childName` specifies the name (`cmis:name`) of the child to get with in the `cmis:folder`. If no child of the given name exists for the `CaseFileItem` instance, an empty `CaseFileItem` instance is returned.
This operation is provided to navigate the composition relationship between `CaseFileItem`s used to implement a folder structure. They are represented in the CMMN meta-model (see \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) by the `parent` and `children` composition relationship. This operation navigates from the `parent` (always a `cmis:folder`) to the `child` (most likely a `cmis:document` or folder).
This Java pseudocode provides three implementations for this operation. One returning a `cmis:object` (`getCaseFileItemInstanceChild`), one returning a `cmis:document` (`getCaseFileItemDocumentInstanceChild`), and finally one returning a `cmis:folder` (`getCaseFileItemFolderInstanceChild`).
` getCaseFileItemInstanceParent(`**`IN`**` item : CaseFileItem instance, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem instance)`
Get the parent `CaseFileItem` (`cmis:folder`) instance of a `CaseFileItem` instance. Note in the worse case, the parent will be the `CaseFile`, which is the parent of all the `CaseFileItem`s in a case.
This operation is provided to navigate the composition relationship between `CaseFileItem`s used to implement a folder structure. They are represented in the CMMN meta-model (see \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) by the `parent` and `children` composition relationship. This operation navigates from the `child` (most likely a `cmis:document` or folder) to the `parent` (always a `cmis:folder`).
### Relationships between `CaseFileItem`s
The methods in this section are used to navigate the `cmis:relationship` used to implement the `CaseFileItem` self-referencing reflexive association between `sourceRef` and `targetRef` (see Figure \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]).
` getCaseFileItemInstanceSource(`**`IN`**` item : CaseFileItem instance, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem instance)`
Get the source `CaseFileItem` instance of a `CaseFileItem` instance.
This operation is provided to navigate relationships between `CaseFileItem`s. They are represented in the CMMN meta-model (see \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) by the `sourceRef` and `TargetRef` relationship. This operation navigates from the `targetRef` to the `sourceRef`.
` getCaseFileItemInstanceTarget(`**`IN`**` item : CaseFileItem instance,`\
` targetName : String, `\
` `**`OUT`**` CaseFileItem instance)`
Get a target `CaseFileItem` instance for a given `CaseFileItem` instance. The value of parameter `childName` specifies the name (`cmis:name`) of the target to get. If no target of the given name exists for the `CaseFileItem` instance, an empty `CaseFileItem` instance will be returned.
This operation is provided to navigate relationships between `CaseFileItem`s. They are represented in the CMMN meta-model (see \[fig:CMMNcasefile\]) by the `sourceRef` and `targetRef` relationship. This operation navigates from the `sourceRef` to the `targetRef`.
CaseFile modification operations {#sec:other}
--------------------------------
This section shows some examples on how to use CMIS to modify the case instance (`CaseFile`) information model. Three creation methods are included here, two of them allow to create folders and documents in the root folder representing the case instance (`CaseFile`), and one to create relationships between CMIS objects. They can be used as examples of how the case information model can be modified.
Updates and deletions of objects in the case information model can be easily done using standard OpenCMIS [@OpenCMIS2015] method calls in the corresponding objects.
Event propagation {#sec:event}
-----------------
This section describes how to receive the events from the CMIS repository. The following methods are included in this class for illustration purposes, but these methods are not case instance specific. They will receive events from all the case instances in the CMIS repository. These methods should be executed in their own thread, because `GetContentChangesForEventPropagation` will go into a infinite loop. Most implementations will encapsulate the two methods shown in this section in another class to be executed in its own thread.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'For the explosion mechanism of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), different scenarios have been suggested. In these, the propagation of the burning front through the exploding white dwarf star proceeds in different modes, and consequently imprints of the explosion model on the nucleosynthetic yields can be expected. The nucleosynthetic characteristics of various explosion mechanisms is explored based on three two-dimensional explosion simulations representing extreme cases: a pure turbulent deflagration, a delayed detonation following an approximately spherical ignition of the initial deflagration, and a delayed detonation arising from a highly asymmetric deflagration ignition. Apart from this initial condition, the deflagration stage is treated in a parameter-free approach. The detonation is initiated when the turbulent burning enters the distributed burning regime. This occurs at densities around $10^{7}$ g cm$^{-3}$ – relatively low as compared to existing nucleosynthesis studies for one-dimensional spherically symmetric models. The burning in these multidimensional models is different from that in one-dimensional simulations as the detonation wave propagates both into unburned material in the high density region near the center of a white dwarf and into the low density region near the surface. Thus, the resulting yield is a mixture of different explosive burning products, from carbon-burning products at low densities to complete silicon-burning products at the highest densities, as well as electron-capture products synthesized at the deflagration stage. Detailed calculations of the nucleosynthesis in all three models are presented. In contrast to the deflagration model, the delayed detonations produce a characteristic layered structure and the yields largely satisfy constraints from Galactic chemical evolution. In the asymmetric delayed detonation model, the region filled with electron capture species (e.g., $^{58}$Ni, $^{54}$Fe) is within a shell, showing a large off-set, above the bulk of $^{56}$Ni distribution, while species produced by the detonation are distributed more spherically.'
author:
- |
K. Maeda, F.K. Röpke, M. Fink, W. Hillebrandt,\
C. Travaglio, F.-K. Thielemann
title: |
Nucleosynthesis in Two-dimensional Delayed Detonation Models\
of Type Ia supernova Explosions
---
INTRODUCTION
============
There is a consensus that Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are the outcome of a thermonuclear explosion of a carbon-oxygen white dwarf (WD) (e.g., Wheeler et al. 1995; Nomoto et al. 1997; Branch 1998). For the progenitor, the Chandrasekhar-mass ($M_{\rm Ch}$) WD model has been favored for a majority of SNe Ia (e.g., Höflich & Khokhlov 1996; Nugent et al. 1997; Fink et al. 2007; Mazzali et al. 2007).
The mass of the WD could reach $M_{\rm Ch}$ by several evolutionary paths, either by a mass-transfer from a binary giant/main-sequence companion (single degenerate scenario; e.g., Whelan & Iben 1973; Nomoto 1982) or as a result of merging with a binary degenerate WD companion (double degenerate scenario; e.g., Iben & Tutukov 1984; Webbink 1984). As the WD has accreted a sufficient amount of material, the central density of the WD increases and the heating rate by the carbon fusion exceeds the cooling rate by neutrino emission. The evolution is then followed by a simmering phase with convective carbon burning, lasting for about a century. At the end of this simmering phase, the temperature rises to the point where convection can no longer efficiently transport away the energy produced by the carbon burning. This is a stage where the burning becomes dynamical, initiating a thermonuclear flame that propagates outward and disrupts the WD, i.e., a supernova explosion (Nomoto et al. 1984; Woosley & Weaver 1986).
Once the thermonuclear flame is ignited, there are two possible modes of the propagation: subsonic deflagration and supersonic detonation. A prompt ignition of the detonation flame is disfavored because the resulting nucleosynthesis yield conflicts with Galactic chemical evolution (Arnett 1969) and fails to produce the strong intermediate-mass element features observed in SNe Ia. Thus, the explosion should start with a subsonic deflagration flame. The deflagration stage may last until the end of the explosion (the deflagration model; Nomoto et al. 1984), while it is also possible that the deflagration flame turns into the detonation wave \[the delayed detonation model, or the deflagration-detonation transition (DDT) model; Khokhlov 1991; Yamaoka et al. 1992; Woosley & Weaver 1994; Iwamoto et al. 1999\].
The supernova explosion phase has been investigated by “classical” one-dimensional spherically symmetric models; the classical deflagration W7 model of Nomoto et al. (1984) has successfully explained the basic contribution of SNe Ia to Galactic chemical evolution, as well as basic features of observed spectra and light curves of individual SNe Ia of a normal class (Branch et al. 1985). Some improvement in these observational aspects has been obtained by introducing a delayed detonation (e.g., Höflich & Khokhlov 1996; Iwamoto et al. 1999).
These models, however, treat the propagation speed of the deflagration flame as a parameter. Moreover, the deflagration flame is hydrodynamically unstable and non-sphericity is thus actually essential (e.g., Niemeyer et al. 1996). Recent investigations of the explosion models have intensively addressed these issues (e.g., Reinecke et al. 2002; Gamezo et al. 2003; Röpke & Hillebrandt 2005; Bravo & García-Senz 2006; Röpke et al. 2006b; Schmidt & Niemeyer 2006). With high resolution multi-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, coupled with an appropriate sub-grid model to capture turbulence effects on unresolved scales, recent studies provide essentially “parameter-free” simulations for the initial deflagration stage, where only the structure of the pre-supernova WD and the distribution of the initial deflagration ignition sparks set up the initial conditions.
The multi-dimensional simulations have been performed with different initial conditions to see if SNe Ia in general can be explained in a framework of a pure deflagration explosion, as is summarized by Röpke et al. (2007b). Detailed nucleosynthesis calculations have been performed for some deflagration models (Travaglio et al. 2004a, 2005; Kozma et al. 2005, Röpke et al. 2006a). These studies indicate that the pure deflagration explosion can explain a part of SNe Ia, up to relatively weak and faint SNe Ia in the normal population. However, it has also been shown that a subsequent detonation phase is probably necessary to account for typical normal SNe Ia and brighter ones (Gamezo et al. 2005; Röpke et al. 2007b).
Delayed detonation models have also been investigated with multi-dimensional simulations (Gamezo et al. 2005; Plewa 2007; Golombek & Niemeyer 2005; Röpke & Niemeyer 2007c; Bravo & García-Senz 2008). However, compared to the deflagration models as summarized above, the investigation of multi-dimensional delayed detonation models is still at the very initial stage. The radiation transfer based on the multi-dimensional models has been examined by Kasen et al. (2009). Detailed nucleosynthesis studies have rarely been done (but see Bravo & García-Senz 2008). In this paper, we present results from detailed nucleosynthesis calculations, based on two-dimensional delayed detonation models and, for comparison, a pure deflagration model.
The two delayed detonation models presented here can be regarded as extreme cases – not necessarily with respect to their $^{56}$Ni production and brightness, but with respect to symmetries/asymmetries in the explosion phase. While in one model, the deflagration was ignited in an approximately spherical configuration at the center of the WD, the other model features an off-center ignition and propagation of the initial deflagration flame similar to the three-dimensional simulations of Röpke et al. (2007d). It has been suggested that the convection in the simmering phase may be dominated by a dipolar mode, and there is a good possibility that the deflagration is initiated in an off-center way (e.g., Woosley et al. 2004, Kuhlen et al. 2006). In the pure-deflagration model, such an explosion cannot account for normal SNe Ia, because the small burning surface area should result in inefficient production of $^{56}$Ni (see, e.g., Röpke et al. 2007d). However, this can be possibly overcome in the delayed detonation scenario, as the detonation can potentially produce a large amount of $^{56}$Ni.
The paper is organized as follows. In §2, we present methods and models, in §3, we present our results. Discussion of these results from a view point of the chemical evolution is given in §4. The paper is closed in §5 with concluding remarks.
[ccccccc]{} $M_{\rm burn}$ & 1.21 & 0.61 & 1.01 & 1.25 & 0.522 & 0.393\
$E_{\rm nuc}$ & 1.78 & 0.91 & 1.46 & 1.80 & 0.767 & 0.522\
$E_{\rm K}$ & 1.28 & 0.41 & 0.96 & 1.30 & &\
$E_{\rm K}$ (hyd) & 1.30 & 0.41 & 0.93 & 1.27 & &
Methods and Models
==================
Explosion Models
----------------
In this paper, we concentrate on two-dimensional models. Although some results might be affected by the imposed symmetry (e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004a; Röpke et al. 2007b), we believe that examining 2D models is a natural step forward. Moreover, it illustrates how nucleosynthesis in the different models proceeds, and highlights differences with respect to one-dimensional models.
In particular, we focus on three models in this paper as follows:
- [**C-DEF:** ]{} A globally spherically symmetric pure-deflagration explosion in which the deflagration was ignited within the *c3*-shape boundary, as was done by Reinecke et al. (1999a). About $2\times10^{-2}\,M_{\odot}$ were initially incinerated to trigger the deflagration. This model is similar to one presented already in Travaglio et al. (2004a).
- [**C-DDT:** ]{} A delayed detonation model which follows the 2D spherical deflagration C-DEF model. A prescription for the DDT is given below.
- [**O-DDT:** ]{} A delayed detonation model which follows an extremely off-center deflagration. The deflagration is ignited by 29 bubbles distributed within an opening angle with respect to the $z$-axis of 45 degrees. The outermost bubble was placed at a distance of $\sim 180$ km from the center. About $1\times 10^{-5}\,M_{\odot}$ were initially incinerated to trigger the deflagration. The DDT is treated in the same way as in the C-DDT model.
The exploding WD had a central density of $2.9 \times 10^{9}\,\mathrm{g}\,
\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. In the hydrodynamic explosion simulations, burning was treated in a simplified way. Only five species (carbon, oxygen, alpha-particles, a representative for iron-peak elements, and a representative for intermediate mass elements) were followed. The deflagration and detonation fronts were modeled with the level-set approach (Reinecke et al. 1999b; Golombek & Niemeyer 2005; Roepke & Niemeyer 2007c). After passage of the zero-level set representing the combustion waves, the material was converted from the carbon/oxygen fuel mixture to an approximate nuclear ash composition. At high densities, NSE is reached and the ash was modeled as a temperature- and density-dependent mixture of iron-peak elements and alpha-particles. In the NSE region, electron captures neutronizing the ashes were followed. In the hydrodynamic simulations, $512 \times 512$ cells are used for C-DEF and C-DDT models, and $1024 \times 512$ cells are used for O-DDT model.
In the delayed detonation models, we assumed the deflagration-to-detonation transition to take place once the flame enters the distributed burning regime (e.g., Röpke & Niemeyer 2007c) at a fuel density of $\le 1 \times 10^{7}\,\mathrm{g}\,
\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ (hereafter $\rho_{\rm DDT}$). We emphasize that in contrast to the classical 1D models, the DDT is not exclusively parameterized by $\rho_{\rm DDT}$, but the requirement on reaching the distributed burning implies also a turbulence criterion (see Röpke 2007a for an evaluation in three-dimensional models). An estimate for entering the distributed regime is the equality of the laminar flame width and the Gibson scale – the scale at which the turbulent velocity fluctuations equal the laminar flame speed. When the Gibson scale becomes smaller than the laminar flame width, turbulence affects (and ultimately destroys) the laminar flame structure. This is a prerequisite for DDT, however, it is not a sufficient criterion (e.g. Woosley 2007; Woosley et al. 2009). The microphysics of DDT is not yet fully known, and therefore we apply the necessary condition of entering the distributed regime here only. We emphasize that the hydrodynamic models are still in a preliminary stage and used here only in order to demonstrate the nucleosynthesis associated with them. For more robust predictions of the $^{56}$Ni production and the implied brightness of the events, more elaborate hydrodynamical simulations should be used (F.K. Röpke et al., in prep.); the models presented here are understood as a case study demonstrating typical nucleosynthesis for the different explosion processes.
Results on some synthetic observables (e.g., light curves) derived for similar two-dimensional models can be found in Kasen et al. (2009), and details on hydrodynamic calculations will be presented elsewhere (F.K. Röpke et al., in prep.). Note that the present models cover extreme cases in the sequence of “classical” delayed detonation models where the DDT takes place before the deflagration wave reaches the WD surface (e.g., Kasen et al. 2009). For the situation in which only a few initial bubbles are distributed within a small solid angle with a large off-set, the “gravitationally confined detonation” model (e.g. Jordan et al. 2008; Meakin et al. 2009) has been suggested as an alternative explosion mechanism. This would be a more extreme case than our O-DDT model.
Nucleosynthesis
---------------
We apply the tracer particle method to the calculations of nucleosynthesis. The essence is to follow thermal histories of Lagrangian particles, which are passively advected in hydrodynamic simulations, and then to employ detailed nuclear reaction network calculations to each particle separately. The method was first applied to core-collapse supernovae (Nagataki et al. 1997; Maeda et al. 2002; Maeda & Nomoto 2003), and has become popular in the field thanks to its simplicity and its applicability to multi-dimensional problems (e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004b). Travaglio et al. (2004a) applied the method to multi-dimensional, purely deflagration explosion models of SNe Ia.
In the setup for our hydrodynamic simulations, $80^{2}$ tracer particles are distributed uniformly in mass coordinate, such that each particle represents the same mass of $\sim 2.2 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot} (=M_{\rm wd}/6400)$. The particles are advected passively, following the velocity field at each time step of the Eulerian hydrodynamic simulations. The thermal history each particle experiences is recorded. The number of the tracer particles is sufficient to accurately follow the nucleosynthesis. Seitenzahl et al. (in preparation) find that in two-dimensional SN Ia simulations with $80^{2}$ tracer particles all isotopes with abundances higher than $\sim 10^{-5}$ are reproduced with an accuracy of better than 5% (except for $^{20}$Ne).
The nuclear postprocessing calculations are then performed for each particle separately. To this end, we recalculate the temperature from the recorded internal energy, rather than directly using the value obtained by the hydrodynamic simulations (see Travaglio et al. 2004a). In deriving the temperature, the electron fraction ($Y_{\rm e}$) is assumed to be 0.5, which introduces some errors when the electron captures are very active. When $T_{9} = T/10^9$ K $ > 6$, we follow the abundance evolution by applying the Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE) abundance (i.e., the abundance specified by $\rho$, $T$, and $Y_{\rm e}$) rather than fully solving the reaction network, as the NSE is reached in this regime of high density and temperature. In order to correctly follow the evolution of $Y_{\rm e}$, weak interactions are computed along with the NSE abundance.
Throughout this paper, the initial C+O WD composition is assumed as follows: X($^{12}$C) $= 0.475$, X($^{16}$O) $=0.5$, and X($^{22}$Ne) $= 0.025$ in mass fractions. This is consistent with the compositions used in the W7 model, roughly corresponding to the initially solar CNO composition: Metallicity is represented by $^{22}$Ne, assuming that the CNO cycle in the H-burning has converted all heavy elements to $^{14}$N, and then it is reprocessed to $^{22}$Ne by $^{14}$N($\alpha, \gamma$)$^{18}$F(${\rm e}^{+}, \nu_{\rm e}$) $^{18}$O($\alpha, \gamma$)$^{22}$Ne in the He-burning.
The reaction network (Thielemann et al. 1996) includes 384 isotopes up to $^{98}$Mo. The electron capture rates, which strongly affect nucleosynthesis at the beginning of the deflagration stage, are taken from Langanke & Martinez-Pinedo (2000) and Martinez-Pinedo et al. (2000). Detailed comparisons between the new rates and those of Fuller et al. (1982, 1985) are presented by Brachwitz et al. (2000) for the spherical 1D deflagration model W7 (see also Thielemann et al. 2004).
Results
=======
Characteristic Burning Regimes
------------------------------
Before presenting the result of our calculations, we summarize the basics of explosive burning taking place in the deflagration and detonation stages. Typical burning products can be characterized by the maximum temperatures ($T_{\rm max}$) and densities ($\rho_{\rm max}$) attained by the material under consideration, after the passage of the thermonuclear flame \[see, e.g., Arnett (1996), Thielemann et al. (1998), and references therein, for a review of explosive nucleosynthesis\].
The explosive burning in thermonuclear supernovae proceeds in different regimes, mainly characterized by the temperatures reached in the nuclear ashes (Thielemann et al. 1986). In deflagrations, this directly translates into characteristic fuel densities ahead of the flame. At the first stage of the deflagration, the density is higher than $10^{8}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Temperatures rise to $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \equiv
T_{\rm max}/10^{9}$K $\gsim 6$. At this temperature, NSE applies, and thus the final composition is determined by freezeout processes (represented by $T_{\rm max}$ and $\rho_{\rm max}$) and the efficiency of electron capture reactions. Because of the high density, electron capture reactions are important. Dominant species in this “complete silicon burning with electron capture region” are stable $^{56}$Fe, $^{54}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni, and radioactive $^{56}$Ni (which decays into $^{56}$Fe). In the case of even stronger electron capture reactions, the main products are $^{50}$Ti, $^{54}$Cr, and $^{58}$Fe (e.g., Thielemann et al. 2004).
Following the expansion of the WD, the deflagration proceeds progressively at the lower density. At $T_{{\rm max}, 9}
\sim 5 - 6$ and $\rho_{\rm max} \sim 5 \times 10^{7} - 10^{8}$ g cm$^{-3}$, NSE still applies. The electron captures are no longer important, and thus the initial $Y_{\rm e}$ is virtually preserved. The dominant species are $^{56}$Ni and $^{58}$Ni.
In contrast to spherically-symmetric delayed detonation models, the detonation in our two-dimensional setups is triggered at certain spots at the flame front, but at other locations, deflagration burning can still proceed for some while. It is characterized by successively lower temperature and density. At $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \sim 3 - 5$, oxygen burning or incomplete silicon burning is a result, leaving mainly intermediate-mass-elements (IME) such as $^{28}$Si and $^{32}$S. At $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \sim 2 - 3$, carbon burning or neon burning is a result, characterized by abundant $^{16}$O and $^{24}$Mg in consumption of $^{12}$C. At even lower temperatures ($T_{{\rm max}, 9} \lsim 2$), virtually no major thermonuclear reactions take place.
The detonation wave can also be characterized by the same tendency, although the temperature reached in the ashes is not a unique function of the fuel density anymore but also depends on the shock strength, the effect of which needs further investigation in hydrodynamic simulations. In the delayed detonation framework, the detonation is ignited after significant expansion of the WD, and thus the electron captures are almost always unimportant (§3.4). If there is still a high density region left after the deflagration, the detonation wave can convert the material chiefly into $^{56}$Ni by complete silicon burning. As the density decreases, the detonation nucleosynthesis is characterized by oxygen burning, carbon burning, and eventually burning ceases. Compared to the corresponding deflagration case at a similar burning stage, these stages are usually encountered at lower fuel densities, as the detonation compresses the burning material.
Structure of the ejecta
-----------------------
Table 1 shows the global features of our calculations. In the C-DEF model, more than half of the WD material is left unburned. The final kinetic energy, $\sim 4 \times 10^{50}$ erg, is significantly lower than that inferred for normal SNe Ia. In the C-DDT model, $\sim 0.5 M_{\odot}$ of the C/O material is incinerated by the detonation wave, after the deflagration already has burned $\sim 0.5 M_{\odot}$. The incinerated mass and nuclear energy release in the deflagration stage of the O-DDT model are smaller than the C-DDT model. The detonation wave, however, burns a larger amount of material and produces a larger amount of nuclear energy in the O-DDT model than in the C-DDT model. The final incinerated mass and the kinetic energy in the O-DDT model are comparable to those in the W7 model. Hereafter, we discuss how these results can be understood in terms of the flame propagation and the DDT. Note that the nuclear energy release in the hydrodynimic simulations (with a simplified treatment for the nuclear reactions) and that in the detailed reaction network calculations are consistent within 5%.
Figures 1 – 3 show the distribution of selected species at 10 seconds after the ignition of the deflagration flame. At this time, burning has ceased and the SN material is already almost in a homologous expansion. The C-DEF model (Fig. 1) shows large-scale mixing, and thus it does not possess a clearly layered structure as predicted in exactly spherical 1D models (e.g., W7). A large amount of unburned carbon and oxygen are left, being mixed down to the central region.
In contrast, the detonation wave produces a more layered structure, since this supersonically propagating wave is unaffected by hydrodynamic instabilities (at least on the large scales resolved in the models). In the C-DDT model, the deflagration burns out much of the center of the WD before the detonation is triggered. Therefore, the detonation mainly burns material towards the stellar surface, but it also propagates down the fuel funnels between the fingers of the deflagration ash (Fig. 1). In the C-DDT model, the whole WD, including the central region, experiences the strong expansion in the vigorous deflagration stage. Therefore, the unburned material left after the deflagration is processed in the detonation stage mainly by carbon and oxygen burning, producing O and IME, but virtually no Fe-peak elements (Fig. 2). In this particular model, Fe-peak elements are thus produced mostly in the initial deflagration stage.
In the O-DDT model the burning proceeds in an aspherical manner. Figures 4 and 5 show the temporal evolution in the O-DDT model. The deflagration frame, ignited off-center, floats outward, and spreads laterally (Röpke et al. 2007d). It creates a large blob of ashes in the upper hemisphere of the WD. Due to the lateral expansion in the outer layers of the star, the neutron-rich Fe-peak elements produced by electron captures end up in a characteristic off-center shell-like layer (Fig. 3). The detonation triggers on top of this blob at $\sim$ 1 second. It cannot cross ash regions (Maier & Niemeyer 2006) and has to burn around the ash blob in order to reach the central parts of the WD. Consequently, it initially propagates only outward (at $\sim$ 1.1 second).
At about 1.5 sec after the deflagration ignition, the detonation wave has burned around the ash blob and propagates inward. Since the off-center deflagration did not release much energy, the central parts of the WD are still dense and contain mostly unburned material. This material is converted to Fe-peak (predominantly $^{56}$Ni) by the detonation wave.
Characteristic thermal properties
---------------------------------
To understand the characteristic structure of the ejecta described in §3.2, we examine details of the thermal history of the tracer particles. Figure 6 shows the maximum temperature ($T_{\rm max}$) and density ($\rho_{\rm max}$) for each tracer particle (§3.1) after flame passage. For comparison, the same values for the classical W7 model are also shown. In Figure 7, average behaviors are plotted, which were obtained by taking the mass-average as a function of $T_{\rm max}$.
Figures 6 and 7 show that the distribution of ($T_{\rm max}$, $\rho_{\rm max}$) is similar for all the models at $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \gsim 3$ (corresponding to $\rho_{\rm max}
\sim \rho_{\rm DDT}$). This reflects the fact that the local properties of the deflagration flame are basically independent from the geometry. Interestingly, despite the different prescription of the deflagration flame propagation and different expansion time scale (see e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004a), we note a similarity with the outcome of the W7 in this respect.
At $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \lsim 3$, the models differ. Note that the behavior of W7 in this temperature regime shown in Figures 6 and 7 is not real; the deflagration is turned off at $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \sim 2$, where the flame is already near the surface in the W7 model. Our deflagration model extends to lower $T_{\rm max}$ and $\rho_{\rm max}$. In the two delayed detonation models, this temperature range corresponds to the detonation phase, and thus the behavior is expected to deviate from the deflagration models, and indeed it does. The two detonation models show a similar $T_{\rm max} - \rho_{\rm max}$ distribution; the compression and the maximum temperature are roughly linear functions of the unburned density.
Figure 6 shows a significant dispersion in the $T_{\rm max} - \rho_{\rm max}$ distribution around the mean value, reaching nearly one order of magnitude in $\rho_{\rm max}$ for given $T_{\rm max}$, at $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \lsim 5$. This is a unique behavior in the multi-D models, potentially leading to a variety of burning products otherwise not expected in strictly spherically symmetric models like W7.
The different hydrodynamic properties lead to different amounts of material as a function of $T_{\rm max}$ (or $\rho_{\rm max}$), and this is the main reason why different nucleosynthesis features appear. Figure 8 shows the mass of the material as a function of $T_{\rm max}$. It is seen that the deflagration is efficient in W7, and thus the W7 model has a much larger amount of the mass with $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \gsim 6$ than the 2D models. At $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \lsim 3 - 4$, there appears a peak in the C-DDT model; this is due to the detonation wave burning the fuel material left behind the deflagration stage. The O-DDT model shows a characteristic distribution; two peaks at $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \sim 3 - 4$ and at $T_{{\rm max}, 9} \sim 5 - 6$. The former is the detonation wave propagating outward, as also seen in the C-DDT model. The latter one at higher $T_{\rm max}$ is due to the detonation wave propagating inward, near the central region where the fuel still has high densities. The gap between the two peaks corresponds to the (off-center) shell structure of the deflagration products (i.e., neutron-rich Fe-peak elements; Fig. 3).
Deflagration and Electron Captures
----------------------------------
In the densest region in the deflagration stage, electron capture reactions proceed to synthesize neutron-rich Fe-peak elements under NSE conditions. Figure 9 shows the electron fraction ($Y_{\rm e}$) as a function of $\rho_{\rm max}$, for the O-DDT model. The same figure for the other 2D models (not shown) is similar to the O-DDT model. Figure 9 shows that the electron capture becomes important at $\rho_{\rm max}
\gsim 5 \times 10^{8}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and $Y_{\rm e}$ as low as $0.463$ is realized in the highest density region. Thus, the main product of the highest density region is stable $^{56}$Fe ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.464$), followed by $^{54}$Fe ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.481$) and $^{58}$Ni ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.483$) in the lower density region. Since $Y_{\rm e} > 0.46$, $^{50}$Ti ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.440$), $^{54}$Cr ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.444$) and $^{58}$Fe ($Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.448$) are not produced abundantly in the present models. The behavior in $Y_{\rm e}$ and the resulting electron capture reactions are largely consistent with the 2D deflagration model presented in Travaglio et al. (2004a). The electron captures, however, are less efficient in the 2D models than in the 3D deflagration model (Travaglio et al. 2004a) and in the classical 1D models (Thielemann et al. 2004; see also §3.6). This is likely due to the weaker deflagration in the present models than in the others (1D and 3D), although an uncertainty is involved in the treatment of the temperature evolution in the NSE regime (§2.2).
Figure 10 shows the comparison between $Y_{\rm e}$ before and after the DDT. In the C-DDT model, $Y_{\rm e}$ is not affected by the detonation wave as is consistent with previous 1D models. On the other hand, in the O-DDT model the detonation slightly affects $Y_{\rm e}$ especially of the material which was hardly processed by the deflagration ($\sim Y_{\rm e} \gsim 0.496$). The change in $Y_{\rm e}$ introduced by the detonation is at most $\Delta Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.02$, much smaller than the change in the deflagration stage at $\gsim 10^{8} - 10^{9}$g cm$^{-3}$. This is a result of electron capture reactions at the detonation wave propagating near the WD center, since the central region is still at high density (e.g., Meakin et al. 2009). The change is not as large as that in the GCD models of Jordan et al. (2008) and Meakin et al. (2009), which resulted in $\Delta Y_{\rm e} \sim 0.05$. This is because the distribution of the initial bubbles in our simulations is not as extreme as theirs (see §2.1) and the WD pre-expansion before the onset of the detonation was stronger in our model.
Distribution of Nucleosynthesis Products
----------------------------------------
Figure 11 shows the radial abundance distribution, for which the material is angle-averaged within each velocity bin. Note that our models are followed up to $\sim 10$ seconds, thus the velocity is proportional to the radial distance, and the distribution in velocity space corresponds in good approximation to that in spatial space. The O-DDT model has a very aspherical ejecta structure. Therefore, the angle-dependent radial abundance distribution in this model is given in Figure 12.
In the C-DEF model, different burning regions are macroscopically well-mixed. As a consequence, it forms a broad region in which the electron capture products ($^{56}$Fe, $^{54}$Fe, and $^{58}$Ni), complete-silicon burning products ($^{56}$Ni), intermediate mass elements ($^{32}$S, $^{28}$Si, $^{24}$Mg), and unburned elements ($^{16}$O and $^{12}$C) coexist (when averaging in the zenith angle). This region is surrounded by unburned material at radii not reached by the flame. An enhancement of C and O near the center due to the large-scale deflagration mixing is visible. These are typical of 2D deflagration models; this smoothing effect tends to be suppressed in 3D deflagration models (Röpke et al. 2007b).
In the C-DDT model, the inner region below $\sim 8,000$ km s$^{-1}$ has a similar structure to that in the deflagration model. The difference is seen in the innermost region, where unburned C and O are burned into intermediate mass elements by the detonation wave. In this model, C is almost completely burned, but there still remains O with a mass fraction of $\sim 0.1$, since the detonation in this model leads to carbon or oxygen burning.
Surrounding the deflagration region is the oxygen burning layer, where $^{28}$Si, $^{32}$S, and $^{24}$Mg are the main products. This is surrounded by a mixture of carbon burning products and unburned material. Note that the carbon burning region and the unburned region are microscopically separated. As shown in Figure 2, the unburned region (with almost initial C+O composition) is not fully homogeneously distributed, and there are “fingers” of carbon burning regions (where oxygen and IMEs are produced in consumption of carbon).
\
\
The radial composition distribution in the O-DDT model follows that of the C-DDT model. A striking difference, however, is that the region of deflagration ashes is not in the center but confined within $V \sim 5,000 - 10,000$ km s$^{-1}$. The innermost region is converted to $^{56}$Ni, by the complete silicon burning taking place at the inward detonation wave.
[ccccccc]{} C & 4.99E-02 & 3.64E-01 & 1.21E-02 & 3.49E-03 & 4.17E-01 & 4.86E-01\
N & 1.11E-06 & 1.54E-06 & 1.15E-06 & 2.80E-07 & 2.55E-06 & 1.14E-05\
O & 1.40E-01 & 4.27E-01 & 3.76E-01 & 1.51E-01 & 4.61E-01 & 5.21E-01\
F & 7.19E-10 & 1.04E-09 & 1.54E-09 & 2.70E-10 & 5.40E-10 & 3.56E-10\
Ne & 4.28E-03 & 2.51E-02 & 1.13E-02 & 4.13E-03 & 2.49E-02 & 2.82E-02\
Na & 6.59E-05 & 1.59E-04 & 2.07E-04 & 5.87E-05 & 7.09E-05 & 6.15E-05\
Mg & 1.63E-02 & 9.92E-03 & 5.90E-02 & 2.16E-02 & 4.81E-03 & 2.27E-03\
Al & 1.00E-03 & 7.23E-04 & 3.22E-03 & 1.17E-03 & 3.45E-04 & 1.99E-04\
Si & 1.67E-01 & 5.19E-02 & 3.38E-01 & 2.87E-01 & 3.39E-02 & 1.38E-02\
P & 3.86E-04 & 1.91E-04 & 1.36E-03 & 5.91E-04 & 1.34E-04 & 8.34E-05\
S & 7.97E-02 & 1.98E-02 & 1.19E-01 & 1.27E-01 & 1.33E-02 & 6.05E-03\
Cl & 1.38E-04 & 4.15E-05 & 3.69E-04 & 2.20E-04 & 5.81E-05 & 7.83E-05\
Ar & 1.31E-02 & 2.94E-03 & 1.62E-02 & 2.20E-02 & 2.41E-03 & 1.61E-03\
K & 6.45E-05 & 1.82E-05 & 1.71E-04 & 1.31E-04 & 3.25E-05 & 8.11E-05\
Ca & 9.76E-03 & 2.05E-03 & 6.91E-03 & 1.70E-02 & 1.72E-03 & 1.60E-03\
Sc & 1.33E-07 & 2.55E-08 & 2.38E-07 & 2.29E-07 & 1.59E-07 & 1.59E-05\
Ti & 3.94E-04 & 9.97E-05 & 2.08E-04 & 8.72E-04 & 1.53E-04 & 1.98E-03\
V & 4.04E-05 & 2.15E-05 & 2.95E-05 & 6.52E-05 & 1.29E-04 & 3.01E-03\
Cr & 5.28E-03 & 3.57E-03 & 3.52E-03 & 1.04E-02 & 4.41E-03 & 2.07E-02\
Mn & 6.72E-03 & 7.35E-03 & 5.95E-03 & 7.35E-03 & 1.83E-02 & 4.42E-02\
Fe & 7.61E-01 & 3.89E-01 & 3.60E-01 & 6.51E-01 & 3.36E-01 & 2.06E-01\
Co & 8.29E-04 & 8.20E-04 & 6.70E-04 & 6.36E-04 & 1.31E-03 & 3.22E-03\
Ni & 1.19E-01 & 8.42E-02 & 7.50E-02 & 8.05E-02 & 6.88E-02 & 4.30E-02\
Cu & 2.55E-06 & 8.45E-07 & 7.82E-07 & 2.13E-06 & 1.38E-06 & 1.26E-05\
Zn & 3.80E-05 & 1.01E-05 & 8.82E-06 & 3.50E-05 & 1.08E-06 & 5.48E-06\
Total Yields
------------
Figure 13 shows the nucleosynthesis yield for each model, integrated over the whole ejecta. The ratios of the masses of elements to those of the W7 model are plotted in Figure 14. Tables 2 and 3 list the masses of the elements and isotopes (after radioactive decays) while major long-lived radioactive isotopes are given in Table 4. For the C-DDT and O-DDT models, the values at the time of the first DDT ($\sim 1.15$ sec for C-DDT and $\sim 1.05$ sec for O-DDT) are also shown in Tables 2 and 3.
For comparison, we present the yields of the W7 model, calculated by ourselves using the thermal history of the original model. Details are different from Iwamoto et al. (1999), because of the updated electron capture rates (see Brachwitz et al. 2000).
The result for the C-DEF model is consistent with the similar 2D model in the previous study (Travaglio et al. 2004a). First of all, the mass of $^{56}$Ni is only $\sim 0.25 M_{\odot}$, smaller than in the W7 model ($\sim 0.64 M_{\odot}$). A large amount of C and O are left unburned. The final C/O ratio is larger than in the W7 model, because of the weak C-burning in our model resulting in almost the original, unburned C/O ratio near the surface (Fig. 11). IMEs are underproduced as compared to the W7 model. Note, however, that generally full three-dimensional models alleviate this problem (e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004a; Röpke et al. 2007b).
In the C-DDT model, the density of the WD is already low when the DDT takes place, and the temperature of material after the passage of the detonation wave does not reach $\sim 5 \times 10^{9}$ K (Fig. 8). The detonation therefore produces at most IMEs; Fe-peak elements are produced in the initial deflagration stage, and the mass of $^{56}$Ni is almost the same as in the deflagration model. Consequently, the abundance pattern of the Fe-peak elements (including $^{56}$Ni) is very similar to that of the C-DEF model (Figs. 13 and 14). IMEs are produced much more abundantly than in the W7 model. Because of the carbon burning, the C/O ratio is much smaller than for W7.
Somewhat surprisingly, the O-DDT model predicts the abundance pattern similar to W7 (Fig. 13), with most of elements consistent with W7 within a factor of two (Fig. 14). The mass of $^{56}$Ni ($\sim 0.54 M_{\odot}$) is comparable with the W7 model ($\sim 0.64 M_{\odot}$) (but see §4). IMEs tend to be overproduced by a factor of $\sim 2$, because of the carbon and oxygen burning in the detonation phase. Carbon is almost entirely consumed by the carbon burning.
A comparison between the W7 model and our 2D models shows that very strong electron capture reactions are not efficient in the 2D models (§3.4). $^{50}$Ti, $^{54}$Cr, and $^{58}$Fe, produced at the highest density resulting in $Y_{\rm e} < 0.46$, are not abundantly produced in the 2D models.
Radioactive Isotopes
--------------------
The amount of some radioactive isotopes in our detonation models is quite different from W7 and even with canonical, spherical delayed detonation models. Comparison between our results (Tab. 4) and Table 4 of Iwamoto et al. (1999) shows that radioactive isotopes lighter than Fe-peak tend to be more abundant, with the tendency of larger amounts of these isotopes for smaller density at the detonation. On the other hand, the amount of some Fe-peak radioactive isotopes can change dramatically from the classical 1D delayed detonation model, due to updated electron capture rates in our calculations (§2.2).
[ccccccc]{} $^{12}$C & 4.99E-02 & 3.64E-01 & 1.21E-02 & 3.49E-03 & 4.17E-01 & 4.86E-01\
$^{13}$C & 9.57E-07 & 2.29E-06 & 2.80E-06 & 8.75E-07 & 1.16E-06 & 1.35E-06\
$^{14}$N & 1.11E-06 & 1.54E-06 & 1.15E-06 & 2.79E-07 & 2.55E-06 & 1.14E-05\
$^{15}$N & 1.71E-09 & 1.65E-09 & 3.32E-09 & 7.06E-10 & 2.79E-09 & 9.71E-09\
$^{16}$O & 1.40E-01 & 4.27E-01 & 3.76E-01 & 1.51E-01 & 4.62E-01 & 5.21E-01\
$^{17}$O & 3.59E-08 & 4.51E-08 & 7.61E-08 & 1.46E-08 & 7.60E-08 & 3.96E-07\
$^{18}$O & 1.13E-09 & 1.80E-09 & 2.42E-09 & 5.24E-10 & 2.04E-09 & 2.57E-08\
$^{19}$F & 7.19E-10 & 1.04E-09 & 1.54E-09 & 2.70E-10 & 5.40E-10 & 3.56E-10\
$^{20}$Ne & 1.69E-03 & 6.13E-03 & 1.10E-02 & 4.05E-03 & 3.06E-03 & 2.65E-03\
$^{21}$Ne & 1.06E-05 & 1.66E-05 & 2.36E-05 & 4.35E-06 & 7.40E-06 & 4.09E-06\
$^{22}$Ne & 2.57E-03 & 1.90E-02 & 2.82E-04 & 7.62E-05 & 2.18E-02 & 2.55E-02\
$^{23}$Na & 6.59E-05 & 1.59E-04 & 2.07E-04 & 5.87E-05 & 7.09E-05 & 6.15E-05\
$^{24}$Mg & 1.62E-02 & 9.55E-03 & 5.84E-02 & 2.14E-02 & 4.61E-03 & 2.14E-03\
$^{25}$Mg & 6.12E-05 & 1.72E-04 & 2.95E-04 & 8.90E-05 & 9.50E-05 & 6.84E-05\
$^{26}$Mg & 3.79E-05 & 1.93E-04 & 3.49E-04 & 1.13E-04 & 1.12E-04 & 5.94E-05\
$^{27}$Al & 1.00E-03 & 7.23E-04 & 3.22E-03 & 1.17E-03 & 3.45E-04 & 1.99E-04\
$^{28}$Si & 1.64E-01 & 5.02E-02 & 3.27E-01 & 2.83E-01 & 3.31E-02 & 1.34E-02\
$^{29}$Si & 9.72E-04 & 6.52E-04 & 3.64E-03 & 1.47E-03 & 3.49E-04 & 1.94E-04\
$^{30}$Si & 2.04E-03 & 9.88E-04 & 7.45E-03 & 2.83E-03 & 4.88E-04 & 1.87E-04\
$^{31}$P & 3.86E-04 & 1.91E-04 & 1.36E-03 & 5.91E-04 & 1.34E-04 & 8.34E-05\
$^{32}$S & 7.74E-02 & 1.87E-02 & 1.07E-01 & 1.21E-01 & 1.27E-02 & 5.76E-03\
$^{33}$S & 3.62E-04 & 1.01E-04 & 1.04E-03 & 5.18E-04 & 7.71E-05 & 6.36E-05\
$^{34}$S & 1.96E-03 & 9.80E-04 & 1.11E-02 & 5.65E-03 & 5.50E-04 & 2.23E-04\
$^{36}$S & 4.10E-07 & 1.49E-07 & 1.30E-06 & 4.78E-07 & 6.19E-08 & 1.97E-08\
$^{35}$Cl & 1.10E-04 & 3.41E-05 & 2.90E-04 & 1.70E-04 & 4.96E-05 & 5.87E-05\
$^{37}$Cl & 2.81E-05 & 7.45E-06 & 7.87E-05 & 5.03E-05 & 8.54E-06 & 1.96E-05\
$^{36}$Ar & 1.21E-02 & 2.54E-03 & 1.21E-02 & 1.93E-02 & 2.19E-03 & 1.49E-03\
$^{38}$Ar & 9.46E-04 & 3.98E-04 & 4.02E-03 & 2.67E-03 & 2.15E-04 & 1.20E-04\
$^{40}$Ar & 6.10E-09 & 1.32E-09 & 1.46E-08 & 5.49E-09 & 7.76E-10 & 8.48E-10\
$^{39}$K & 6.01E-05 & 1.71E-05 & 1.60E-04 & 1.22E-04 & 3.07E-05 & 6.43E-05\
$^{40}$K & 4.34E-08 & 7.17E-09 & 7.75E-08 & 3.88E-08 & 1.71E-08 & 1.95E-07\
$^{41}$K & 4.36E-06 & 1.10E-06 & 1.18E-05 & 8.74E-06 & 1.79E-06 & 1.66E-05\
$^{40}$Ca & 9.73E-03 & 2.04E-03 & 6.82E-03 & 1.69E-02 & 1.71E-03 & 1.52E-03\
$^{42}$Ca & 2.38E-05 & 8.38E-06 & 8.71E-05 & 6.15E-05 & 5.73E-06 & 7.91E-06\
$^{43}$Ca & 7.27E-08 & 1.84E-08 & 1.31E-07 & 1.61E-07 & 5.11E-08 & 3.38E-06\
$^{44}$Ca & 8.40E-06 & 1.94E-06 & 3.31E-06 & 1.59E-05 & 5.66E-06 & 6.22E-05\
$^{46}$Ca & 3.65E-11 & 2.45E-12 & 5.80E-11 & 2.30E-11 & 1.80E-12 & 4.32E-10\
$^{48}$Ca & 2.82E-13 & 1.94E-17 & 4.27E-16 & 1.75E-16 & 2.44E-16 & 3.70E-12\
$^{45}$Sc & 1.33E-07 & 2.55E-08 & 2.38E-07 & 2.29E-07 & 1.59E-07 & 1.59E-05\
$^{46}$Ti & 1.16E-05 & 3.57E-06 & 3.34E-05 & 2.52E-05 & 3.32E-06 & 5.78E-05\
$^{47}$Ti & 5.15E-07 & 1.36E-07 & 7.98E-07 & 1.08E-06 & 8.80E-07 & 8.15E-05\
$^{48}$Ti & 3.65E-04 & 9.23E-05 & 1.65E-04 & 8.16E-04 & 1.38E-04 & 1.34E-03\
$^{49}$Ti & 1.48E-05 & 3.68E-06 & 8.52E-06 & 2.95E-05 & 1.12E-05 & 4.97E-04\
$^{50}$Ti & 1.85E-06 & 9.98E-10 & 3.77E-09 & 1.34E-08 & 2.85E-08 & 7.73E-07\
$^{50}$V & 3.50E-09 & 3.82E-09 & 7.13E-09 & 4.88E-09 & 6.24E-08 & 4.99E-06\
$^{51}$V & 4.04E-05 & 2.15E-05 & 2.95E-05 & 6.52E-05 & 1.28E-04 & 3.01E-03\
$^{50}$Cr & 2.61E-04 & 1.56E-04 & 3.15E-04 & 3.84E-04 & 2.03E-04 & 2.42E-03\
$^{52}$Cr & 4.32E-03 & 2.70E-03 & 2.60E-03 & 8.91E-03 & 2.92E-03 & 9.14E-03\
$^{53}$Cr & 6.60E-04 & 7.12E-04 & 6.03E-04 & 1.08E-03 & 1.28E-03 & 9.12E-03\
$^{54}$Cr & 3.48E-05 & 6.85E-08 & 1.82E-07 & 6.68E-07 & 1.17E-06 & 1.07E-05\
$^{55}$Mn & 6.72E-03 & 7.35E-03 & 5.95E-03 & 7.34E-03 & 1.83E-02 & 4.42E-02\
$^{54}$Fe & 7.77E-02 & 8.15E-02 & 7.01E-02 & 7.40E-02 & 5.98E-02 & 6.55E-02\
$^{56}$Fe & 6.57E-01 & 2.95E-01 & 2.78E-01 & 5.59E-01 & 2.57E-01 & 1.11E-01\
$^{57}$Fe & 2.56E-02 & 1.26E-02 & 1.23E-02 & 1.80E-02 & 1.93E-02 & 2.91E-02\
$^{58}$Fe & 2.29E-04 & 1.36E-05 & 1.27E-05 & 1.57E-05 & 6.42E-05 & 3.63E-04\
$^{59}$Co & 8.29E-04 & 8.20E-04 & 6.70E-04 & 6.36E-04 & 1.31E-03 & 3.22E-03\
$^{58}$Ni & 1.06E-01 & 7.24E-02 & 6.63E-02 & 7.03E-02 & 6.19E-02 & 3.90E-02\
$^{60}$Ni & 9.75E-03 & 1.11E-02 & 8.05E-03 & 8.35E-03 & 6.77E-03 & 3.68E-03\
$^{61}$Ni & 2.73E-04 & 7.20E-05 & 6.95E-05 & 2.05E-04 & 4.92E-05 & 2.30E-04\
$^{62}$Ni & 2.52E-03 & 6.35E-04 & 5.85E-04 & 1.61E-03 & 7.41E-05 & 1.07E-04\
$^{64}$Ni & 2.20E-07 & 6.32E-11 & 1.52E-10 & 1.32E-09 & 7.15E-09 & 3.61E-07\
$^{63}$Cu & 1.77E-06 & 6.49E-07 & 5.99E-07 & 1.34E-06 & 1.36E-06 & 1.21E-05\
$^{65}$Cu & 7.78E-07 & 1.96E-07 & 1.82E-07 & 7.85E-07 & 1.94E-08 & 5.56E-07\
$^{64}$Zn & 1.43E-05 & 3.74E-06 & 3.23E-06 & 1.38E-05 & 9.80E-07 & 5.11E-06\
$^{66}$Zn & 2.37E-05 & 6.39E-06 & 5.58E-06 & 2.13E-05 & 1.02E-07 & 3.36E-07\
$^{67}$Zn & 4.94E-11 & 2.29E-11 & 2.28E-11 & 8.14E-11 & 2.23E-10 & 2.32E-08\
$^{68}$Zn & 9.59E-09 & 2.71E-09 & 2.44E-09 & 9.55E-09 & 2.36E-10 & 6.69E-09\
$^{70}$Zn & 2.36E-14 & 2.60E-19 & 2.89E-18 & 5.53E-17 & 5.78E-15 & 2.93E-11\
Discussion: Implications for Chemical Evolution
===============================================
In this paper, we present our first results for nucleosynthesis in 2D delayed detonation models. The models investigated in this paper represent extreme cases[^1]; the deflagration is initiated either at the center (C-DDT) or by off-center bubbles confined in the narrow angle with respect to the $z$-axis (O-DDT). The important variation, we have not examined in this paper, is the deflagration bubbles distributed more or less spherically, but at a distance from the center (e.g., Kasen et al. 2009). In this case, we expect that the propagation of the burning will produce an ejecta structure that falls in between the O-DDT and the C-DDT models. Some material in the central region is left unexpanded in the deflagration stage, and the detonation can burn the material there to the Fe-peak elements. Thus, we expect that nucleosynthesis features are similar to the O-DDT model, except for the strong angle-dependence seen in the O-DDT model. Depending on the initial placement of the deflagration bubbles, the deflagration ashes may stay more confined to the center than in the O-DDT model.
Also, we should note that the treatment of the DDT in the hydrodynamic calculation is still preliminary (§2.1). According to simulations with several different prescriptions, especially with different values for $\rho_{\rm DDT}$, we believe that the prescription used in this paper results in a relatively weak detonation (see also Gamezo et al. 2005; Bravo & García-Senz 2008). Therefore, although the models presented here are extreme with respect to the ejecta structure, they do not necessarily reflect the range of $^{56}$Ni production possible within the framework of the delayed detonation model. The results of an extended survey of delayed detonation models will be presented elsewhere (F. Röpke et al., in prep). Despite these caveats, the general features found in this paper are not expected to be sensitive to such details.
[ccccc]{} $^{22}$Na & 2.01E-08 & 1.01E-07 & 1.46E-07 & 5.40E-08\
$^{26}$Al & 5.18E-07 & 1.69E-06 & 2.47E-06 & 8.77E-07\
$^{36}$Cl & 2.08E-06 & 4.74E-07 & 5.22E-06 & 2.06E-06\
$^{39}$Ar & 6.79E-09 & 1.53E-09 & 1.69E-08 & 7.75E-09\
$^{40}$K & 4.34E-08 & 7.17E-09 & 7.75E-08 & 3.90E-08\
$^{41}$Ca & 4.35E-06 & 1.10E-06 & 1.18E-05 & 8.85E-06\
$^{44}$Ti & 8.37E-06 & 1.93E-06 & 3.21E-06 & 1.59E-05\
$^{48}$V & 4.32E-08 & 1.68E-08 & 9.76E-08 & 1.09E-07\
$^{49}$V & 1.05E-07 & 1.00E-07 & 3.07E-07 & 2.69E-07\
$^{53}$Mn & 1.64E-04 & 4.93E-04 & 3.38E-04 & 2.25E-04\
$^{55}$Fe & 1.79E-03 & 4.17E-03 & 2.89E-03 & 1.93E-03\
$^{60}$Fe & 3.33E-09 & 9.86E-15 & 2.29E-13 & 6.93E-12\
$^{55}$Co & 4.89E-03 & 3.18E-03 & 3.07E-03 & 5.40E-03\
$^{56}$Co & 1.21E-04 & 1.18E-04 & 1.06E-04 & 1.04E-04\
$^{57}$Co & 9.52E-04 & 1.94E-03 & 1.40E-03 & 9.37E-04\
$^{60}$Co & 4.32E-08 & 5.30E-10 & 1.19E-09 & 3.30E-09\
$^{56}$Ni & 6.40E-01 & 2.45E-01 & 2.46E-01 & 5.40E-01\
$^{57}$Ni & 2.46E-02 & 1.06E-02 & 1.09E-02 & 1.71E-02\
$^{59}$Ni & 4.66E-04 & 7.24E-04 & 5.78E-04 & 4.22E-04\
$^{63}$Ni & 4.82E-08 & 4.28E-11 & 1.85E-10 & 1.22E-09\
The nucleosynthesis features in the W7 model have been shown to be roughly consistent with the Galactic chemical evolution (e.g., Iwamoto et al. 1999; Goswami & Prantzos 2000). One problem is that the ratio $^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe is too large in the W7 to compensate the over-solar production of $^{58}$Ni in core-collapse SNe. The problem is basically solved by introducing a delayed detonation. Affecting primarily lower density material, it produces a large amount of $^{56}$Ni but virtually no $^{58}$Ni due to the inefficiency of electron captures here. We see that the ratio $^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe is slightly decreased in the O-DDT model compared to the W7, marginally satisfying the constraint from the chemical evolution \[($^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe)/($^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe)$_{\odot}$ $\sim 3$\]. The situation should become better if the detonation burns more material to NSE than in the present prescription. We should also note one limitation in the present analysis, i.e., the treatment of the temperature in the NSE regime. The temperature is extracted assuming $Y_{\rm e} = 0.5$, which should introduce some errors when the electron capture reactions are active. This could to some extent affect the nucleosynthesis in the initial deflagration phase (§3.4), and therefore the ratio $^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe.
The intermediate mass elements can also be used to constrain SN Ia models. Assuming a typical fraction of $\sim 20$% for the frequency of SNe Ia as compared to core-collapse SNe, then (Si/Fe)/(Si/Fe)$_{\odot}$ $\lsim 0.5$ is required to compensate the over-solar production in core-collapse SNe. The O-DDT model has the ratio (Si/Fe)/(Si/Fe)$_{\odot} \sim 1$; thus, the model can explain at most a half of SNe Ia. The C-DDT is not at all favored, since (Si/Fe)/(Si/Fe)$_{\odot} \sim 2$, i.e., it produces too much IMEs relative to Fe. The deflagration models (W7 and C-DEF) do not have the problem in the Si/Fe ratio \[(Si/Fe)/(Si/Fe)$_{]\odot} < 0.5$\]. In the O-DDT model, all the elements heavier than N are consistent with W7 within a factor of two.
In reality, the solar abundances are the superposition of contributions from SNe at various metallicities, and we expect that the “average” SNe Ia to occur at a metallicity less than solar. We indeed expect some improvement if we consider a lower metallicity (see e.g., Travaglio et al. 2005): a decreased metallicity should result in a smaller $^{58}$Ni/$^{56}$Fe ratio in the delayed detonation models. Also, the smaller metallicity is expected to lead to the smaller amount of $^{54}$Fe. Mg and Al are also affected: If the metallicity is 10% of the solar value, then the amount of $^{24}$Mg could increase by $\sim 50$%, and that of $^{27}$Al could decrease by a factor of a few. These changes do not conflict with the Galactic chemical evolution, since the ratios (Mg, Al)/Fe are much smaller than the solar values in the O-DDT models.
Summarizing, the hypothesis that about half of SNe Ia are represented by the extreme O-DDT model, is not rejected by the chemical evolution arguments. Note that this should also apply to globally symmetric, but off-center, delayed detonation models to some extent, as these models should share the basic feature that the central region is burned to Fe-peak and $^{56}$Ni by the detonation (§4). Therefore, multi-D delayed detonation models can potentially account for a majority of SNe Ia.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have presented results of the detailed nucleosynthesis calculations for 2D delayed detonation models, focusing on an extremely off-center model (O-DDT model). Features are different from classical 1D models. Unlike a globally symmetric delayed detonation model following the central ignition of the deflagration flame (C-DDT model), the detonation wave proceeds both in the high density region near the center of a white dwarf and in the low density region near the surface. Thus, the resulting yield is a mixture of different explosive burning products, from carbon-burning at low densities to complete silicon-burning at the highest densities, as well as the electron-capture products from the deflagration stage.
The evolution of the deflagration flame can be different in 2D and in 3D simulations (e.g., Röpke et al. 2007b). We believe that the global feature found in this study, i.e., the detonation wave propagating into the innermost region, would not be changed substantially in 3D simulations. However, some details would be affected: For example, 3D simulations tend to result in stronger deflagration than in 2D simulations for similar initial conditions (e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004a). As the stronger deflagration is followed by the weaker detonation in our DDT models, this would result in a shift of the overall energetic and the nucleosynthesis production as compared to the 2D models. On the other hand, although in our 2D simulations the detonation wave has to burn around the deflagration ash blob before reaching to the center, the deflagration ash blob may have holes, depending on the ignition geometry through which the detonation wave can directly penetrate into the center in 3D simulations. Thus, future 3D simulations are important to obtain the robust model predictions as a function of the model input (e.g., distribution of the deflagration ignition sparks).
The yield of the O-DDT model largely satisfies constraints from the Galactic chemical evolution despite the low DDT density as compared to 1D delayed detonation models. This is a result of qualitatively different behavior of the detonation propagation in 1D and multi-D models; the outward propagation in former (which is also the case in the C-DDT model), while the inward propagation in the latter.
The O-DDT model could thus account for a fraction of SNe Ia (especially bright ones). As less-extreme (more spherical) models are expected to share the common properties in the integrated yield, the multi-D delayed detonation model could potentially account for a main population of SNe Ia.
The delayed detonation models also provide a characteristic layered structure, unlike multi-dimensional, especially 2D, deflagration models [^2]. In the O-DDT model, the region filled by electron capture species (e.g., $^{58}$Ni, $^{54}$Fe) shows a large off-set, and the region is within a shell above the bulk of the $^{56}$Ni distribution near the center. These can be directly tested by observations.
We note that the distribution of the nucleosynthsis products in our 2D DDT models is somewhat different from the result of Bravo & García-Senz (2008). Their 3D DDT models lack a clear abundance stratification, and they are characterized by large mass fractions of Fe-peak elements near the surface regions. In contrast, the 3D DDT models of Röpke & Niemeyer (2007c), do produce a layered structure with the surface dominated by IMEs – similar to our present 2D models (§3.5). It seems that (1) the deflagration is stronger in Bravo & García-Sent (2008) than in our 2D models and in 3D models of Röpke & Niemeyer (2007c), and (2) the detonation wave is mainly propagating inward in Bravo & García-Senz (2008) although it is propagating both inward (producing Fe-peak elements) and outward (producing IME) in our simulations. As a result, the amount of unburned material is smaller in our models. The cause of the different flame propagation is not clear, but likely due to different treatment of thermonuclear flames. The overall abundance distribution of the 3D DDT models of Gamezo et al. (2005), on the other hand, is similar to our 2D models, producing the stratified configuration. In their simulations, they initiated the detonation from the center at relatively high DDT density, and the detonation wave propagates outward, producing the layered composition structure as the temperature drops following the detonation propagation. This is, indeed, quite different from our models, in which the detonation is initiated at relatively low DDT density but propagates inward to the high density central region.
The observational consequences from similar models have been discussed by Kasen et al. (2009) for the early photospheric phase (see also Hillebrandt et al. 2007; Sim et al. 2007). Here, we summarize some additional, expected observational characteristics, especially in the late-time nebular phase (taken after a few hundred days). We emphasize that the late-time spectroscopy is currently the most effective way to hunt for the signature of the DDT model in the innermost region. See also Maeda et al. (2010) who discussed the following points in details.
- [**Abundance Stratification and carbon near the surface:** ]{} Overall, the stratified composition structure obtained in our 2D models is consistent with the result of the “abundance tomography” (Stehle et al. 2005; Mazzali et al. 2008). Spectrum synthesis models as compared to the observed early-phase photospheric spectra show that the mass fraction of carbon at $\sim 10,000 - 14,000$ km s$^{-1}$ should be smaller than $0.01$ (e.g., Branch et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2007; Tanaka et al. 2008). This constraint is satisfied by our DDT models at $10,000$ km s$^{-1}$, although it is marginal at $14,000$ km s$^{-1}$. The latter could, however, be improved by changing the DDT criterion such that the transition on average proceeds at higher densities (e.g., Iwamoto et al. 1999). Another interesting observational target is the inhomogeneous distribution of the unburned C+O pockets near the surface both in C-DDT and O-DDT models (§3.5), although the total amount of such unburned material is small in the DDT models. Detectable carbon absorption lines may appear only when the observed line-of-sight intersects a large number of such unburned pockets, which may explain the low frequency of SNe Ia showing the C absorption lines detected (e.g., Tanaka et al. 2006).
- [**\[O I\] $\lambda\lambda$6300,6363:** ]{} The main problem in the pure deflagration model is existence of unburned carbon and oxygen mixed down to the central region. This should produce a strong \[O I\] $\lambda\lambda$6300, 6363 doublet in late-time spectra, although no such signature has been detected in the observations (Kozma et al. 2005). This tension is alleviated in 3D deflagration models, with the mass fraction of unburned elements going down to 10 % (Röpke et al. 2007b) or even to smaller values (e.g., Travaglio et al. 2004a). The DDT model does not have this problem, as unburned material near the center is burned in the subsequent detonation. A detailed study of late-time nebular spectra should provide us with information on this issue.
- [**Line shifts:** ]{} Profiles of nebular emission lines can be used to effectively trace the distribution of the burning products, as is proven to be efficient for core-collapse SNe (Maeda et al. 2002; Mazzali et al. 2005; Maeda et al. 2008; Modjaz et al. 2008; Taubenberger et al. 2009). The O-DDT model predicts that (1) the distribution of stable Fe-peak elements is off-set following the asymmetric deflagration flame propagation, while the detonation products (e.g., a large fraction of $^{56}$Ni) are distributed more or less in a spherical manner (Figs. 5 and 12). Recently, Maeda et al. (2010) found that the expected variation of the line wavelength is seen in nebular spectra of SNe Ia, indicating that the above configuration can be relatively common in SNe Ia.
- [**Line profiles:** ]{} Detailed profiles of the nebular emission lines can be used to infer the distribution of emitting ions. It has been suggested to use Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy to hunt for the geometry, as NIR \[Fe II\] lines are not severely blended (e.g., Höflich et al. 2004; Motohara et al. 2006). This can also be done using several IR lines like \[Co III\] 11.88$\micron$ (Gerardy et al. 2007). The best data to date have been obtained for SN 2003hv, showing a hole in the distribution of $^{56}$Ni[^3]. Because the mixing is introduced by the deflagration, such a hole is difficult to understand in the present models (and most of SN Ia explosion models; but see Meakin et al. 2009). This issue remains unresolved, and need further study preferentially in 3D simulation.
We would like to thank Ken’ichi Nomoto for kindly providing the thermal history of the W7 model. This research has been supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. The work of K.M. is also supported through the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (20840007) of Japanese Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS). The work of F.K.R. is supported through the Emmy Noether Program of the German Research Foundation (DFG; RO 3676/1-1) and by the Cluster of Excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe” (EXC 153). The work by F.-K.T. is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation(SNF) and the Alexander von Humholdt Foundation. The calculations have been performed on IBM Power5 system at Rechenzentrum Garching (RZG) of the Max-Planck Society.
[99]{}
Arnett, W.D. 1969, Ap&SS, 5, 180
Arnett, W.D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis (Princeton University Press)
Brachwitz, F., Dean, D.J., Hix, W.R., Iwamoto, K., Langanke, K., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Nomoto, K., Strayer, M.R., Thielemann, F.-K., & Umeda, H. 2000, ApJ, 536, 934
Branch, D., Doggett, J.B., Nomoto, K., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1985, ApJ, 294, 619
Branch, D. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 17
Branch, D., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1489
Bravo, E., & García-Senz, D. 2006, ApJ, 642, L157
Bravo, E., & García-Senz, D. 2008, A&A, 478, 843
Fink, M., Hillebrandt, W., & Röpke, F. 2007, A&A, 476, 1133
Fuller, G.M.,Fowler, W.A., & Newman, M. 1982, ApJS, 48, 279
Fuller, G.M.,Fowler, W.A., & Newman, M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1
Gamezo, V.N., Khokhlov, A.M., Oran, E.S., Chtchelkanova, A.Y., & Rosenberg, R.O. 2003, Science, 299, 77
Gamezo, V.N., Khokhlov, A.M., Oran, E.S. 2005, ApJ, 623, 337
Gerardy, C.L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 995
Golombek, I., & Niemeyer, J.C. 2005, A&A 438, 611
Goswami, A., & Prantzos, N. 2000, A&A, 359, 191
Hillebrandt, W., Sim, S. A., & Röpke, F. 2007, A&A, 465, 17
Höflich, P., & Khokhlov, A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 500
Höflich, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1258
Iben, I. Jr., & Tutukov, A.V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335
Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., Kishimoto, N., Umeda, H., Hix, W.R., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439
Jordan, G.C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1448
Kasen, D., Röpke, F.K., & Woosley, S.E. 2009, Nature, 460, 869
Khokhlov, A., 1991, A&A, 245, 114
Kozma, C., Fransson, C., Hillebrandt, W., Travaglio, C., Sollerman, J., Reinecke, M., Röpke, F.K., & Spyromilio, J. 2005, A&A, 437, 983
Kuhlen, M., Woosley, S.E., & Glatzmaier, G.A. 2006, ApJ, 640, 407
Langanke, K., & Martinez-Pinedo, G. 2000, Nucl. Phys. A, 673, 481
Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P.A., Patat, F., & Hachisu, I. 2002, ApJ, 565, 405
Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1163
Maeda, K., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1220
Maeda, K., Taubenberger, S., Sollerman, J., Mazzali, P.A., Leloudas, G., Nomoto, K., & Motohara, K. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1703
Maier, A. & Niemeyer, J.C. 2006, A&A, 451, 207
Martinez-Pinedo, G., Langanke, K., & Dean, D.J., 2000, ApJS, 126, 493
Mazzali, P.A., et al. 2005, Science, 308, 1284
Mazzali, P.A., Röpke, F.K., Benetti, S., & Hillebrandt, W. 2007, Science, 315, 825
Mazzali, P.A., Sauer, D.N., Pastorello, A., Benetti, S., Hillebrandt, W. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1897
Meakin, C.A., Seitenzahl, I., Townsley, D., Jordan, G.C., Truran, J., Lamb, D. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1188
Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R.P., Blondin, S., Challis, P., & Matheson, T. 2008, ApJ, 687, L9
Motohara, K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, L101
Nagataki, S., Hashimoto, M., Sato K., & Yamada, S. 1997, ApJ, 486, 1026
Niemeyer, J.C., Hillebrandt, W., & Woosley, S.E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 903
Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798
Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F.-K., & Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644
Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., & Kishimoto, N. 1997, Science, 276, 1378
Nugent, P., Baron, E., Branch, D., Fisher, A., & Hauschildt, P.H. 1997, ApJ, 485, 812
Plewa, T. 2007, ApJ, 657, 942
Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., & Nimeyer, J.C. 1999a, A&A, 347, 739
Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., Niemeyer, J. C., Klein, R., Gröbl, A. 1999b, A&A, 347, 724
Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., & Nimeyer, J.C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1167
Röpke, F.K., & Hillebrandt, W. 2005, A&A, 431, 635
Röpke, F.K., Gieseler, M., Reinecke, M., Travaglio, C., & Hillebrandt, W 2006a, A&A 453, 203
Röpke, F.K., Hillebrandt, W., Niemeyer, J.C., & Woosley, S.E. 2006b, A&A, 448, 1
Röpke, F.K. 2007a, ApJ, 668, 1103
Röpke, F.K., Hillebrandt, W., Schmidt, W., Niemeyer, J.C., Blinnikov, S.I., & Mazzali, P.A. 2007b, ApJ, 668, 1132
Röpke, F.K., & Niemeyer, J.C. 2007c, A&A, 464, 683
Röpke, F.K., Woosley, S.E., & Hillebrandt, W. 2007d, ApJ, 660, 1344
Schmidt, W., & Nimeyer, J.C. 2006, A&A, 446, 627
Sim, S. A., Sauer, D. N., Röpke, F. K., & Hillebrandt, W. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 2
Stehle, M., Mazzali, P.A., Benetti, S., Hillebrandt, W. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1231
Tanaka, M., Mazzali, P.A., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2006, ApJ, 645, 470
Tanaka, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 448
Taubenberger, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 677
Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Yokoi, K 1986, A&A, 158, 17
Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 408
Thielemann, F.-K., Rauscher, T., Freiburghaus, C., Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Pfeiffer, B., & Kratz, K.-L. 1998, Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge) (eds. J. G. Hirsch and D. Page), 27
Thielemann, F.-K., Brachwitz, F., H"oflich, P., Martinez-Pinedo, G., & Nomoto, K. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 605
Thomas, R.C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, L53
Travaglio, C., Hillebrandt, W., Reinecke, M., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2004a, A&A, 425, 1029
Travaglio, C., Kifonidis, K., & Müller, E. 2004b, New Astron. Rev., 48, 25
Travaglio, C., Hillebrandt, W., & Reinecke, M. 2005, A&A, 443, 1007
Webbink, R.F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355
Wheeler, J.C., Harkness, R.P., Khokhlov, A.M., & Höflich, P. 1995, Phys. Rep., 53, 221
Whelan, J., & Iben, I., Jr. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007
Woosley, S.E., & Weaver, T.A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 205
Woosley, S.E., & Weaver, T.A. 1994, ApJ, 423, 371
Woosley, S.E., Wunsch, S., & Kuhlen, M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 921
Woosley, S.E. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1109
Woosley, S.E., Kerstein, A.R., Sankaran, V., & R[ö]{}pke, F.K. 2009, ApJ, 704, 255
Yamaoka, H., Shigeyama, T., Nomoto, K., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1992, ApJ, 393, L55
[^1]: Note that the O-DDT model is still less extreme than the GCD model (Jordan et al. 2008; Meakin et al. 2009) in the distribution of the initial bubbles.
[^2]: Note that the 3D deflagration models can also potentially produce the layered structure (Röpke et al. 2007b).
[^3]: Note, however, that the central wavelengths of the emission lines are shifted with respective to the explosion center, and this “line shift” can be well explained by the off-set DDT scenario (Maeda et al. 2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
CNU-HEP-14-04, IPMU14-0344\
[**[Dark Matter in Split SUSY with Intermediate Higgses]{}** ]{}
[Kingman Cheung$^{a,b,c}$, Ran Huo$^{d}$, Jae Sik Lee$^{e}$, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai$^{d}$ ]{}
[*$^a$ Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan*]{}\
[*$^b$ Division of Quantum Phases and Devices, School of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea*]{}\
[*$^c$ Physics Division, National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Hsinchu, Taiwan*]{}\
[*$^d$ Kavli IPMU (WPI), The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan*]{}\
[*$^e$ Department of Physics, Chonnam National University, 300 Yongbong-dong, Buk-gu, Gwangju, 500-757, Republic of Korea*]{}\
()
**ABSTRACT**
The searches for heavy Higgs bosons and supersymmetric (SUSY) particles at the LHC have left the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with an unusual spectrum of SUSY particles, namely, all squarks are beyond a few TeV while the Higgs bosons other than the one observed at 125 GeV could be relatively light. In light of this, we study a scenario characterized by two scales: the SUSY breaking scale or the squark-mass scale $(M_S)$ and the heavy Higgs-boson mass scale $(M_A)$. We perform a survey of the MSSM parameter space with $M_S {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^{10}$ GeV and $M_A {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^4$ GeV such that the lightest Higgs boson mass is within the range of the observed Higgs boson as well as satisfying a number of constraints. The set of constraints include the invisible decay width of the $Z$ boson and that of the Higgs boson, the chargino-mass limit, dark matter relic abundance from Planck, the spin-independent cross section of direct detection by LUX, and gamma-ray flux from dwarf spheroidal galaxies and gamma-ray line constraints measured by Fermi LAT. Survived regions of parameter space feature the dark matter with correct relic abundance, which is achieved through either coannihilation with charginos, $A/H$ funnels, or both. We show that future measurements, e.g., XENON1T and LZ, of spin-independent cross sections can further squeeze the parameter space.\
Introduction
============
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most elegant solutions, if not the best, to the gauge hierarchy problem. SUSY provides an efficient mechanism to break the electroweak symmetry dynamically with a large top Yukawa coupling. Another virtue is that the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is automatically a dark matter (DM) candidate to satisfy the relic DM abundance assuming the $R$-parity conservation. The fine-tuning argument in the gauge hierarchy problem requires SUSY particles at work at the TeV scale to stabilize the gap between the electroweak scale and the grand unified theory (GUT) scale or the Planck scale. With this scale the gauge coupling unification is also naturally achieved in renormalization group equation (RGE) running.
Although SUSY has quite a number of merits at least theoretically, the biggest drawback of SUSY is that so far we have not observed any sign of SUSY. Nevertheless, we have observed a light standard model (SM) like Higgs boson, which is often a natural prediction of SUSY. The null results for all the searches of SUSY particles have pushed the mass scale of squarks beyond a few TeV [@susy-exp]. While abandoning SUSY as a solution to the gauge hierarchy problem, such a high-scale SUSY scenario also draws more and more attention on CP problems [@susycp], cosmological problems [@susycosmo], and DM search [@HSdm]. On the other hand, the searches for the SUSY Higgs bosons provide the less stringent mass limits and it still seems possible to find them in the range of a few hundred GeV [@heavy-higgs]. Consequently, we are left with an unusual spectrum of SUSY particles and Higgs bosons: (i) all squarks are heavy beyond a few TeV [@susy-exp], (ii) the gluino is heavier than about 1 TeV [@susy-gluino], (iii) neutralinos and charginos can be of order $O(100-1000)$ GeV, (iv) heavy Higgs bosons can be of order $O(100-1000)$ GeV [@heavy-higgs], and (v) a light Higgs boson with a mass $125$ GeV [@atlas-cms]. The spectrum is somewhat similar to the proposal of split SUSY [@split], except that the heavy Higgs bosons need not be as heavy as those of split SUSY. We name the scenario the “modified split SUSY” framework, with two distinct scales: the SUSY breaking scale $M_S$ and the heavy Higgs-boson mass scale $M_A$. In the following, for simplicity we call this “modified split SUSY” as scenario A in which $M_S$ and $M_A$ are independent, while the original split SUSY as scenario B in which $M_A$ and $M_S$ are set to be equal. Since an extra TeV scale $M_A$ is obtained from cancellation of larger scales of $M_S$ or so, the fine tuning could be more serious than in the split SUSY.
We wish to be more specific and explicit about the framework and the motivation of our “modified split SUSY”. In the MSSM, the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs boson is basically determined by the weak gauge couplings and the vacuum expectation values of the neutral components of the two Higgs doublets and, accordingly, can not be much larger than the mass of the $Z$ boson. While the mass scale of the other 4 Higgs states cannot be fixed by requiring the electrowek symmetry breaking. Usually, the arbitrary mass parameter $M_A$ is introduced to fix the masses of the Higgs states other than the lightest one. Our notion is that there is no compelling reason for the scale $M_A$ to be equal to $M_S$ when we abandon SUSY as a solution to the hierarchy problem. With this choice of freedom we can modify the split SUSY (in split SUSY $M_A = M_S$) to have two independent parameters $M_A$ and $M_S$. With one more parameter, we can have more interesting collider and dark matter phenomenology, as well as more viable regions of parameter space, as we shall show in the main results. We, therefore, come with an interesting variety of the split SUSY. Instead of all the scalars being very heavy, we could have the $M_A$ much lighter than $M_S$. This will have profound effects on the dark matter phenomenology, especially the dark matter can annihilation via the near-resonance of the heavy Higgs bosons. Since the heavy Higgs bosons have much larger total decay widths than the light Higgs bosons, the resonance effect of the Higgs boson would enjoy much less fine tuning in giving the correct relic density of the dark matter. Thus, interesting parameter space regions become viable when $M_A$ goes down to sub-TeV and TeV ranges.
Phenomenologically, this modified split SUSY scenario is motivated by the possibility that the Higgs bosons other than the one observed at 125 GeV can be relatively light compared to the high SUSY scale $M_S$. If both $M_A$ and $M_S$ are set equal with $M_A < 10{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{TeV}}}$, as will be shown in Fig. 1, only a small region with large $\tan \beta$ is allowed. Nevertheless, if $M_A$ and $M_S$ are set at different values, much larger parameter space with a wide range of $\tan\beta$ will be allowed. With more parameter space we can then contrast it with other existing constraints. This is a strong motivation why we study this “modified split SUSY” scenario. We can then perform a careful analysis using all dark matter constraints and collider limits. In this work, we consider the particle content of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) in which the SUSY breaking scale or the sfermion-mass scale is denoted by $M_S$. The other scalar mass scale is the mass of heavy Higgs bosons characterized by $M_A$. In split SUSY, all sfermions and heavy scalar Higgs bosons are set a single scale $M_S$. However, in the modified split SUSY scenario under consideration, $M_A$ can be substantially smaller than $M_S$. The gauginos and Higgsinos have masses in hundred GeVs and TeV. The lightest neutralino, the dark matter candidate, will be composed of bino, wino, and Higgsino. In addition to the neutralino-chargino coannihilation region, we also have the near-resonance regions of the $Z$ boson, the light Higgs boson, as well as the heavy Higgs bosons, which is characterized by $M_A$. It is the latter that makes the scenario different from the conventional split SUSY. It is therefore important to explore this interesting scenario.
We perform a survey of the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) characterized by two scales: (i) the SUSY breaking scale $M_S$ with $M_S {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^{10}$ GeV, and (ii) the heavy Higgs-boson mass scale $(M_A)$ with $M_A {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^4$ GeV, such that the lightest Higgs boson mass with large radiative corrections from heavy squarks is within the range of the mass of the observed Higgs boson. We choose $M_A$ smaller than or at most equal to $M_S$. Specifically, we assume the MSSM above the SUSY breaking scale $M_S$. Then we do the matching at the scale $M_S$ while we decouple all the sfermions. We evolve from $M_S$ down to $M_A$ with a set of RGEs comprising of two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM), gauge couplings, and gaugino couplings. For this purpose, we derive the RGEs governing the range between $M_S$ and $M_A$ and present them in Appendix \[sec:rge\_ours\]. Then we do the matching at the scale $M_A$ while we decouple all the heavy Higgs bosons. We evolve from $M_A$ down to the electroweak scale with a set of RGE comprising of the SM and the gauginos. The matching is then done at the electroweak scale. Once we obtain all the relevant parameters at the electroweak scale, we calculate all the observables and compare to experimental data.
In this work the LSP of the MSSM is the DM candidate, which is the lightest neutralino in the current scenario. Since we are strongly interested in DM, we include a number of other existing constraints on SUSY particles and DM:
1. the invisible decay width of the $Z$ boson and that of the Higgs boson,
2. the chargino-mass limit,
3. dark matter relic abundance from Planck,
4. the spin-independent cross section of direct detection by LUX, and
5. gamma-ray flux from dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs) and gamma-ray line constraints measured by Fermi LAT.
Due to multidimensional model parameters involved in this work, it will be advantageous to adopt a Monte Carlo sampling technique to perform a global scan. In order to assess the robustness of our Monte Carlo results, we investigate both Bayesian maps in terms of marginal posterior (MP) and frequentist ones in terms of the profile likelihood (PL) technique. However, the likelihood functions of experimental constraints are the same for both approaches.
The organization is as follows. In the next section, we describe the theoretical framework of the modified split SUSY, including the matching conditions at the scales of $M_S$ and $M_A$, and the corresponding interactions of the particles involved. In Sec. 3, we list the set of constraints from collider and dark matter experiments that we use in this analysis. In Sec. 4, we present the results of our analysis using the methods of PL and MP. We discuss and conclude in Sec. 5.
Theoretical Framework
=====================
In the case under consideration, we have the two characteristic scales: the high SUSY scale $M_S$ and the Higgs mass scale $M_A$. The relevant phenomenology may be described by the effective Lagrangians depending on scale $Q$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M_S < Q \hphantom{\,< M_P}&: & {\cal L}={\cal L}_{\rm MSSM}
\nonumber \\
M_A < Q < M_S &:& {\cal L}={\cal L}_{\rm 2HDM}+{\cal L}^{(1)}_{\tilde\chi}
\nonumber \\
\hphantom{M_W <} Q < M_A &:& {\cal L}={\cal L}_{\rm SM}+{\cal L}^{(2)}_{\tilde\chi}\end{aligned}$$
Interactions for $M_A < Q < M_S$
--------------------------------
At the scale $M_S$ all the sfermions decouple when we assume that they are heavier than or equal to the scale $M_S$. We are left with the spectrum of the Higgs sector of the 2HDM, gauginos, and higgsinos.
In this work, we take the general 2HDM potential as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V2HDM}
\mathrm{V}_{\rm 2HDM} &=& -\mu_1^2 (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_1) - \mu_2^2
(\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_2) - m_{12}^2 (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_2) -
m_{12}^{*2}(\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_1) \nonumber \\
&&+ \lambda_1 (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_1)^2 +
\lambda_2 (\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_2)^2 + 2\lambda_3 (\Phi_1^{\dagger}
\Phi_1)(\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_2) + 2\lambda_4 (\Phi_1^{\dagger}
\Phi_2)(\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_1) \nonumber \\
&&+ \lambda_5 (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_2)^2 +
\lambda_5^{*} (\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_1)^2 + 2\lambda_6
(\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_1) (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_2) + 2\lambda_6^{*}
(\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_1)(\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_1) \nonumber \\
&& + 2\lambda_7 (\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_2) (\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Phi_2) +
2\lambda_7^{*} (\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_2) (\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Phi_1)\end{aligned}$$ with the parameterization $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1 &=& -i\sigma_2\,H_d^*
= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{array}\right)\,
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(v_d+H_d^0-iA_d^0) \\ -H_d^-
\end{array}\right)^*
= \left(\begin{array}{c}
H_d^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(v_d+H_d^0+iA_d^0)
\end{array}\right)\,; \ \ \
\nonumber \\
\Phi_2 &=& H_u = \left(\begin{array}{c}
H_u^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(v_u+H_u^0+iA_u^0)
\end{array}\right)\,; \ \ \\end{aligned}$$ and $v_d=v \cos\beta=vc_\beta$, $v_u=v \sin\beta=vs_\beta$, and $v\simeq 245$ GeV. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_A^2&=&M_{H^\pm}^2+\lambda_4 v^2 -{\Re {\rm e}}(\lambda_5)v^2\,, \\[3mm]
M_{H^\pm}^2&=&\frac{{\Re {\rm e}}(m_{12}^2)}{c_\beta s_\beta}
-\frac{v^2}{c_\beta s_\beta}\left[\lambda_4 c_\beta s_\beta+
c_\beta s_\beta{\Re {\rm e}}(\lambda_5)+
c_\beta^2{\Re {\rm e}}(\lambda_6)+
s_\beta^2{\Re {\rm e}}(\lambda_7) \right]\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $A=-s_\beta A_d^0+c_\beta A_u^0$ and $H^+=-s_\beta H_d^+ +c_\beta H_u^+$.
The wino(bino)-Higgsino-Higgs interactions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\tilde\chi}^{(1)} & = &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}H_u^\dagger\left(
\tilde{g}_{u} \sigma^a \widetilde{W}^a +
\tilde{g}_{u}^\prime \widetilde{B} \right)\,\widetilde{H}_u
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}H_d^\dagger\left(
\tilde{g}_{d} \sigma^a \widetilde{W}^a -
\tilde{g}_{d}^\prime \widetilde{B} \right)\,\widetilde{H}_d \ + \
{\rm h.c.}\,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^a$ are the Pauli matrices. We note $H_d^\dagger=-\Phi_1^T\,i\sigma_2
=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(v_d+H_d^0+iA_d^0),-H_d^+\right)$.
Matching at $M_S$
-----------------
The couplings of the interactions when $M_A<Q<M_S$ are determined by the matching conditions at $M_S$ and the RGE evolution from $M_S$ to $Q$. Assuming that all the sfermions are degenerate at $M_S$, the quartic couplings at the scale $M_S$ are given by [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1 &=&
\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g'^2)+\frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_b^4\frac{A_b^2}{M_S^2}
(1-\frac{A_b^2}{12M_S^2})-y_t^4\frac{\mu^4}{12M_S^4}\bigg)\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\lambda_2 &=&
\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g'^2)+\frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_t^4\frac{A_t^2}{M_S^2}
(1-\frac{A_t^2}{12M_S^2})-y_b^4\frac{\mu^4}{12M_S^4}\bigg)\nonumber \\
\lambda_3 &=&
\frac{1}{8}(g^2-g'^2)+\frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_b^2y_t^2
\frac{A_{tb}}{2}+y_t^4(\frac{\mu^2}{4M_S^2}-\frac{\mu^2 A_t^2}{12M_S^4})
+y_b^4(\frac{\mu^2}{4M_S^2}-\frac{\mu^2 A_b^2}{12M_S^4})\bigg)\nonumber \\
\lambda_4 &=&
-\frac{1}{4}g^2+\frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(-y_b^2y_t^2
\frac{A_{tb}}{2}+y_t^4(\frac{\mu^2}{4M_S^2}-\frac{\mu^2 A_t^2}{12M_S^4})
+y_b^4(\frac{\mu^2}{4M_S^2}-\frac{\mu^2 A_b^2}{12M_S^4})\bigg)\nonumber \\
\lambda_5 &=& -\frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_t^4\frac{\mu^2
A_t^2}{12M_S^4}+y_b^4\frac{\mu^2 A_b^2}{12M_S^4}\bigg),
\nonumber \\
\lambda_6 &=& \frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_b^4\frac{\mu
A_b}{M_S^2}(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{A_b^2}{12M_S^2})+y_t^4\frac{\mu^3 A_t}{12M_S^4}\bigg),
\nonumber \\
\lambda_7 &=& \frac{N_c}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(y_t^4\frac{\mu
A_t}{M_S^2}(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{A_t^2}{12M_S^2})+y_b^4\frac{\mu^3 A_b}{12M_S^4}\bigg),
\label{eq:lam1to7}\end{aligned}$$ with $$A_{tb}=\frac{1}{6}\bigg(-\frac{6\mu^2}{M_S^2}-\frac{(\mu^2-A_bA_t)^2}{M_S^4}+\frac{3(A_b+A_t)^2}{M_S^2}\bigg)\,.$$ We note that the quartic couplings at $M_S$ consist of its tree level values and the threshold corrections induced by the $A$ and $\mu$ terms. We further observe $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ vanish without including the threshold corrections.
On the other hand, for the wino(bino)-Higgsino-Higgs couplings at the scale $M_S$, we have $$\tilde{g}^{(\prime)}_{u} = \tilde{g}^{(\prime)}_{d} = g^{(\prime)}\,.$$ We note the relation $g^\prime = \sqrt{3/5}\,g_1$.
The threshold corrections to the gauge and Yukawa couplings at $M_S$ also vanish in the framework under consideration or when all the sfermions are degenerate at $M_S$.
Interactions for $Q < M_A$
--------------------------
When the scale drops below $M_A$, all the heavy Higgs bosons decouple. We are left with the SM particles, a light Higgs boson, gauginos, and higgsinos.
The SM Higgs potential is given by $$V_{\rm SM}=\lambda \left[(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2-\frac{v^2}{2}\right]^2$$ with $$\Phi = \left(\begin{array}{c}
G^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(v+h+iG^0)
\end{array}\right)\,$$ where $G^{\pm,0}$ denotes the would-be Goldstone bosons and $h$ the physical neutral Higgs state. We note $m_h^2=2\lambda v^2$. The wino(bino)-Higgsino-Higgs interactions are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\tilde\chi}^{(2)} & = &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Phi^\dagger\left(
\hat{g}_{u} \sigma^a \widetilde{W}^a +
\hat{g}_{u}^\prime \widetilde{B} \right)\,\widetilde{H}_u
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-\Phi^T\,i\sigma_2)\left(
\hat{g}_{d} \sigma^a \widetilde{W}^a -
\hat{g}_{d}^\prime \widetilde{B} \right)\,\widetilde{H}_d \ + \
{\rm h.c.}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Matching at $M_A$
-----------------
The couplings of the interactions when $Q<M_A$ are determined by the matching conditions at $M_A$ and the RGE evolution from $M_A$ to $Q$. At the scale $M_A$, the quartic coupling $\lambda$ of the SM Higgs potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &=& \lambda_1\cos^4\beta + \lambda_2\sin^4\beta + 2\tilde{\lambda}_3\cos^2\beta
\sin^2\beta
\nonumber \\
&+& 4\lambda_6\cos^3\beta\sin\beta + 4\lambda_7\cos\beta\sin^3\beta
+ \delta\lambda
\label{eq:lambda_MA}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\lambda}_3=\lambda_3+\lambda_4+\lambda_5$ and $\delta\lambda$ denotes the threshold correction. We find that the threshold correction to $\lambda$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\lambda&=&\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\bigg[
\left(\lambda_A^3\frac{v^2}{M_A^2}-\frac{1}{3}\lambda_A^4\frac{v^4}{M_A^4}
\right) +
\left(\lambda_H^3\frac{v^2}{M_H^2}-\frac{1}{3}\lambda_H^4\frac{v^4}{M_H^4}
\right) +
2\left(\lambda_\pm^3\frac{v^2}{M_{H^\pm}^2}-\frac{1}{3}\lambda_\pm^4\frac{v^4}
{M_{H^\pm}^4}\right)\bigg] \nonumber \\[2mm]
&+&
\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left( \lambda_H^2\ln\frac{M_H}{M_A} +
2\lambda_\pm^2\ln\frac{M_{H^\pm}}{M_A} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $M_H$ denotes the mass of the heavier CP-even neutral Higgs boson and the couplings $\lambda_{A,H,\pm}$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_A&=&(\lambda_3+\lambda_4-\lambda_5) +
(\lambda_1+\lambda_2-2\tilde\lambda_3)\cos^2\beta\sin^2\beta
+(-\lambda_6+\lambda_7)\sin2\beta\cos2\beta\,,\nonumber\\[2mm]
\lambda_H&=&\tilde\lambda_3 +3(\lambda_1+\lambda_2-2\tilde\lambda_3)
\cos^2\beta\sin^2\beta + 3(-\lambda_6+\lambda_7)\sin2\beta\cos2\beta
\,,\nonumber\\[2mm]
\lambda_\pm&=&\lambda_3+(\lambda_1+\lambda_2-2\tilde\lambda_3)\cos^2\beta\sin^2\beta
+ (-\lambda_6+\lambda_7)\sin2\beta\cos2\beta.\end{aligned}$$ The wino(bino)-Higgsino-Higgs couplings at $M_A$ are given by $$\hat{g}^{(\prime)}_{u} = \tilde{g}^{(\prime)}\,\sin\beta\,; \ \ \
\hat{g}^{(\prime)}_{d} = \tilde{g}^{(\prime)}\,\cos\beta\,.$$ The threshold corrections to the gauge and Yukawa couplings at $M_A$ are neglected because of the approximated degeneracy among $M_A$, $M_H$, and $M_{H^\pm}$.
Matching at the electroweak scale
---------------------------------
Matching at the electroweak scale is exactly the same as in the original split SUSY framework. We closely follow Ref. [@Giudice:2011cg] to include the threshold corrections to the gauge couplings at the electroweak scale and to calculate the pole masses for the Higgs boson and the top quark.
Since we are adopting the one-loop matching conditions, see Eqs. (\[eq:lam1to7\]) and (\[eq:lambda\_MA\]), it is more appropriate to employ two-loop RGEs. However, not all the two-loop RGEs are available for the present framework, and the higher-order corrections may be minimized by the judicious choice of the top-quark mass for the scale where the lightest Higgs mass is estimated. Our approach is to be considered as an intermediate step towards the more precise calculation of the lightest Higgs mass in our modified split SUSY scenario.
Experimental Constraints and Likelihoods
========================================
In this section, we describe how to construct the likelihood functions involved with experimental constraints which are used in both MP and PL approaches. For the experimental constraints considered in this work, we assume either half-Gaussian or Gaussian distribution when the central values $\mu$, experimental errors $\sigma$, and theoretical errors $\tau$ are available. Otherwise, we take Poisson distributions.
In Table \[tab:exp\_constraints\], in the second last column, we show the likelihoods of each experimental constraint. Here “hard cut" means we apply the 95% upper limits instead of constructing its likelihood. For the details of our statistical treatment, we refer to Appendix \[sec:stat\]. In the following subsections, we give more details of the constraint and likelihood of each measurement.
Measurement central value $\mu$ Error: ($\sigma$, $\tau$) Distribution Ref.
---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------- ---------------------- --
$\Gamma_{\rm{inv}}^Z$ $499\,{\rm MeV}$ $1.5\,{\rm MeV}, 0.0 $ Gaussian [@Beringer:1900zz]
$\Gamma_{\rm{inv}}^h$ $0.1\,{\rm MeV}$ $^{+0.51}_{-0.41}\,{\rm MeV}, 0.0 $ Gaussian [@Cheung:2013kla]
$m_{\chi^\pm}$ $103.5\,{\rm GeV}$ $0.0\,{\rm GeV}, 1\% $ half-Gaussian [@LEP]
relic abundance $0.1186$ $0.0031$, $10\%$ half-Gaussian [@Ade:2013zuv]
LUX (2013) see Ref. [@Matsumoto:2014rxa] see Ref. [@Matsumoto:2014rxa] Poisson [@Akerib:2013tjd]
dSphs $\gamma$-ray see Ref. [@Tsai:2012cs] see Ref. [@Tsai:2012cs] Poisson [@Ackermann:2013yva]
Monochromatic $Z^0\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$ 95% upper limits 95% upper limits hard-cut [@Ackermann:2013uma]
: The experimental constraints and the likelihoods. Where it is applicable, the central value $\mu$, experimental error $\sigma$, and theoretical error $\tau$ are given. []{data-label="tab:exp_constraints"}
Colliders
---------
### Invisible decay widths
The invisible decay width of the $Z$ boson was accurately measured by taking the difference between the total width and the visible width, and is well explained by the three light active neutrino species of the SM. Any additional invisible decays of the $Z$ boson are strongly constrained by this data. In the current framework, the additional invisible width comes from $Z\to\chi^0_1\chi^0_1$. With the invisible width given in the PDG [@Beringer:1900zz], $ \Gamma^Z_{inv} = 499 \pm 1.5$ MeV, we can constrain $Z\to\chi^0_1\chi^0_1$.
If the neutralino mass is below $m_h/2$, the Higgs boson can decay into a pair of neutralinos, thus contributing to an invisible width of the Higgs boson. From a global fit using the Higgs-boson data at the 7 and 8 TeV runs of the LHC, the invisible width of the Higgs boson is constrained to be $\Gamma^h_{\rm inv} < 0.6$ MeV [@Cheung:2013kla] at 1-$\sigma$ level if all other parameters are fixed at their SM values. If other parameters are allowed to vary, the $\Gamma^h_{\rm inv}$ would have a more relaxed limit, which is about the same as the bound from the direct search on the invisible mode of the Higgs boson, which has a branching ratio about $50\%$ [@invisible]. Nevertheless, we use $\Gamma^h_{\rm inv} < 0.6$ MeV in this work, as shown in Table \[tab:exp\_constraints\].
### Chargino mass
The mass limits on charginos come either from direct search or indirectly from the constraint set by the non-observation of ${\chi}^0_2$ states on the gaugino and higgsino MSSM parameters $M_2$ and $\mu$. For generic values of the MSSM parameters, limits from high-energy $e^+ e^-$ collisions coincide with the highest value of the mass allowed by phase space, namely $m_{{\chi}^\pm} {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}\sqrt{s}/2$. The combination of the results of the four LEP collaborations of LEP2 running at $\sqrt{s}$ up to 209 GeV yields a lower mass limit of $m_{{\chi}^\pm_1} \ge 103.5$ GeV, which is valid for general MSSM models. However, it could be weakened in certain regions of the MSSM parameter space where the detection efficiencies or production cross sections are suppressed, e.g., when the mass difference $m_{{\chi}^\pm_1} -m_{{\chi}^0_1}$ becomes too small. Regardlessly, we simply employ the mass limit of $m_{{\chi}^\pm_1} \ge 103.5$ in this work. We do not use the LHC constraint since it is more model dependent and does not give any bounds when $m_{{\chi}^0_1}
{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}70$ GeV [@Chatrchyan:2012pka]. Furthermore, for $m_{\chi^0_1}< 70{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ region, the $H/Z$ resonance region (see next subsection) is not sensitive to this search [@Han:2014sya]. Note that the $\chi\chi^\pm$ coannihilation is strongly forbidden by this limit especially when ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}90{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$.
To deal with the chargino mass limit without detector simulations, we adopt the half Gaussian distribution when $m_{\chi_1^\pm}<103.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ to describe the tail of the chargino mass likelihood function. For the likelihood, we assume $\sim 1\%$ theoretical uncertainty. When $m_{\chi_1^\pm}\geq 103.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$, we always assume the maximum likelihood.
Relic abundance
---------------
The half-Gaussian distribution for relic abundance likelihood in Table \[tab:exp\_constraints\] suits the well-motivated moduli decay scenario [@Choi:2005uz; @Conlon:2006us; @Conlon:2006wz; @Acharya:2007rc; @Acharya:2008zi; @Fan:2013faa; @Blinov:2014nla]. In this scenario, the relic abundance can be reproduced by moduli decay after the freeze-out, which is different from the usual multi-component DM scenario, in which the total relic abundance is shared among a few DM candidates, such as the axion. In the moduli decay scenario, all the DM is still assumed to be the neutralino, and the DM local density need not be rescaled with respect to the neutralino fraction as implemented in the multi-component DM scenario, so that the DM direct and indirect detection constraints will be stronger.
Very often, the neutralino DM in most of the MSSM parameter space over-produces the relic abundance, because the annihilation in the early Universe is too inefficient. Generally speaking, by opening the $W^+W^-$ final state the wino-like neutralino can very efficiently reduce relic abundance for wino mass up to $3-4{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{TeV}}}$, e.g. see Ref. [@Fan:2013faa; @Hisano:2006nn; @Mohanty:2010es]. However, it requires some specific mechanisms for bino-like, Higgsino-like, or mixed neutralinos to fulfill correct relic abundance. Sometimes more than one mechanisms are needed. In most cases the (non-wino) regions both of correct relic abundance and still allowed by the current LHC direct searches in our modified split SUSY parameter space are:
- The $Z/h$ resonance region, where the neutralinos annihilate through the resonance with the $Z$ boson at ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}\sim 45{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ and Higgs boson at ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}\sim 62.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$. In this region, neutralinos are governed mainly by the bino fraction but with a small mixing with the higgsino fraction.
- The chargino-neutralino coannihilation region, where the $\mu$ parameter is usually closed to gaugino parameters $M_1$ or $M_2$ so that the $\chi^0_1$, $\chi^\pm_1$, and $\chi^0_2$ are almost degenerate. If the masses between $\chi^0_1$ and $\chi^\pm_1$ or $\chi^0_1$ and $\chi^0_2$ are very close to each other, the number densities of the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle(s) (NLSP(s)) have only slight Boltzmann suppression with respect to the LSP number density. Therefore, all the interactions among the LSP and NLSP(s), such as $\chi^0_1-\chi^\pm_1$, $\chi^0_1-\chi^0_2$ and $\chi^\pm_1-\chi^0_2$, play important roles to reduce the relic abundance. Note that $\chi^0_1$ in this region shall have nonnegligible fractions of wino or higgsino in order to coannihilate with $\chi^\pm_1$ and $\chi^0_2$.
- The $A/H$ funnel region, where neutralinos annihilate through the resonance of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson $A$ or the heavy scalar Higgs boson $H$. In the original split SUSY framework with $M_A=M_S$, because of the large mass of $A/H$ as well as their large decay width, this mechanism becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, in our modified split SUSY scenario with light $M_A$, this $A/H$ funnel can still play a significant role in reducing the relic abundance. Nevertheless, we shall see later that the $A/H$-funnel for ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}>1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{TeV}}}$ is not efficient enough to reduce the relic abundance because of the larger $A/H$ decay width.
In split SUSY scenario, because of the very heavy sfermion masses, all the $\tilde{f}-\chi$ coannihilation channels have been closed. On the other hand, the chargino annihilation is still allowed but the chargino mass must be above the LEP limit, $m_{\chi^\pm}>103.5$ GeV. We found in our viable parameter space the majority of bino-like neutralino and chargino is always close to each other ($\chi\chi^\pm$ coannihilation on). Besides, $\chi\chi$ annihilation can have a few other choices. Lowering $M_A$ to less than 1[$\,\mathrm{TeV}$]{}, the $A/H$-funnel region can be important, especially for higgsino and mixed neutralino. For ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}<100{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$, $Z$- and $h$- resonances can also significantly reduce relic abundance. Finally, the wino-like neutralinos can easily annihilate into the $W^+W^-$ final state, which can sufficiently reduce relic abundance as well.
LUX: spin-independent cross section
-----------------------------------
At present the most stringent 90% C.L. limit on the spin-independent component of the elastic scattering cross section comes from LUX [@Akerib:2013tjd]. However, it did not take into account the systematic uncertainties from nuclear physics and astrophysics, otherwise the constraint becomes much less straightforward. The astrophysical uncertainties mainly come from our poor knowledge of the DM local density and velocity distribution. In order to account for the uncertainties of all the astrophysical parameters, we adopt the phase-space density factor and its associated error bars as computed in Ref. [@Catena:2011kv]. Nuclear physics uncertainties enter the systematic uncertainties through the nuclear matrix elements, mainly the pion-nucleon sigma term $\Sigma_{\pi N}$ and the strange quark content of the nucleon $f_{Ts}$, which promote the spin-independent cross sections from quark level into nucleon level. In Table \[fig:inputs\], we treat the $\Sigma_{\pi N}$ and $f_{Ts}$ as nuisance parameters and distribute as Gaussian with central values and error bars obtained by recent lattice QCD calculations. Regarding the reconstruction of the LUX likelihood including the astrophysical and nuclear uncertainties, we refer to Ref. [@Matsumoto:2014rxa] for more detailed explanations.
Fermi LAT gamma ray
--------------------
### Continuous gamma ray from dSphs
The most luminous gamma-ray source is the Galactic Center (GC) in the Milky Way, but it is also subject to higher astrophysical backgrounds. Better constraints were obtained from the diffuse gamma rays from the dSphs of the Milky Way. They are less luminous and dominated by DM, with little presence of gas or stars. Recently, the Fermi LAT Collaboration improved significantly the previous sensitivities to DM searches from dSphs [@Ackermann:2013yva].
Unlike the published limit from the Fermi LAT collaboration, we only include the eight classical dSphs in our analysis, because the DM halo distribution in the classical dSphs is measured with a higher accuracy from the velocity dispersion of the luminous matter [@Martinez:2009jh]. We use the 273 weeks’ Fermi-LAT data and the Pass-7 photon selection criteria, as implemented in the `FermiTools`. The energy range of photons is chosen from $200{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{MeV}}}$ to $500{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$, and the region-of-interest is adopted to be a $14^\circ\times 14^\circ$ box centered on each dSphs. The J-factors are taken from Table-I in Ref. [@Ackermann:2013yva].
In the likelihood analysis, the Fermi-LAT data are binned into 11 energy bins logarithmically spaced between 0.2 and 500 GeV, and we calculate the likelihood map of Fermi-LAT dSphs on the Ebin-flux plane following the method developed in Ref. [@Tsai:2012cs].
### Fermi photon line measured from GC
The experimental signature of monochromatic lines over the continuous spectrum is a clean signal of DM annihilation. In MSSM, the annihilation of $\chi^0_1\chi^0_1$ into photons induced by loop diagrams also provides stringent constraints on parameter space, especially when $\chi^0_1$ is wino-like and the annihilation cross section is enhanced. However, we do not reconstruct the likelihood for the Fermi-LAT photon line experiment but simply take the published limit at $5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}<{\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}<300{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$. In addition, we adopted the Isothermal profile since it is known to be more conservative than NFW or Einasto profile [@Ackermann:2013uma].
Numerical Analysis
==================
In this section, after describing the input parameters over which we perform the scan of the MSSM, we present the results of our numerical study. To compute the DM observables such as the relic abundance ${\ensuremath{\Omega_\chi h^2}}$, DM-proton elastic scattering cross section ${\ensuremath{\sigma^{\rm{SI}}_p}}$, annihilation cross section ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ at the present time, and branching ratios of DM annihilation, we calculate couplings and mass spectra at the neutralino-mass scale $M_\chi\equiv\sqrt{\mu \times M_2}$, where $\mu$ and $M_2$ denote the values at the scale $M_\chi$. First, we solve the RGEs from $M_S$ to $M_A$ with those given in Appendix \[sec:rge\_ours\]. For the evolution from $M_A$ to $M_\chi$, which is required when $M_\chi<M_A$, we employ the split SUSY RGE code [^2]. Then we generate the `SLHA` output and feed it into `DarkSUSY 5.1.1` [@Gondolo:2004sc] to compute the DM observables. Finally, we use the DM annihilation information from `DarkSUSY 5.1.1` to compute the likelihoods for direct and indirect detections by following the method developed in Ref. [@Matsumoto:2014rxa].
We perform the MSSM parameter space scan, including nuisance parameters, by use of `MultiNest v2.18` [@Feroz:2008xx] taking $15,000$ living points with a stop tolerance factor of $0.01$ and an enlargement factor of $0.8$.
Input Parameters
----------------
In this subsection, we provide detailed description of our MSSM input parameters and the nuisance parameters. For the SM input parameters we take the PDG values [@Beringer:1900zz].
MSSM Parameter Range Prior distribution
------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------
bino mass $10^{-2}<|M_1|/{\rm TeV}<5$ Log
wino mass $9\times 10^{-2}<|M_2|/{\rm TeV}<5$ Log
$\mu$ $9\times10^{-2}<\mu/{\rm TeV}<5$ Log
gluino mass $1<|M_3|/{\rm TeV} <5$ Log
$\tan\beta$ $2<\tan\beta <62$ Flat
$M_A$ $0.2\,{\rm TeV}<M_A<\rm{min}\,[10\,{\rm TeV},M_S]$ Flat (Scenario A)
$M_A=M_S$ Fixed (Scenario B)
Nuisance Parameter Central value and systematic uncertainty Prior distribution
$m_{h}$ (${\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$) $125.1\pm 2.0$ [@Aad:2014aba; @Khachatryan:2014ira] Gaussian
$\Sigma_{\pi N}$ ([$\,\mathrm{MeV}$]{}) $41.0\pm 6.4$ [@Alvarez-Ruso:2013fza] Gaussian
$f_{Ts}$ $0.043\pm 0.011$ [@Junnarkar:2013ac] Gaussian
: The prior ranges and distributions of the input parameters over which we perform the scan of the MSSM. []{data-label="tab:inputs"}
In Table \[tab:inputs\], the input parameters, their prior ranges and types of prior distributions are shown. We take $|M_{1,2}|\,,|\mu|\,<5$ TeV because it is hard to satisfy the relic abundance constraint with the LSP heavier than $3-4$ TeV. We apply the same maximum value for the gluino mass parameter, which does not affect our results much. The smallest values of $|M_{2}|$ and $\mu$ are chosen by taking into account the LEP limit on the chargino mass. We are taking $|M_{3}|>1$ TeV because of the LHC limit on the gluino mass. We cover the range of $\tan\beta$ up to $62$ and fix the trilinear parameter $A_0=\mu\cot\beta$ assuming the no-mixing scenario in the stop sector. The MSSM input parameters $M_{1,2,3}$, $\mu$, and $A_0$ are given at the scale $M_S$ while $\tan\beta$ is the value at the scale $M_A$.
Note that, in this work, we are using $m_h$ as an input nuisance parameter and, accordingly, the value of the high SUSY scale $M_S$ is an output. Numerically, we solve the RGEs to find the value of $M_S$ which gives the input value of $m_h$. The Higgs boson mass measurements in the diphoton decay channel now give $m_h=125.4 \pm 0.4$ GeV (ATLAS) [@atlas_aa_2014] and $m_h=124.70 \pm 0.31~({\rm stat}) \pm 0.15~({\rm syst})$ GeV (CMS) [@david]. On the other hand, the theoretical error of Higgs mass is estimated to be around $2-3{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ [@Heinemeyer:2011aa] which is much larger than the experimental errors of $\sim 0.4$ GeV. Therefore, in this work, we are taking $m_h= 125.1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ with a Gaussian experimental uncertainty of $\sigma=2{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$.
Depending on the relative size of $M_A$ to $M_S$, we are taking two scenarios:
- scenario A: $M_A\leq\rm{min}[10{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{TeV}}}, M_S]$,
- scenario B: $M_A=M_S$ (the same as the original split SUSY).
In the scenario A, we are taking the maximum value of 10 TeV for $M_A$, because the $A/H$-funnel ($M_A \sim 2\,m_{\chi^0_1}$) mechanism becomes ineffective for neutralino annihilation when $M_A$ is beyond 10 TeV. Smaller values of $M_A$ may help to obtain the correct Higgs-boson mass when $M_S$ is too large to give $m_h\sim 125$ GeV in the original split SUSY framework. On the other hand, the choice of $M_A$ in scenario B is the same as in the original split SUSY framework. We note that the scenario B is a part of scenario A if $M_S<10{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{TeV}}}$.
We further need inputs for the pion-nucleon sigma term $\Sigma_{\pi N}$ and the strange quark content of the nucleon $f_{Ts}$. To account for the systematic uncertainties involved in the evaluation of the relevant nuclear matrix elements, we also treat them as nuisance parameters, as mentioned before. The central values and errors are obtained by recent lattice QCD calculations.
Numerical Results
-----------------
![\[fig:mA\_mS\] The scatter plot on the ($M_A$, $M_S$) plane varying input parameters as in Table \[tab:inputs\] while requiring $m_h$ to be in the $2$-$\sigma$ range: $121.1<m_h/{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}<129.1$. The color scheme are: $2<\tan\beta<3$ (red circle), $3<\tan\beta<5$ (blue square), $5<\tan\beta<10$ (green triangle), and $\tan\beta<10$ (gray cross). In the pink region, $M_A>M_S$ which is out of our current consideration. ](mAsplit_all_ms_mA.eps){width="5in"}
We are taking both the PL and MP methods and make comparisons where it is informative. We note that, when we present our result based on the MP method, the systematic uncertainties of the input parameters are automatically included by utilizing a Gaussian prior distribution, see the nuisance parameters in Table \[tab:inputs\]. On the other hand, when we are using the PL method, the systematic uncertainties are added to the likelihood function.
In Fig. \[fig:mA\_mS\] we show the scatter plot on the ($M_A$, $M_S$) plane by varying input parameters as in Table \[tab:inputs\], while requiring $m_h$ to be in the $2$-$\sigma$ range: $121.1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}<m_h<129.1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$. Different colors represent different $\tan\beta$ ranges. We observe that a larger $M_S$ is required for small values of $\tan\beta$ and also as $M_A$ decreases. When $\tan\beta{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10$, $M_S$ becomes almost independent of $M_A$ and it lies between $\sim 3$ TeV and $\sim 15$ TeV. When $M_A=M_S$ is taken as in the scenario B, the value of $M_S$ is smaller in order to achieve $m_h\sim125$ GeV. Therefore, in the split-SUSY framework with the intermediate Higgses lighter than $\sim 10$ TeV, $M_S$ is generally predicted to be higher especially when $\tan\beta$ is small.
![\[fig:inputs\] The marginalized posterior (contours) and the profiled likelihood (scatter points) PDFs in the ($|M_2|/\mu$, $|M_1|/\mu$) plane for the scenarios A (left) and B (right). All the three parameters are the values at the scale $M_S$. The inner (outer) contour corresponds to $2\sigma\, (3\sigma)$ credible region (CR) but the scatter points represent the $2\sigma$ profile likelihood region. The regions with $g_b>0.9$ (bino-like), $g_W>0.9$ (wino-like), and $g_h>0.9$ (higgsino-like) are colored in red, blue, and green. The gray region is for the mixed $\chi^0_1$, see the text. ](mAsplitv1_Nfrac.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![\[fig:inputs\] The marginalized posterior (contours) and the profiled likelihood (scatter points) PDFs in the ($|M_2|/\mu$, $|M_1|/\mu$) plane for the scenarios A (left) and B (right). All the three parameters are the values at the scale $M_S$. The inner (outer) contour corresponds to $2\sigma\, (3\sigma)$ credible region (CR) but the scatter points represent the $2\sigma$ profile likelihood region. The regions with $g_b>0.9$ (bino-like), $g_W>0.9$ (wino-like), and $g_h>0.9$ (higgsino-like) are colored in red, blue, and green. The gray region is for the mixed $\chi^0_1$, see the text. ](splitsusyv1_Nfrac.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"}\
In Fig. \[fig:inputs\] we present the probability density functions (PDFs) for marginalized posterior and profiled likelihood in the ($|M_2|/\mu$, $|M_1|/\mu$) plane. All the experimental constraints in Table \[tab:exp\_constraints\] are applied and we make comparisons of the scenarios A (left) and B (right). We represent the bino-like, wino-like, higgsino-like and mixed neutralinos in red, blue, green and gray, respectively. Precisely, we identify the lightest neutralino $\chi^0_1$ as bino-, wino- or higgsino-like when the corresponding fraction $g_b>0.9$, $g_W>0.9$ or $g_h>0.9$, respectively. [^3] Otherwise we identify it is the mixed lightest neutralino. Comparing the scenarios A and B, we can see that the difference lies in the bino region. This is because the bino-like $\chi^0_1$ can satisfy the relic abundance constraint only through $Z/h$-resonance in the scenario B, where $A/H$-funnel does not work because $M_A=M_S {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}3$ TeV. In fact, the mechanism of $Z/h$-resonance requires a small fraction of higgsino but it cannot be too large because of the constraint from the Fermi dSphs gamma ray measurement. In particular, we find that the higgsino composition is between $0.06$ to $0.1$ in the $h$ resonance region which leads to the ratio $|M_1|/\mu \sim 0.4$.
![\[fig:mx\_mxpm\] The points with $\delta\chi^2<5.99$ scattered on the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, $m_{\chi^\pm}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). ](mx1_mxpm_scI.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![\[fig:mx\_mxpm\] The points with $\delta\chi^2<5.99$ scattered on the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, $m_{\chi^\pm}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). ](mx1_mxpm_scII.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"}
Furthermore, we find that the chargino-neutralino coannihilation working in reducing the relic abundance in both scenarios. Being different from the original split SUSY framework (scenario B), one can obtain the correct relic abundance in scenario A without resorting to the coannihilation mechanism thanks to the intermediate Higgses $A$ and $H$. To address this point, we show in Fig. \[fig:mx\_mxpm\] the points with $\delta\chi^2<5.99$ on the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, $m_{\chi^\pm}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). In addition to the $Z/h$-resonance regions around $m_{\chi^0_1} \sim 50\,, 60$ GeV and the chargino-neutralino coannihilation region along the $m_{\chi^0_1} = m_{\chi^\pm}$ line, we observe there are more points appearing in the scenarios A (left panel) due to the $A/H$-funnel. We find that the $A/H$-funnel region disappears when $m_{\chi^0_1}>1$ TeV, because the decay widths of $A$ and $H$ become too large and the Breit-Wigner resonance effect is not strong enough to reduce the relic abundance when $M_{H,A}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}2$ TeV.
In Fig. \[fig:mx\_sigmav\], we show the marginalized 2D posterior $2$- and $3$-$\sigma$ credible regions (CRs) for the scenario A (left) and B (right) in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$) plane. We also show the PL 2-$\sigma$ region (scattered points) for the bino-like (red) and mixed (gray) $\chi^0_1$ in the upper frames and the wino-like (blue) and higgsino-like (gray) $\chi^0_1$ in the lower frames. Here ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ denotes the annihilation cross section at the present time which is relevant to the DM indirect detections and through which one may easily identify different mechanisms for the relic abundance. When ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}<100{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$, via the $Z/h$ resonances, the marginalized posterior CRs are located at the bino-like neutralino region with a small amount of higgsino component in both scenarios (see the upper frames). Although the $Z/h$-resonance channels have very good likelihoods, they only fall into the $3\sigma$ (99.73%) CR owing to the small prior volume effect. The similar effect happens for the bino-like $\chi^0_1$ when $m_{\chi^0_1}>100$ GeV and the correct relic abundance is obtained by the $\chi\chi^\pm$ coannihilation. The fact that more parameter space survives in the scenario A (left) than scenario B (right) is due to the $A/H$-funnel. Nevertheless, most of the additional parameter space is a result of the mixture mechanism between $A/H$-funnel and coannihilation. In the lower frames, we observe that the $2\sigma$ CR has the wino-like branch (blue) with the higher ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ than the higgsino-like one (green). For the wino-like branch, the relic abundance is mainly reduced by the wino-like DM annihilation into $W^+W^-$ pairs. However when ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}3$ TeV, the wino DM cannot give the correct relic abundance as is well known. This mass limit can be slightly extended if coannihilation is taken into account. Since the wino DM have higher annihilation cross sections, the indirect detection constraint is stringent. Indeed, the lower bound for the wino-like neutralino mass is about $300{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$ from the Fermi dSphs gamma ray constraints. Incidentally, the lower bound for the higgsino-like neutralino mass is about $100{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$, set by the LEP limit of $m_{\chi_1^\pm}>103.5$. We further see there is no particular lower bound for the bino-like or mixed neutralino, as seen from the upper frames.
![\[fig:mx\_sigmav\] Marginalized posterior PDF (contours) and profiled likelihood PDF (scatter points) in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). The inner (outer) contours bounded the $2(3)$-$\sigma$ CR. All the scatter points superimposing on the contours agree with likelihood in the criteria $\delta\chi^2<5.99$. The red dots, blue squares, green stars, and gray triangle are for the bino-like, wino-like, higgsino-like, and mixed neutralino, respectively. ](mAsplit_mx_sigmav_bino.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![\[fig:mx\_sigmav\] Marginalized posterior PDF (contours) and profiled likelihood PDF (scatter points) in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). The inner (outer) contours bounded the $2(3)$-$\sigma$ CR. All the scatter points superimposing on the contours agree with likelihood in the criteria $\delta\chi^2<5.99$. The red dots, blue squares, green stars, and gray triangle are for the bino-like, wino-like, higgsino-like, and mixed neutralino, respectively. ](split_mx_sigmav_bino.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"}\
![\[fig:mx\_sigmav\] Marginalized posterior PDF (contours) and profiled likelihood PDF (scatter points) in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). The inner (outer) contours bounded the $2(3)$-$\sigma$ CR. All the scatter points superimposing on the contours agree with likelihood in the criteria $\delta\chi^2<5.99$. The red dots, blue squares, green stars, and gray triangle are for the bino-like, wino-like, higgsino-like, and mixed neutralino, respectively. ](mAsplit_mx_sigmav_whino.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![\[fig:mx\_sigmav\] Marginalized posterior PDF (contours) and profiled likelihood PDF (scatter points) in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$) plane for the scenario A (left) and B (right). The inner (outer) contours bounded the $2(3)$-$\sigma$ CR. All the scatter points superimposing on the contours agree with likelihood in the criteria $\delta\chi^2<5.99$. The red dots, blue squares, green stars, and gray triangle are for the bino-like, wino-like, higgsino-like, and mixed neutralino, respectively. ](split_mx_sigmav_whino.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"}\
![\[fig:mx\_sigsip\] The marginal posterior for the 95% and 99.73% CRs in (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\sigma^{\rm{SI}}_p}}$) plane. The left (right) panel is for the scenario A (B). ](mAsplit_mx_sigsip.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![\[fig:mx\_sigsip\] The marginal posterior for the 95% and 99.73% CRs in (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\sigma^{\rm{SI}}_p}}$) plane. The left (right) panel is for the scenario A (B). ](split_mx_sigsip.eps "fig:"){width="3.0in"}\
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:mx\_sigsip\] we show the marginalized 2D posterior PDF $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ contours in the (${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\sigma^{\rm{SI}}_p}}$) plane. The red solid line denotes the recent LUX result, the black dashed line the XENON1T projected sensitivity, and the blue dash-dotted line the LZ projected sensitivity [@Malling:2011va]. The orange dashed line represents the approximate line below which the DM signal becomes hardly distinguishable from the signals from the coherent scattering of the $^{8}B$ solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos and diffuse supernova neutrinos with nuclei. We observe that a part of $2$-$\sigma$ CR is below the LZ projected sensitivity. We can see that, in the $2$-$\sigma$ CRs, there is no significant difference between the scenarios A and B. The $3$-$\sigma$ CRs are slightly different in the lower ${\ensuremath{\sigma^{\rm{SI}}_p}}$ region. Moreover, in both scenarios, the future 7-tons experiments, LZ, can set a lower limit on the neutralino DM at ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi^0_1}}}>100{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{GeV}}}$.
Discussion
==========
In this work, we have studied a “modified split SUSY” scenario, characterized by two separate scales – the SUSY-breaking scale $M_S$ and the heavy Higgs-boson mass scale $M_A$. This is different from the split SUSY scenario, in which the scale $M_A$ is also set at $M_S$. The current scenario is motivated by (i) the absence of direct SUSY signals from the searches of scalar quarks up to a few TeV, (ii) the observed Higgs boson is somewhat on the heavy side which needs a large radiative correction to the tree-level mass from heavy stops, and (iii) absence of signals from heavy Higgs bosons $A/H$ and $H^\pm$ which can be as light as a few hundred GeV. Therefore, the choice of $M_A$ need not be as large as $M_S$. We have studied two scenarios: (i) $M_A \le {\rm min}(M_S, {\rm 10}\, {\rm Tev})$ and (ii) $M_A = M_S$ (the same as split SUSY).
If both $M_A$ and $M_S$ are set equal with $M_A<10$ TeV, as shown in Fig. \[fig:mA\_mS\], only a small region with $M_S {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^4$ GeV and large $\tan\beta$ is allowed. Nevertheless, if $M_A$ and $M_S$ are set at different values, much larger parameter space with a wide range of $\tan\beta$ is allowed. With more parameter space we have performed a careful analysis using all dark matter constraints and collider limits.
Because of two distinct scales $M_S$ and $M_A$ the running of the soft parameters and couplings are separated in two steps. We start with the set of RGEs given in appendix A to run from $M_S$ down to $M_A$ and perform the matching at the scale $M_A$. Then run from $M_A$ down to the electro-weakino scale $M_\chi \equiv \sqrt{\mu \times M_2}$ with the set of RGEs of split SUSY. Because of this two-step RGEs the predictions for DM observables and the Higgs boson mass are more reliable than just a single-step RGE.
We have scanned the MSSM parameter space characterized by the two scales: $M_S$ and $M_A$ subjected to many existing experimental constraints: invisible widths of the $Z$ boson and the Higgs boson, the chargino mass limit, relic abundance of the LSP, spin-independent cross sections from direct detection, and the gamma-ray data from indirect detection. We found interesting survival regions of parameter space with features of either chargino-neutralino coannihilation, the $A/H$ funnel, or wino-like. These regions survive because of the large enough annihilation to reduce the relic abundance to the observed values, as well as give a large enough Higgs boson mass to fit to the observed value. Finally, the survived parameter space can be further scrutinized by near future direct detection experiments such as XENON1T and LZ.
We offer a few important comments as follows.
1. We used the Higgs boson mass in the range range $121.1 < m_h < 129.1$ GeV to search for suitable $M_S$. Since $m_h$ is on the rather heavy side, it requires a large radiative correction to the tree-level mass. This can be achieved by a large stop mass and/or large mixing in the stop sector. Since the radiative correction is proportional to some powers of $\tan\beta$, a smaller $\tan\beta$ requires then a larger $M_S$ in order to achieve a large enough $m_h$. Typically, $M_S {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^{5-6}$ GeV for $\tan\beta < 3$. For large enough $\tan\beta$ the values of $M_S$ is more or less independent of $M_A$.
2. On the other hand, if we set $M_A = M_S$ as we do in scenario A, the allowed $M_S$ is rather short from about $10^3 - 10^4 $ GeV with large $\tan\beta$ (see Fig. \[fig:mA\_mS\]).
3. An interesting region that satisfies the relic abundance constraint is characterized by nearly degenerate mass among the first two neutralinos and the lightest chargino, indicated by $M_2/\mu \approx
M_1/\mu \approx 1$. The increased effective annihilation cross section can help reducing the relic abundance.
4. Another interesting region is the $Z/h$ resonance region ($m_{\chi^0_1} \sim 50-60$ GeV), though it is relatively fine-tuned region because of the narrow width of the $Z$ boson and the Higgs boson.
5. Yet, another interesting survival region is the $A/H$ funnel region. If $m_{\chi^0_1}$ falls around the vicinity of $m_{A/H}/2$ the resonance effect is strong, provided that the width is not too large. This can be achieved for $m_{\chi^0_1} {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1$ TeV, that is $M_{A/H} {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}2$ TeV. In scenario B, where $M_S = M_A$, large values of $M_S$ then cannot be accepted because the $A/H$ funnel is not working efficiently. However, in scenario A, where $M_A < M_S$, the $A/H$ funnel can be very effective in reducing the relic abundance, thus more parameter space is allowed.
6. Both wino-like and higgsino-like LSPs have large annihilation cross sections. The allowed mass for $m_{\chi^0_1}$ ranges from about 300 GeV to 3 TeV for wino-like LSP while from about 100 GeV to 2 TeV for higgsino-like LSP.
7. The current allowed parameter space has a large region below the current LUX limit $\sigma^{\rm SI}_p {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}10^{-9}$ pb. Although the future XENON1T can improve the limit by an order of magnitude, there is still a sizable region below the XENON1T sensitivity. Yet, there still exist some allowed regions even with the future 7-tons size direct detection experiment LZ. Therefore, this modified split SUSY scenario is hard to be excluded in the future.
8. We have used both the methods of profile likelihood and marginal posterior. Though these two statistical approaches have very different methodology, the resulting 2- and 3-$\sigma$ regions are quite consistent, as shown in the figures.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
R.H. is grateful to Carlos. E.M. Wagner, Stephen P. Martin and Alessandro Strumia for useful discussions. K.C. was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan under Grants No. NSC 102-2112-M-007-015-MY3. J.S.L. was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (No. 2013R1A2A2A01015406) and by Chonnam National University, 2012. R.H. and Y.S.T. were supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan.
[**Appendix**]{}
RGEs from $M_S$ to $M_A$ {#sec:rge_ours}
========================
Here we present the one-loop RGEs governing the running of couplings from the high SUSY scale $M_S$ to the intermediate Higgs mass scale $M_A$.
We write the RGE for each coupling $g_i$ present in the theory, in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ or $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme (the same up to one-loop level), as $$\frac{dg_i}{d\ln Q} = \frac{\beta_1(g_i)}{(4\pi)^2} .$$ The relevant coupling constants $g_i$ include the gauge couplings ($g_s,g,g'$), the gaugino couplings ($\tilde{g}_d',\tilde{g}_u'$, $\tilde{g}_d,\tilde{g}_u$), the third-generation Yukawa couplings ($y_t,y_b,y_\tau$), and the Higgs quartic ($\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\lambda_5,\lambda_6,\lambda_7$).
At one loop the $\beta$ functions of gauge couplings below the SUSY scale are given by $$\beta_1(g_s) =-5 g_s^3,\qquad\qquad
\beta_1(g) =-1 g^3,\qquad\qquad
\beta_1(g') =\frac{23}{3}g'^3.$$ The $\beta$ functions of gauge couplings defined by the fermion-scalar-gaugino interaction below the SUSY scale are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta _1\left(\tilde{g}_u\right) &=&
\tilde{g}_u\left(
-\frac{33}{4}g^2 - \frac{3}{4}g'^2
+\frac{11}{4}\tilde{g}_u^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_d^2
+\frac{3}{4}\tilde{g}_u'^2
+3 y_t^2
\right)\\
\beta _1\left(\tilde{g}_d\right) &=&
\tilde{g}_d\left(
-\frac{33}{4}g^2 - \frac{3}{4}g'^2
+\frac{11}{4}\tilde{g}_d^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_u^2
+\frac{3}{4}\tilde{g}_d'^2
+3 y_b^2+y_\tau^2
\right) \\
\beta _1\left(\tilde{g}_u'\right) &=&
\tilde{g}_u'\left(
-\frac{9}{4}g^2 - \frac{3}{4}g'^2
+\frac{9}{4}\tilde{g}_u^2
+\frac{5}{4}\tilde{g}_u'^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_d'^2
+3 y_t^2
\right) \\
\beta _1\left(\tilde{g}_d'\right) &=&
\tilde{g}_d' \left(
-\frac{9}{4}g^2 - \frac{3}{4}g'^2
+\frac{9}{4}\tilde{g}_d^2
+\frac{5}{4}\tilde{g}_d'^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_u'^2
+3 y_b^2+y_\tau^2
\right)\end{aligned}$$
The $\beta$ functions of 3rd generation Yukawa interactions below the SUSY scale are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta _1\left(y_t\right) &=& y_t \left(
\frac{9}{2} y_t^2 + \frac{1}{2} y_b^2
-8 g_s^2 -\frac{9}{4} g^2 -\frac{17}{12} g'^2
+\frac{3}{2}\tilde{g}_u^2
+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_u'^2
\right) \\
\beta _1\left(y_b\right) &=&y_b\left(
\frac{9}{2} y_b^2 + \frac{1}{2} y_t^2 + y_\tau^2
-8 g_s^2 -\frac{9}{4} g^2 -\frac{5}{12} g'^2
+\frac{3}{2}\tilde{g}_d^2
+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_d'^2
\right) \\
\beta _1\left(y_\tau\right) &=&y_\tau \left(
\frac{5}{2} y_\tau^2 + 3 y_b^2
-\frac{9}{4} g^2 - \frac{15}{4} g'^2
+\frac{3}{2}\tilde{g}_d^2
+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{g}_d'^2
\right)\end{aligned}$$
The $\beta$ functions of Higgs quartic couplings defined by Haber and Hempfling [@Haber:1993an] are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1\left(\lambda_1\right) &=& \bigg(
24\lambda_1^2 + 4\lambda_3^2 + 4(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)^2 + 4\lambda_5^2 + 48\lambda_6^2
\nonumber \\
& & + \frac{3}{8}\Big(2g^4 + (g^2+g'^2)^2\Big) - \Big(2\tilde{g}_d^4 +
\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{g}_d^2 + \tilde{g}_d'^2)^2\Big) - 2N_cy_b^4 - 2y_\tau^4 \nonumber \\
& & + 4\lambda_1\gamma_d \bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_2\right) &=& \bigg(
24\lambda_2^2 + 4\lambda_3^2 + 4(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)^2 + 4\lambda_5^2 + 48\lambda_7^2
\nonumber \\
& & + \frac{3}{8}\Big(2g^4 + (g^2+g'^2)^2\Big) - \Big(2\tilde{g}_u^4 +
\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{g}_u^2 + \tilde{g}_u'^2)^2\Big) - 2N_cy_t^4 \nonumber \\
& & + 4\lambda_2\gamma_u \bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_3\right) &=& \bigg(
(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)(3\lambda_3+\lambda_4) + 8\lambda_3^2 + 4\lambda_4^2 +
4\lambda_5^2 + 8\lambda_6^2 + 8\lambda_7^2 + 32\lambda_6\lambda_7 \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{3}{8}\Big(2g^4 + (g^2-g'^2)^2\Big) -
\Big(2\tilde{g}_u^2\tilde{g}_d^2 +
\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{g}_u^2-\tilde{g}_u'^2)(\tilde{g}_d^2-\tilde{g}_d'^2)\Big)
- 2N_cy_b^2y_t^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \lambda_3(2\gamma_d+2\gamma_u) \bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_4\right) &=& \bigg(
4\lambda_4(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+4\lambda_3+2\lambda_4) + 16\lambda_5^2 + 20\lambda_6^2 +
20\lambda_7^2 + 8\lambda_6\lambda_7 \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{3}{2}g^2g'^2 + 2\tilde{g}_d^2\tilde{g}_u^2 - \tilde{g}_d^2\tilde{g}_u'^2 -
\tilde{g}_d'^2\tilde{g}_u^2 + 2N_cy_b^2y_t^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \lambda_4(2\gamma_d+2\gamma_u) \bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_5\right) &=& \bigg(
4\lambda_5(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+4\lambda_3+6\lambda_4) + 20(\lambda_6^2 + \lambda_7^2) +
8\lambda_6\lambda_7 \nonumber \\
& & + \lambda_5(2\gamma_d+2\gamma_u) \bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_6\right) &=& \bigg(
4\lambda_6(6\lambda_1+3\lambda_3+4\lambda_4+5\lambda_5) +
4\lambda_7(3\lambda_3+2\lambda_4+\lambda_5) \nonumber \\
& & + \lambda_6(3\gamma_d+\gamma_u)\bigg), \\
\beta_1\left(\lambda_7\right) &=& \bigg(
4\lambda_7(6\lambda_2+3\lambda_3+4\lambda_4+5\lambda_5) +
4\lambda_6(3\lambda_3+2\lambda_4+\lambda_5) \nonumber \\
& & + \lambda_7(\gamma_d+3\gamma_u)\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_d &=& N_cy_b^2 + y_\tau^2 - \frac{3}{4}(3g^2 + g'^2) +
\frac{1}{2}(3\tilde{g}_d^2 + \tilde{g}_d'^2), \\
\gamma_u &=& N_cy_t^2 - \frac{3}{4}(3g^2 + g'^2) + \frac{1}{2}(3\tilde{g}_u^2 +
\tilde{g}_u'^2).\end{aligned}$$
The $\beta$ functions of gaugino mass parameters and the SUSY $\mu$ term are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1\left(M_3\right) &=& -18g_s^2M_3 \\
\beta_1\left(M_2\right) &=& (-12g^2+\tilde{g}_u^2+\tilde{g}_d^2)M_2 \\
\beta_1\left(M_1\right) &=& (\tilde{g}_u'^2+\tilde{g}_d'^2)M_1 \\
\beta_1\left(\mu \right) &=&
\left(-\frac{9}{2}g^2+\frac{3}{4}\tilde{g}_u^2+\frac{3}{4}\tilde{g}_d^2-\frac{3}{2}g'^2+\frac{1}{4}\tilde{g}_u'^2+\frac{1}{4}\tilde{g}_d'^2\right)\mu\end{aligned}$$
The statistical framework {#sec:stat}
=========================
To calculate the probability of MSSM parameter given the experimental data, one can employ Bayes’s’ theorem to compute the posterior probability density function, $$\label{eq:Bayes}
p(\theta,\phi|d)=\frac{\mathcal{L}(d|\theta,\phi)\pi(\theta,\phi)}{\mathcal{Z}(d)}.$$ Here, we denote the MSSM parameters and DM direct detection nuisance parameters as $\theta$ and $\phi$, respectively. The likelihood $\mathcal{L}(d|\theta,\phi)$ is the probability of obtaining experimental data for observables given the MSSM parameters. The prior knowledge of MSSM parameter space is presented as prior distribution $\pi(\theta,\phi)$. Our MSSM prior ranges and distributions are tabulated in Table \[tab:inputs\]. Finally, the evidence of the model in the denominator can be merely a normalization factor, because we are not interested in model comparison.
The Bayesian approach allows us to simply get ride of the unwanted parameters by using marginalization. For example, if there would be $n$ free model parameters, $r_{i=1,...,n}$, but one is only interesting in the two-dimensional figure ($r_1$, $r_2$), the marginalization can be written as $$p(r_1,r_2|d)=\int p(r_1,...,r_n|d) \prod_{i=3}^{n}dr_i.$$ An analogous procedure can be performed with the observables. One should keep in mind that a poor prior knowledge or likelihood function can raise a volume effect. In other words, some regions gain more weight from higher prior probability but fine-tuning regions such as resonance regions for relic abundance likelihood only have lower prior probability. Although this is the feature of Bayesian statistics, in order to manifest these fine-tuning regions, we still present both profile likelihood and marginal posterior method at the same time.
In Bayesian statistics, a credible region (CR) is the smallest region, $\mathcal{R}$, in the best agreement with experiments bounded with the fraction $\varrho$ of the total probabilities. For example at MSSM ($M_1$, $M_2$) plane, the $\varrho$ credible region can be written as $$\frac{\int_{\mathcal{R}}p(M_1,M_2|d)dM_1 dM_2}
{\rm{normalization}}
=\varrho,$$ where the normalization in the denominator is the total probability with $\mathcal{R}\to\infty$. In this paper, we have shown $\varrho=0.95$ and $\varrho=0.9973$ corresponding to $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ credible region. As the comparison, we also present the scatter points with selected criteria $\delta\chi^2=-2\ln\mathcal{L/L_{\rm{max}}}
\le 5.99$. This criteria is $2\sigma$ confidence region of Profile Likelihood method in 2 degrees of freedom. We can see from our result that most of $2\sigma$ confidence region of PL method is similar to the 3 $\sigma$ credible region in MP method. We would like to note that the total profile likelihood here takes the likelihoods including the nuisance parameters distribution, which is the prior distribution in marginal posterior method.
[99]{}
Talk by Monica D’Onofrio (ATLAS Coll.) at SUSY 2014, Manchester, July 2014; talk by Henning Flaecher (CMS Coll.) at SUSY 2014, Manchester, July 2014.
F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B [**477**]{}, 321 (1996) \[hep-ph/9604387\]. T. Moroi and M. Nagai, Phys. Lett. B [**723**]{}, 107 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.0668 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. McKeen, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 11, 113002 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.1172 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Sato, S. Shirai and K. Tobioka, JHEP [**1310**]{}, 157 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.7144 \[hep-ph\]\]. W. Altmannshofer, R. Harnik and J. Zupan, JHEP [**1311**]{}, 202 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.3653 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Fuyuto, J. Hisano, N. Nagata and K. Tsumura, JHEP [**1312**]{}, 010 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.6493 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1303 (1982). M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and A. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 065011 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.3745 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, JHEP [**1201**]{}, 082 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.4519 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B [**570**]{}, 455 (2000) \[hep-ph/9906527\].
A. Masiero, S. Profumo and P. Ullio, Nucl. Phys. B [**712**]{}, 86 (2005) \[hep-ph/0412058\]. K. Cheung, C. W. Chiang and J. Song, JHEP [**0604**]{}, 047 (2006) \[hep-ph/0512192\]. F. Wang, W. Wang and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 077701 (2005) \[hep-ph/0507172\]. A. Provenza, M. Quiros and P. Ullio, JCAP [**0612**]{}, 007 (2006) \[hep-ph/0609059\].
N. Bernal, JCAP [**0908**]{}, 022 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.4239 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Elor, H. S. Goh, L. J. Hall, P. Kumar and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 095003 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.3942 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata and N. Nagata, Phys. Lett. B [**690**]{}, 311 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.4090 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ibe and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**709**]{}, 374 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.2462 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 095011 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.2253 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura and S. Shirai, JHEP [**1301**]{}, 036 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.2395 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata and N. Nagata, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 035020 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.5985 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, JHEP [**1307**]{}, 063 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.0084 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, arXiv:1409.6920 \[hep-ph\]. N. Nagata and S. Shirai, arXiv:1410.4549 \[hep-ph\].
“Search for Neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV pp collisions at ATLAS", ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-094; V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1410**]{} (2014) 160 \[arXiv:1408.3316 \[hep-ex\]\].
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1409**]{}, 176 (2014) \[arXiv:1405.7875 \[hep-ex\]\]. G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 1 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7214 \[hep-ex\]\]; S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 30 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7235 \[hep-ex\]\]. N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, JHEP [**0506**]{}, 073 (2005) \[hep-th/0405159\]; G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B [**699**]{}, 65 (2004) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**706**]{}, 65 (2005)\] \[hep-ph/0406088\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B [**709**]{}, 3 (2005) \[hep-ph/0409232\].
G. F. Giudice and A. Strumia, “Probing High-Scale and Split Supersymmetry with Higgs Mass Measurements,” Nucl. Phys. B [**858**]{} (2012) 63 \[arXiv:1108.6077 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012). K. Cheung, J. S. Lee and P. Y. Tseng, JHEP [**1305**]{}, 134 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.3794 \[hep-ph\]\]; K. Cheung, J. S. Lee and P. Y. Tseng, arXiv:1407.8236 \[hep-ph\]. LEP2 SUSY Working Group, http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Astron. Astrophys. (2014) \[arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay and Y. L. S. Tsai, arXiv:1407.1859 \[hep-ph\].
D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[LUX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 091303 (2014) \[arXiv:1310.8214 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. Y. L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan and X. Huang, JCAP [**1303**]{}, 018 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.3990 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 4, 042001 (2014) \[arXiv:1310.0828 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 082002 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.5597 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
See, for example, talks of F. Frensch (CMS) and M. Zur Nedden (ATLAS), 25th July 2014, in SUSY 2014.
S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1211**]{} (2012) 147 \[arXiv:1209.6620 \[hep-ex\]\]. C. Han, arXiv:1409.7000 \[hep-ph\]. K. Choi, K. S. Jeong and K. i. Okumura, JHEP [**0509**]{}, 039 (2005) \[hep-ph/0504037\].
J. P. Conlon and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0606**]{}, 029 (2006) \[hep-th/0605141\].
J. P. Conlon, S. S. Abdussalam, F. Quevedo and K. Suruliz, JHEP [**0701**]{}, 032 (2007) \[hep-th/0610129\].
B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov, G. L. Kane, P. Kumar and J. Shao, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 126010 (2007) \[hep-th/0701034\]. B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov, G. L. Kane, J. Shao and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 065038 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.0478 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Fan and M. Reece, JHEP [**1310**]{}, 124 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.4400 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Blinov, J. Kozaczuk, A. Menon and D. E. Morrissey, arXiv:1409.1222 \[hep-ph\]. J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito and M. Senami, Phys. Lett. B [**646**]{}, 34 (2007) \[hep-ph/0610249\].
S. Mohanty, S. Rao and D. P. Roy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**27**]{}, no. 6, 1250025 (2012) \[arXiv:1009.5058 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Catena and P. Ullio, JCAP [**1205**]{}, 005 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.3556 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. G. D. Martinez, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, L. E. Strigari and R. Trotta, JCAP [**0906**]{}, 014 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.4715 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. N. Bernal, A. Djouadi and P. Slavich, JHEP [**0707**]{}, 016 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.1496 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke and E. A. Baltz, JCAP [**0407**]{}, 008 (2004) \[astro-ph/0406204\]. F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson and M. Bridges, arXiv:0809.3437 \[astro-ph\].
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 052004 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.3827 \[hep-ex\]\].
V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, no. 10, 3076 (2014) \[arXiv:1407.0558 \[hep-ex\]\].
L. Alvarez-Ruso, T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 5, 054507 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.0483 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Junnarkar and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 11, 114510 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.1114 \[hep-lat\]\]. G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], arXiv:1408.7084 \[hep-ex\].
Plenary talk by A. David , “Physcis of the Brout-Englert-Higgs boson in CMS”, ICHEP 2014, Spain.
S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal and G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{}, 201 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.3026 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. C. Malling, D. S. Akerib, H. M. Araujo, X. Bai, S. Bedikian, E. Bernard, A. Bernstein and A. Bradley [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1110.0103 \[astro-ph.IM\].
H. E. Haber and R. Hempfling, “The Renormalization group improved Higgs sector of the minimal supersymmetric model,” Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 4280 (1993) \[hep-ph/9307201\].
[^1]: We neglect the stau contributions.
[^2]: We thank Pietro Slavich for providing us the `SplitSuSpect` code [@Bernal:2007uv].
[^3]: The parameters $g_{b,W,h}$ are defined as $g_b =Z^{2}_{\rm{bino}}$, $g_W=Z^{2}_{\rm{wino}}$, and $g_h=Z_{H_u}^2 + Z_{H_d}^2$ when $\chi^0_1$ is decomposed into bino, wino, and higgsinos as follows $$\chi^0_1=Z_{\rm{bino}} \tilde{B} +Z_{\rm{wino}} \tilde{W}+
Z_{H_u} \tilde{H_u} + Z_{H_d} \tilde{H_d}\,.$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The origin of dark matter in the universe may be weakly interacting scalar particles produced by amplification of quantum fluctuations during a period of dilaton-driven inflation. We present two interesting cases, the case of small fluctuations, and the resulting nonthermal spectrum, and the case of large fluctuations of a field with a periodic potential, the QCD axion.'
address: |
$^1$ Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel\
$^2$School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel\
email: ramyb@bgumail.bgu.ac.il, meravv@post.tau.ac.il
author:
- Ram Brustein $^1$ and Merav Hadad $^2$
title: |
Dark Matter in\
Models of String Cosmology
---
We consider particle production in models of string cosmology which realize the pre-big-bang (PBB) scenario [@sfd]. In this scenario the evolution of the universe starts from a state of very small curvature and coupling and then undergoes a long phase of dilaton-driven inflation (DDI) and at some later time joins smoothly standard radiation dominated (RD) cosmological evolution, thus giving rise to a singularity free inflationary cosmology. Particles are produced during DDI phase by the standard mechanism of amplification of quantum fluctuations [@mukh]. Some debate about the naturalness of initial conditions and whether PBB models actually solve the cosmological problems has been taking place [@ic]. The smooth transition from DDI to RD is also not completely solved, for ideas about how this may come about see [@exit]. We will take a more phenomenological approach, and concentrate on interesting consequences of the models which do not depend on the detailed resolution of these issues, assuming that a resolution exists.
In the simplified model of background evolution we adopt, the evolution of the universe is divided into four distinct phases with specific (conformal) time dependence of the scale factor of the universe $a(\eta)$ and the dilaton $\phi(\eta)$. We assume throughout an isotropic and homogeneous four dimensional flat universe, described by a FRW metric. All other scalar fields are assumed to have a trivial vacuum expectation value during the inflationary phase.
We have computed spectrums of produced particles for the models described above [@bh1]. We have solved a linear perturbation equation, $
\chi_k''+\left( k^2+M^2a^2-s''/s \right)\!\chi _k=0,
$ where $
s(\eta )\equiv a(\eta )^m e^{l\phi (\eta )/2}=a_s^me^{l\phi _s/2}\left(
\eta/\eta _s\right) ^{1/2-n_s},
$ imposing initial conditions corresponding to normalized vacuum fluctuations. The parameter $m$ depends on the spin of the particle and $l$ depends on its coupling to the dilaton. Similar calculations have been performed by several groups and the results agree [@cllw], whenever a comparison was possible.
We consider weakly interacting scalar particles, abundant in string theory and supergravity. For scalar fields $m=1$, and we will consider for concreteness the values, $l=-1,0,1$ corresponding, respectively, to moduli, Ramond-Ramond axions, and Neveu-Schwartz axions. We will assume that the produced particles interact so weakly, that their interactions and decay are not sufficient to alter the primordial spectrum substantially. The particles we have in mind have typically gravitational strength interactions, which is definitely weak enough to satisfy our assumption, and their masses are below a fraction of an eV.
A typical spectrum of a light scalar may be divided, at a given time, into three physical momentum (PM) regions: $i)$ The massless region, $\omega_S>\omega>M$, in this region particles are relativistic. $ii)$ The “false” massive region, $M>\omega>\omega_m$, where $\omega_m=\omega_1(M/M_s)^{1/2}$. In this region particles are NR, but have reentered the horizon as relativistic modes. $iii)$ The “real” massive region $\omega_m>\omega$. In this region particles are non-relativistic (NR), and have reentered the horizon as NR modes. Note that PM redshift as the universe expands, and therefore boundaries of regions change in time, $$\! \frac{d\Omega }{d\ln \omega}\! = \!
{\cal N}
g_1^2\!\left(\frac{g_1}{g_S}\right)^{2l}\!\!\cases{
\left( \frac {\omega}{\omega_S}\right) ^x
&$\omega_S\!>\!\omega\!>\!M$ \cr
\frac {M}{\omega_S}\left( \frac
{\omega}{\omega_S}\right) ^{x-1}
& $M\!>\!\omega\!\!>\omega_m$ \cr
\!\!\frac {M}{\omega_1}\sqrt{\frac {M}{M_s}}\!
\left( \frac {\omega}{\omega_S}\right) ^x
&$\omega_m\! >\! \omega$, }
\label{chspectrum}$$ where $
x\equiv 2+2\alpha +l\beta
$, and ${\cal N}$ is a numerical factor, estimated in [@bh1], which we will set to unity in what follows. Parameters appearing in eq.(\[chspectrum\]) are, the string scale $M_s$, $z_S$ the total redshift during the string phase, $g_S$ and $g_1$, the string coupling at the beginning and end of the string phase, and $\omega_1$, the PM (today), corresponding to the end of the string phase, estimated in [@peak] to be $\omega_1\sim
10^{-5}eV$, and the PM $\omega_S= \omega_1/z_S$, the PM (today) corresponding to the end of the DDI phase. In (\[chspectrum\]) we have assumed no substantial late entropy production has occurred. In general [@peak], the effect of late entropy production is to further redshift the physical frequencies as $\sim (1-\delta s)^{1/3}$ where $\delta s$ is the fraction of produced entropy, and, more importantly, to dilute the contribution of modes which are already inside the horizon by a factor $(1-\delta s)^{4/3}$. If a substantial amount of entropy is produced below $T\sim M_s/\sqrt{z_S}$, then spectrum (\[chspectrum\]) is no longer a good approximate spectrum.
The first example we look at is an example of small field fluctuations. The produced spectrum in this case is nonthermal, and may lead to an interesting case of cold and hot dark matter from the same source [@bh3]. We look at generalized axions ($l=1$) with masses below $.1$ eV in a cosmological model described in [@sfd]. In this model, $d=3$ spatial dimensions are expanding and $n=6$ spatial dimensions are contracting, leading to $\alpha =-2/\left( d+n+3\right) =-1/6$ and $\beta
=-4d/\left( d+n+3\right) =-1$. For this specific model $x=2/3$, $ \Omega_{REL}\simeq g_1^2\left( \frac{g_1}{g_S}\right)^2$, $\Omega _{NR}\simeq g_1^2\left( \frac{g_1}{g_S}\right)^{2}
\frac {M}{\omega_S}\left( \frac{\omega_m}{\omega_S}\right) ^{-1/3}$ Taking $10^{-10}\hbox{\rm eV}<M<10^{-2}\hbox{\rm eV},$ for which the above condition is comfortably satisfied, we observe that the ratio $\Omega _{REL}:$ $\Omega_{NR}$ at the start of structure formation era can vary in a range from well above unity to well below unity, corresponding to hot, mixed and cold dark matter. For example, choosing $g_1=.1$ and $g_S=.01$ if the axion’s mass is $10^{-10}\hbox{\rm eV}$, and for $z_S\sim 2\times 10^{4}$ we get $\Omega _{REL}:$ $\Omega _{NR}=$ $1:1$ with both energy densities being near critical, and if we choose $g_1=.1$ and $g_S=.03$, making $\Omega_{REL}\simeq .1$, and if $z_S\sim 10^{6}$ we obtain $\Omega _{REL}:$ $\Omega _{NR}=1:10$, with $\Omega _{NR}\simeq 1$. Note that ratio depends on $z_S^{-2/3} M^{-5/6}$, so the previous examples correspond to a range of allowed values.
We now turn to the case of large field fluctuations. The spectrum in this case can be very different from that given by the naive result eq.(\[chspectrum\]). We look at the model independent axion [@witten], $l=1$, assuming that it is the QCD axion [@pq] in a model of background evolution in which d=3 spatial dimensions expand, and $n=6$ spatial dimensions are fixed, leading to $x=3-2\sqrt{3}\sim-0.46$ [@bh2].
Because of the negative exponent the spectrum is dominated by the lowest PM entering the horizon at a given time. The most interesting situation is when the axion potential turns on when the universe cools down to QCD temperatures. If we try to approximate the axion potential by a quadratic potential, leading to the result (\[chspectrum\]), we encounter a puzzle. The axion energy density becomes formally divergent as soon as the axion potential turns on! Once the potential is generated, all the low frequencies reenter the horizon at once, so to obtain the total energy density inside the horizon we need to integrate it from the minimal amplified frequency $\omega_{min}$, which is either zero, if the duration of the dilaton-driven phase is infinite, or exponentially small if the duration is finite but large. The lower frequency part of the spectrum yields a divergent contribution, proportional to ${\omega_{min}}^{3-2\sqrt{3}}$. This result does not make sense.
The resolution of the puzzle depends crucially on the periodic nature of axion potential $V(\psi)=\half V_0\left(1-\cos(\frac{\psi}{\psi_0})\right)$. This point was first understood by Kofman and Linde [@koflinde], and we have adopted their ideas to our particular situation. First, the total potential energy is limited to $V_0$ and does not continue to increase indefinitely as the axion field increases, providing a “topological cutoff" on the total axionic energy density and as important, large fluctuations in the axion field are also “topologically cutoff", producing exponentially small energy density perturbations. Large fluctuations lead to a uniform distribution of the axion field inside the horizon, with very small statistical fluctuations.
Using completely standard arguments [@cosmaxion], we may obtain a bound on the mass of the axion $m_a$ (or equivalently on $\psi_0$) by requiring that the energy density in the coherent axion oscillations be subcritical at the beginning of matter domination epoch. This requirement leads to the standard bounds on the axion mass, $
\Omega_a h^2 \sim \frac{10^{-6}eV}{m_a},
$ where $h$ is todays Hubble parameter in units of 100 km/Mpc/sec. Requiring subcritical $\Omega_a$ leads to the standard bound on $\psi_0$, $\psi_0\laq 10^{12} GeV$ and $m_a\gaq10^{-6} eV$. In string theory, natural values of $\psi_0$ are approximately $10^{16}
GeV$, which, if taken at face value, would lead to overclosure of the universe with axions many times over. Two possible resolutions have been suggested [@banksdine] to allow our universe to reach its old age of today.
If dark matter in the universe is indeed made of light particles with gravitational strength interactions its detection in current direct searches is extremely difficult, and will probably require new methods and ideas.
[**Acknowledgments** ]{}
Work supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation.
G. Veneziano, 265 (1991) 287; M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, [*Astropart. Phys.*]{} 1 (1993) 317.
N. Birrell and P. Davies, [*Quantum fields in curved space*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1984; V. Mukhanov, A. Feldman and R. Brandenberger, [*Phys. Rep.* ]{} 215 (1992) 203.
G. Veneziano, 406 (1997) 297; E. Weinberg and M. Turner, 56 (1997) 4604; M. Maggiore and R. Sturani, 415 (1997) 335; A. Buonanno, et al, 57 (1998) 2543; A. Buonanno, T. Damour and G. Veneziano, hep-th/9806230.
R. Brustein and G. Veneziano, 329 (1994) 429; N. Kaloper, R. Madden and K. Olive, 452 (1995) 677; M. Gasperini, M. Maggiore and G. Veneziano, 494 (1997) 315; R. Brustein and R. Madden, 410 (1997) 110; 57 (1998) 712; hep-th/9901044; G. veneziano, hep-th/9902126; S. Foffa, M. Maggiore and R. Sturani, hep-th/9903008.
R. Brustein and M. Hadad, 57 (1998) 725.
E. Copeland, et al, 56 (1997) 874; E. Copeland, J. Lidsey, D. Wands, 506 (1997) 407; hep-th/9809105; A. Buonanno, et al, JHEP 01 (1998) 004; M. Giovannini, hep-th/9809185.
R. Brustein, M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, 55 (1997) 3882.
R. Brustein and M. Hadad, hep-ph/9810526, to appear in .
E. Witten, 149 (1984) 351; 268 (1986) 79; K. Choi and J. Kim, 154 (1985) 393; 165 (1985) 71.
R. Peccei and H. Quinn, 38 (1977) 1440; S. Weinberg, 40 (1978) 223; F. Wilczek, 40 (1978) 279.
R. Brustein and M. Hadad, 442 (1998) 74.
A. Linde,158 (1985) 375; L. Kofman, 173 (1986) 400; L. Kofman and A. Linde, 282 (1987) 555.
J. Preskill, M. Wise and F. Wilczek, 120 (1983) 127; L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, 120 (1983) 133; M. Dine and W. Fischler, 120 (1983) 137.
T. Banks and M. Dine, 479 (1996) 173; T. Banks and M. Dine, 505 (1997) 445; K. Choi, 56 (1997) 6588.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
A generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials is introduced whose coefficients are given in terms of associated Legendre functions of the second kind. We discuss how our expansion represents a generalization of several previously derived formulae such as Heine’s formula and Heine’s reciprocal square-root identity. We also show how this expansion can be used to compute hyperspherical harmonic expansions for power-law fundamental solutions of the polyharmonic equation.
Euclidean space; Polyharmonic equation; Fundamental solution; Gegenbauer polynomials; associated Legendre functions
35A08; 35J05; 32Q45; 31C12; 33C05; 42A16
author:
- |
Howard S. Cohl$^{\rm a}$$^{\ast}$[^1]\
$^{\rm a}$[*[Applied and Computational Mathematics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.A. ]{}*]{}\
title: On a generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Gegenbauer polynomials $C_n^\nu(x)$ are given as the coefficients of $\rho^n$ for the generating function $(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^{-\nu}$. The study of these polynomials was pioneered in a series of papers by Leopold Gegenbauer (Gegenbauer (1874,1877,1884,1888,1893) [@Gegenbauer1874; @Gegenbauer1877; @Gegenbauer1884; @Gegenbauer1888; @Gegenbauer1893]). The main result which this paper relies upon is [Theorem]{} \[geneneralizationofgeneratingfuncitonforgegenbauerpoly\] below. This theorem gives a generalized expansion over Gegenbauer polynomials $C_n^\mu(x)$ of the algebraic function $z\mapsto (z-x)^{-\nu}$. Our proof is combinatoric in nature and has great potential for proving new expansion formulae which generalize generating functions. Our methodology can in principle be applied to any generating function for hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials, of which there are many (see for instance Srivastava & Manocha (1984) [@SriManocha]; Erd[é]{}lyi [*et al.*]{} (1981) [@ErdelyiHTFII]). The concept of the proof is to start with a generating function and use a connection formula to express the orthogonal polynomial as a finite series in polynomials of the same type with different parameters. The resulting formulae will then produce new expansions for the polynomials which result from a limiting process, e.g., Legendre polynomials and Chebyshev polynomials of the first and second kind. Connection formulae for classical orthogonal polynomials and their $q$-extensions are well-known (see Ismail (2005) [@Ismail]). In this paper we applied this method of proof to the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[GeneralizationofthegeneratingfunctionforGegenbauerpolynomials\] we derive a complex generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials. In Section \[GeneralizationsExtensionsandApplications\] we discuss how our complex generalization reduces to previously derived expressions and leads to extensions in appropriate limits. In Section \[dge3\] we use our complex expansion to generalize a formula originally developed by Sack (1964) [@Sacka] on ${{\mathbf R}}^3$, to compute an expansion in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials for complex powers of the distance between two points on a $d$-dimensional Euclidean space for $d\ge 2$.
Throughout this paper we rely on the following definitions. For $a_1,a_2,a_3,\ldots\in{{\mathbf C}}$, if $i,j\in{{\mathbf Z}}$ and $j<i$ then $\sum_{n=i}^{j}a_n=0$ and $\prod_{n=i}^ja_n=1$, where ${{\mathbf C}}$ represents the complex numbers. The set of natural numbers is given by ${{\mathbf N}}:=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$, the set ${{\mathbf N}}_0:=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}={{\mathbf N}}\cup\{0\}$, and the set ${{\mathbf Z}}:=\{0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\ldots\}.$ The sets ${{\mathbf Q}}$ and ${{\mathbf R}}$ represent the rational and real numbers respectively.
Generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials {#GeneralizationofthegeneratingfunctionforGegenbauerpolynomials}
====================================================================
We present the following generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials whose coefficients are given in terms of associated Legendre functions of the second kind.
Let $\nu\in{{\mathbf C}}\setminus-{{\mathbf N}}_0,$ $\mu\in(-1/2,\infty)\setminus\{0\}$ and $z\in{{\mathbf C}}\setminus(-\infty,1]$ on any ellipse with foci at $\pm 1$ with $x$ in the interior of that ellipse. Then
$$\frac{1}
{(z-x)^\nu}
=\frac{2^{\mu+1/2}\Gamma(\mu)e^{i\pi(\mu-\nu+1/2)}}{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu)
(z^2-1)^{(\nu-\mu)/2-1/4}}
\sum_{{n}=0}^\infty({n}+\mu)
Q_{{n}+\mu-1/2}^{\nu-\mu-1/2}(z)
C_{n}^{\mu}(x).
\label{biggeneralizationgegen2}$$
\[geneneralizationofgeneratingfuncitonforgegenbauerpoly\]
If one substitutes $z=(1+\rho^2)/(2\rho)$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]) with $0<|\rho|<1$, then one obtains an alternate expression with $x\in[-1,1],$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.6cm}
\frac{1}
{(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^\nu}
=
\frac{\Gamma(\mu)e^{i\pi(\mu-\nu+1/2)}}
{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu)
\rho^{\mu+1/2}(1-\rho^2)^{\nu-\mu-1/2}
}\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{3.8cm}\times\sum_{{n}=0}^\infty
({n}+\mu)
Q_{{n}+\mu-1/2}^{\nu-\mu-1/2}
\left(\frac{1+\rho^2}{2\rho}\right)
C_{n}^\mu(x).
\label{generalizationotthergegen}\end{aligned}$$ One can see that by replacing $\nu=\mu$ in (\[generalizationotthergegen\]), and using (8.6.11) in Abramowitz & Stegun (1972) [@Abra], that these formulae are generalizations of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials (first occurence in Gegenbauer (1874) [@Gegenbauer1874]) $$\frac{1}
{\left(1+\rho^2-2\rho x\right)^\nu}=\sum_{{n}=0}^\infty C_{n}^\nu(x) \rho^{n},
\label{gengegen}$$ where $\rho\in{{\mathbf C}}$ with $|\rho|<1$ and $\nu\in(-1/2,\infty)\setminus\{0\}$ (see for instance (18.12.4) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]). The Gegenbauer polynomials $C_n^\nu:{{\mathbf C}}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ can be defined by $$C_n^\nu(x):=\frac{(2\nu)_n}{n!}\,{}_2F_1\left(-n,n+2\nu;\nu+\frac12;\frac{1-x}{2}\right),
\label{gegpolydefn}$$ where $n\in{{\mathbf N}}_0$, $\nu\in(-1/2,\infty)\setminus\{0\},$ and ${}_2F_1:{{\mathbf C}}^2\times({{\mathbf C}}\setminus-{{\mathbf N}}_0)\times
\{z\in{{\mathbf C}}:|z|<1\}\to{{\mathbf C}}$, the Gauss hypergeometric function, can be defined in terms of the following infinite series $${}_{2}F_1(a,b;c;z):=
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{(c)_n}
\frac{z^n}{n!}
\label{gauss2F1}$$ (see (2.1.5) in Andrews, Askey & Roy 1999), and elsewhere by analytic continuation. The Pochhammer symbol (rising factorial) $(\cdot)_{n}:{{\mathbf C}}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ is defined by $$(z)_n:=\prod_{i=1}^n(z+i-1),$$ where $n\in{{\mathbf N}}_0$. For the Gegenbauer polynomials $C_n^\nu(x)$, we refer to ${n}$ and $\nu$ as the degree and order respectively.
[*Proof* ]{} Consider the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials (\[gengegen\]). The connection relation which expresses a Gegenbauer polynomial with order $\nu$ as a sum over Gegenbauer polynomials with order $\mu$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-3.0cm}C_n^\nu(x)&=&\frac{(2\nu)_n}{(\nu+\tfrac12)_n}\sum_{k=0}^n
\frac{(\nu+k+\tfrac12)_{n-k}\,(2\nu+n)_k\,(\mu+\tfrac12)_k\,\Gamma(2\mu+k)}
{(n-k)!\,(2\mu)_k\,\Gamma(2\mu+2k)}\nonumber\\[0.05cm]
&&{}\hspace{2.5cm}\times{}_3F_2\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-n+k,n+k+2\nu,\mu+k+\tfrac12\\
\nu+k+\tfrac12,2\mu+2k+1
\end{array}
;1
\right)C_k^\mu(x).
\label{connection}\end{aligned}$$ This connection relation can be derived by starting with [Theorem]{} 9.1.1 in Ismail (2005) [@Ismail] combined with (see for instance (18.7.1) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]) $$C_n^\nu(x)=\frac{(2\nu)_n}{(\nu+\tfrac12)_n}P_n^{(\nu-1/2,\nu-1/2)}(x),
\label{symmetricJacobi}$$ i.e., the Gegenbauer polynomials are given as symmetric Jacobi polynomials. The Jacobi polynomials $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}:{{\mathbf C}}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ can be defined as (see for instance (18.5.7) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]) $$P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x):=\frac{(\alpha+1)_n}{n!}\,
{}_2F_1\left(-n,n+\alpha+\beta+1;\alpha+1;\frac{1-x}{2}\right),
\label{Jacobidefn}$$ where $n\in{{\mathbf N}}_0,$ and $\alpha,\beta>-1$ (see Table 18.3.1 in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]). The generalized hypergeometric function ${}_3F_2:{{\mathbf C}}^3\times({{\mathbf C}}\setminus-{{\mathbf N}}_0)^2\times
\{z\in{{\mathbf C}}:|z|<1\}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ can be defined in terms of the following infinite series $${}_3F_2\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_1,a_2,a_3\\
b_1,b_2
\end{array}
;z
\right):=\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{(a_1)_n(a_2)_n(a_3)_n}{(b_1)_n(b_2)_n}\frac{z^n}{n!}.$$ If we replace the Gegenbauer polynomial in the generating function (\[gengegen\]) using the connection relation (\[connection\]), we obtain a double summation expression over $k$ and $n$. By reversing the order of the summations (justification by Tannery’s theorem) and shifting the $n$-index by $k,$ we obtain after making some reductions and simplifications, the following double-summation representation $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.7cm}\frac{1}{(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^\nu}&=&\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\mu)}{2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty C_k^\mu(x)\frac{\rho^k}{2^{2k}}\frac{\mu+k}
{\Gamma(\nu+k+\tfrac12)\Gamma(\mu+k+1)}\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}
\times\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{\Gamma(2\nu+2k)}{n!}
\,{}_3F_2\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-n,n+2k+2\nu,\mu+k+\tfrac12\\
\nu+k+\tfrac12,2\mu+2k+1
\end{array}
;1
\right).
\label{intermediate}\end{aligned}$$ The ${}_3F_2$ generalized hypergeometric function appearing the above formula may be simplified using Watson’s sum $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.3cm}{}_3F_2\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a,b,c\\
\frac12(a+b+1),2c
\end{array}
;1
\right)\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{1.3cm}=\frac
{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma\left(c+\frac12\right)\Gamma\left(\frac12(a+b+1)\right)
\Gamma\left(c+\frac12(1-a-b)\right)}
{\Gamma\left(\frac12(a+1)\right)\Gamma\left(\frac12(b+1)\right)
\Gamma\left(c+\frac12(1-a)\right)\Gamma\left(c+\frac12(1-b)\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{Re}(2c-a-b)>-1$ (see for instance (16.4.6) in Olver [*et al.*]{} [@NIST]), therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.1cm}\frac{1}{\Gamma(\nu+k+\tfrac12)\Gamma(\mu+k+1)}
\,{}_3F_2\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-n,n+2k+2\nu,\mu+k+\tfrac12\\
\nu+k+\tfrac12,2\mu+2k+1
\end{array}
;1
\right)&&\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-8.8cm}
=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\mu-\nu+1)}
{\Gamma\left(\tfrac{1-n}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\nu+k+\tfrac{n+1}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\mu+k+1+\tfrac{n}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\mu-\nu+1-\tfrac{n}{2}\right)},
\label{3F2inourcase}\end{aligned}$$ for $\mbox{Re}(\mu-\nu)>-1$. By inserting (\[3F2inourcase\]) in (\[intermediate\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.3cm}\frac{1}{(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^\nu}&=&
\frac{\pi\Gamma(\mu)\Gamma(\mu-\nu+1)}{2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty (\mu+k)C_k^\mu(x)\frac{\rho^k}{2^{2k}}\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-1.6cm}\times\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{\rho^n\Gamma(2\nu+2k+n)}
{n!\Gamma\left(\tfrac{1-n}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\nu+k+\tfrac{n+1}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\mu+k+1+\tfrac{n}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\mu-\nu+1-\tfrac{n}{2}\right)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to show using (\[gauss2F1\]) and $$\Gamma(z-n)=(-1)^n\frac{\Gamma(z)}{(-z+1)_n},$$ for $n\in{{\mathbf N}}_0$ and $z\in{{\mathbf C}}\setminus-{{\mathbf N}}_0$, and the duplication formula (i.e., (5.5.5) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]) $$\Gamma(2z)=\frac{2^{2z-1}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma(z)\Gamma\left(z+\frac12\right),$$ provided $2z\not\in-{{\mathbf N}}_0$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.2cm}\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{\rho^n\Gamma(2\nu+2k+n)}
{n!\Gamma\left(\tfrac{1-n}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\nu+k+\tfrac{n+1}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\mu+k+1+\tfrac{n}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\mu-\nu+1-\tfrac{n}{2}\right)}&&\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-8.0cm}=\frac{2^{2\nu+2k-1}\Gamma(\nu+k)}{\pi\Gamma(\mu+k+1)\Gamma(\mu-\nu+1)}
\,{}_2F_1\left(\nu+k,\nu-\mu;\mu+k+1;\rho^2\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.8cm}\frac{1}{(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^\nu}&=&
\frac{\Gamma(\mu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty (\mu+k)C_k^\mu(x)\rho^k \nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{0.2cm}\times\frac{\Gamma(\nu+k)}{\Gamma(\mu+k+1)}
\,{}_2F_1\left(\nu+k,\nu-\mu;\mu+k+1;\rho^2\right).
\label{almostlast}\end{aligned}$$ Finally utilizing the quadratic transformation of the hypergeometric function $${}_2F_1(a,b;a-b+1;z)=(1+z)^{-a}
{}_2F_1\left(\frac{a}{2},\frac{a+1}{2};a-b+1;\frac{4z}{(z+1)^2}\right),$$ for $|z|<1$ (see (3.1.9) in Andrews, Askey & Roy (1999) [@AAR]), combined with the definition of the associated Legendre function of the second kind $Q_\nu^\mu:{{\mathbf C}}\setminus(-\infty,1]\to{{\mathbf C}}$ in terms of the Gauss hypergeometric function $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.6cm}Q_\nu^\mu(z):=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,e^{i\pi\mu}\Gamma(\nu+\mu+1)(z^2-1)^{\mu/2}}
{2^{\nu+1}\Gamma(\nu+\frac32)z^{\nu+\mu+1}}\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{3.8cm}\times{}_2F_1\left(
\frac{\nu+\mu+2}{2},
\frac{\nu+\mu+1}{2};
\nu+\frac32; \frac{1}{z^2}
\right),
\label{assoclegQseckinddefn2F1}\end{aligned}$$ for $|z|>1$ and $\nu+\mu+1\notin-{{\mathbf N}}_0$ (cf. Section 14.21 and (14.3.7) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST]), one can show that $$\begin{aligned}
&&{}_2F_1\left(\nu+k,\nu-\mu;\mu+k+1;\rho^2\right)\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{2.0cm}=\frac{\Gamma\left(\mu+k+1\right)
e^{i\pi(\mu-\nu+1/2)}}
{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu+k)\rho^{\mu+k+1/2}(1-\rho^2)^{\nu-\mu-1/2}}
Q_{k+\mu-1/2}^{\nu-\mu-1/2}\left(\frac{1+\rho^2}{2\rho}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which when used in (\[almostlast\]) produces (\[generalizationotthergegen\]). Since the Gegenbauer polynomial is just a symmetric Jacobi polynomial (\[symmetricJacobi\]), through [Theorem 9.1.1]{} in Szegő (1959) [@Szego] (Expansion of an analytic function in a Jacobi series), since $f_z:{{\mathbf C}}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ defined by $f_z(x):=(z-x)^{-\nu}$ is analytic in $[-1,1]$, then the above expansion in Gegenbauer polynomials is convergent if the point $z\in{{\mathbf C}}$ lies on any ellipse with foci at $\pm 1$ and $x$ can lie on any point interior to that ellipse. $\hfill\blacksquare$\
Generalizations, Extensions and Applications {#GeneralizationsExtensionsandApplications}
============================================
By considering in (\[generalizationotthergegen\]) the substitution $\nu=d/2-1$ and the map $\nu\mapsto -\nu/2$, one obtains the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\frac
{\rho^{(d-1)/2}(1-\rho^2)^{\nu-(d-1)/2}}
{(1+\rho^2-2\rho x)^\nu}
&=&\frac{e^{-i\pi(\nu-(d-1)/2)}\Gamma(\frac{d-2}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu)}
\nonumber\\[0.0cm]
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}
\times\sum_{{n}=0}^\infty(2{n}+d-2)
Q_{{n}+(d-3)/2}^{\nu-(d-1)/2}
\left(\frac{1+\rho^2}{2\rho}\right)
C_{n}^{d/2-1}(x).\end{aligned}$$ This formula generalizes (9.9.2) in Andrews, Askey & Roy (1999) [@AAR].
By taking the limit as $\mu\to 1/2$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]), one obtains a general result is an expansion over Legendre polynomials, namely $$\frac{1}{(z-x)^\nu}=\frac{e^{i\pi(1-\nu)}(z^2-1)^{(1-\nu)/2}}{\Gamma(\nu)}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty(2n+1)Q_n^{\nu-1}(z)P_n(x),
\label{generlizationofheinesformula}$$ using $$P_n(x)=C_n^{1/2}(x),
\label{PlCl}$$ which is clear by comparing (cf. (18.7.9) of Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) and (\[gegpolydefn\]) or (\[Jacobidefn\])) $$P_{n}(x):={}_2F_1\left(-{n},{n}+1;1;\frac{1-x}{2}\right),
\label{legendrepolydefn}$$ and (\[gegpolydefn\]). If one takes $\nu=1$ in (\[generlizationofheinesformula\]) then one has an expansion of the Cauchy denominator which generalizes Heine’s formula (see for instance Olver (1997) [@Olver Ex. 13.1]; Heine (1878) [@Heine1878 p. 78]) $$\frac{1}{z-x}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty(2n+1)Q_n(z)P_n(x).$$
By taking the limit as $\mu\to 1$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]), one obtains a general result which is an expansion over Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind, namely $$\frac{1}{(z-x)^\nu}=\frac{2^{3/2}e^{i\pi(3/2-\nu)}}
{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu)(z^2-1)^{\nu/2-3/4}}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty(n+1)Q_{n+1/2}^{\nu-3/2}(z)U_n(x),
\label{chebyshevsecondform}$$ using (18.7.4) in Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST], $U_n(x)=C_n^{1}(x).$ If one considers the case $\nu=1$ in (\[chebyshevsecondform\]) then the associated Legendre function of the second kind reduces to an elementary function through (8.6.11) in Abramowitz & Stegun (1972) [@Abra], namely $$\frac{1}{z-x}=2\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{U_n(x)}{(z+\sqrt{z^2-1})^{n+1}}.$$ By taking the limit as $\nu\to 1$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]), one produces the Gegenbauer expansion of the Cauchy denominator given in Durand, Fishbane & Simmons (1976) [@DurandFishSim (7.2)], namely $$\frac{1}{z-x}=\frac{2^{\mu+1/2}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\Gamma(\mu)e^{i\pi(\mu-1/2)}(z^2-1)^{\mu/2-1/4}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty(n+\mu)Q_{n+\mu-1/2}^{-\mu+1/2}(z)C_n^\mu(x).$$ Using (2.4) therein, the associated Legendre function of the second kind is converted to the Gegenbauer function of the second kind.
If one considers the limit as $\mu\to 0$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]) using $$\lim_{\mu\to 0}\frac{{n}+\mu}{\mu}C_{n}^\mu(x)=\epsilon_{n} T_{n}(x)$$ (see for instance (6.4.13) in Andrews, Askey & Roy (1999) [@AAR]), where $T_{n}:{{\mathbf C}}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind defined as (see Section 5.7.2 in Magnus, Oberhettinger & Soni (1966) [@MOS]) $$T_n(x):=
{}_2F_1\left(-n,n;\frac12;\frac{1-x}{2}\right),$$ and $\epsilon_{n}=2-\delta_{{n},0}$ is the Neumann factor, commonly appearing in Fourier cosine series, then one obtains $$\frac{1}{(z-x)^\nu}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{e^{-i\pi(\nu-1/2)}(z^2-1)^{-\nu/2+1/4}}
{\Gamma(\nu)}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \epsilon_nT_n(x) Q_{n-1/2}^{\nu-1/2}(z).
\label{recipchebyshev}$$ The result (\[recipchebyshev\]), which is a generalization of Heine’s reciprocal square-root identity (see Heine (1881) [@Heine p. 286]; Cohl & Tohline (1999) [@CT (A5)]). Polynomials in $(z-x)$ also naturally arise by considering the limit $\nu\to n\in-{{\mathbf N}}_0.$ This limit is given in (4.4) of Cohl & Dominici (2010) [@CohlDominici], namely $$(z-x)^q=i(-1)^{q+1}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}(z^2-1)^{q/2+1/4}\sum_{n=0}^q \epsilon_n T_n(x)\frac{(-q)_n}{(q+n)!}Q_{n-1/2}^{q+1/2}(z),
\label{polyzmx}$$ for $q\in{{\mathbf N}}_0$.
Note that all of the above formulae are restricted by the convergence criterion given by [Theorem]{} 9.1.1 in Szegő (1959) [@Szego] (Expansion of an analytic function in a Jacobi series), i.e., since the functions on the left-hand side are analytic in $[-1,1]$, then the expansion formulae are convergent if the point $z\in{{\mathbf C}}$ lies on any ellipse with foci at $\pm 1$ then $x$ can lie on any point interior to that ellipse. Except of course (\[polyzmx\]) which converges for all points $z,x\in{{\mathbf C}}$ since the function on the left-hand side is entire.
An interesting extension of the results presented in this paper, originally uploaded to [arXiv]{} in Cohl (2011) [@CohlGengegenarXiv] have been obtained recently in Szmytkowski (2011) [@SzmyGeg], to obtain formulas such as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{n+\mu}{\mu}\mathrm{P}_{n+\mu-1/2}^{\nu-\mu}(t)C_n^\mu(x)=
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,(1-t^2)^{(\nu-\mu)/2}}
{2^{\mu-1/2}\Gamma(\mu+1)\Gamma\left(\frac12-\nu\right)}
\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-4.0cm}\times
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle 0 & \qquad\mathrm{if}\ -1<x<t<1,\\[5pt]
\displaystyle (x-t)^{-\nu-1/2} & \qquad\mathrm{if}\ -1<t<x<1, \nonumber
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{n+\mu}{\mu}\mathrm{Q}_{n+\mu-1/2}^{\nu-\mu}(t)C_n^\mu(x)=
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma\left(\nu+\frac12\right)(1-t^2)^{(\nu-\mu)/2}}
{2^{\mu+1/2}\Gamma(\mu+1)}
\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
&&\hspace{-7.0cm}\times
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle (t-x)^{-\nu-1/2} & \qquad\mathrm{if}\ -1<x<t<1,\\[5pt]
\displaystyle (x-t)^{-\nu-1/2}\cos[\pi(\nu+\tfrac{1}{2})] & \qquad\mathrm{if}\ -1<t<x<1, \nonumber
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{Re}\,\mu>-1/2$, $\mbox{Re}\,\nu<1/2$ and $\mathrm{P}_\nu^\mu,\mathrm{Q}_\nu^\mu:(-1,1)\to{{\mathbf C}}$ are Ferrers functions (associated Legendre functions on-the-cut) of the first and second kind. The Ferrers functions of the first and second kind can be defined using Olver [*et al.*]{} (2010) [@NIST (14.3.11-12)].
Expansion of a power-law fundamental solution of the polyharmonic equation {#dge3}
==========================================================================
A fundamental solution for the polyharmonic equation on Euclidean space ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ is a function ${{\mathcal G}}_k^d:({{\mathbf R}}^d\times{{\mathbf R}}^d)\setminus\{({{\bf x}},{{\bf x}}):{{\bf x}}\in{{\mathbf R}}^d\}\to{{\mathbf R}}$ which satisfies the equation $$(-\Delta)^k{{{\mathcal G}}}_k^d({\bf x},{\bf x}^\prime)=\delta({\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime),
\label{unnormalizedfundsolnpolydefn}$$ where $\Delta:C^p({{\mathbf R}}^d)\to C^{p-2}({{\mathbf R}}^d),$ $p \ge 2$, is the Laplacian operator on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ defined by $$\Delta:=\sum^d_{i=1}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2},$$ ${{\bf x}}=(x_1,\ldots,x_d), {{{\bf x}^\prime}}=(x_1^\prime,\ldots,x_d^\prime)\in{{\mathbf R}}^d$, and $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function. Note that we introduce a minus sign into the equations where the Laplacian is used, such as in (\[unnormalizedfundsolnpolydefn\]), to make the resulting operator positive. By Euclidean space ${{\mathbf R}}^d$, we mean the normed vector space given by the pair $({{\mathbf R}}^d,\|\cdot\|)$, where $\|\cdot\|:{{\mathbf R}}^d\to[0,\infty)$ is the Euclidean norm on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ defined by $\|{{\bf x}}\|:=\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots+x_d^2},$ with inner product $(\cdot,\cdot):{{\mathbf R}}^d\times{{\mathbf R}}^d\to{{\mathbf R}}$ defined as $$({{\bf x}},{{{\bf x}^\prime}}):=\sum_{i=1}^d x_ix_i^\prime.
\label{eucinnerproduct}$$ Then ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ is a $C^\infty$ Riemannian manifold with Riemannian metric induced from the inner product (\[eucinnerproduct\]). Set ${{\mathbf S}}^{d-1}=\{{{\bf x}}\in{{\mathbf R}}^d:({{\bf x}},{{\bf x}})=1\},$ then ${{\mathbf S}}^{d-1},$ the $(d-1)$-dimensional unit hypersphere, is a regular submanifold of ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ and a $C^\infty$ Riemannian manifold with Riemannian metric induced from that on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$.
Let $d,k\in{{\mathbf N}}$. Define $${{\mathcal G}}_k^d({\bf x},{\bf x}^\prime):=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle \frac{(-1)^{k+d/2+1}\ \|{\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime\|^{2k-d}}
{(k-1)!\ \left(k-d/2\right)!\ 2^{2k-1}\pi^{d/2}}
\left(\log\|{\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime\|-\beta_{p,d}\right)}\\[2pt]
\hspace{7.4cm} \mathrm{if}\ d\,\,\mathrm{even},\ k\ge d/2,\\[10pt]
{\displaystyle \frac{\Gamma(d/2-k)\|{\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime\|^{2k-d}}
{(k-1)!\ 2^{2k}\pi^{d/2}}} \hspace{3.37cm} \mathrm{otherwise},
\end{array} \right.$$ where $p=k-d/2$, $\beta_{p,d}\in{{\mathbf Q}}$ is defined as $\beta_{p,d}:=\frac12\left[H_p+H_{d/2+p-1}-H_{d/2-1} \right],$ with $H_j\in{{\mathbf Q}}$ being the $j$th harmonic number $$H_j:=\sum_{i=1}^j\frac1i,$$ then ${{\mathcal G}}_k^d$ is a fundamental solution for $(-\Delta)^k$ on Euclidean space ${{\mathbf R}}^d$. \[greenpoly\]
[*Proof* ]{} See Cohl (2010) [@CohlthesisII] and Boyling (1996) [@Boyl].\
Consider the following functions ${{\mathfrak g}}_k^d,{{\mathfrak l}}_k^d:({{\mathbf R}}^d\times{{\mathbf R}}^d)\setminus\{({{\bf x}},{{\bf x}}):{{\bf x}}\in{{\mathbf R}}^d\}\to{{\mathbf R}}$ defined for $d$ odd and for $d$ even with $k\le d/2-1$ as a power-law, namely $${{\mathfrak g}}_k^d({{\bf x}},{{{\bf x}^\prime}}):=\|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|^{2k-d},
\label{frakgkd}$$ and for $d$ even, $k\ge d/2$, with logarithmic behavior as $${{\mathfrak l}}_k^d({{\bf x}},{{{\bf x}^\prime}}):=\|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|^{2p}
\left(\log\|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|-\beta_{p,d}\right),$$ with $p=k-d/2$. By [Theorem]{} \[greenpoly\] we see that the functions ${{\mathfrak g}}_k^d$ and ${{\mathfrak l}}_k^d$ equal real non-zero constant multiples of ${{\mathcal G}}_k^d$ for appropriate parameters. Therefore by (\[unnormalizedfundsolnpolydefn\]), ${{\mathfrak g}}_k^d$ and ${{\mathfrak l}}_k^d$ are fundamental solutions of the polyharmonic equation for appropriate parameters. In this paper, we only consider functions with power-law behavior, although in future publications we will consider the logarithmic case (see Cohl (2012) [@Cohl12log] for the relevant Fourier expansions).
Now we consider the set of hyperspherical coordinate systems which parametrize points on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$. The Euclidean distance between two points represented in these coordinate systems is given by $$\displaystyle \|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|=\sqrt{2 rr^\prime}
\left[z-\cos\gamma\right]^{1/2},$$ where the toroidal parameter $z\in(1,\infty),$ (2.6) in Cohl [*et al.*]{} (2001) [@CRTB], is given by $$z:=\frac{r^2+{r^\prime}^2}
{\displaystyle 2rr^\prime},$$
and the separation angle $\gamma\in[0,\pi]$ is given through $$\cos\gamma=\frac{({{\bf x}},{\bf x^\prime})}{rr^\prime},
\label{separationanglegen}$$
where $r,r^\prime\in[0,\infty)$ are defined such that $r:=\|{\bf x}\|$ and $r^\prime:=\|{\bf x^\prime}\|.$ We will use these quantities to derive Gegenbauer expansions of power-law fundamental solutions for powers of the Laplacian ${{\mathfrak g}}_k^d$ (\[frakgkd\]) represented in hyperspherical coordinates.
For $d\in\{3,4,5,\ldots\}$, $\nu\in{{\mathbf C}}$, ${{\bf x}},{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\in{{\mathbf R}}^d$ with $r=\|{{\bf x}}\|$, $r^\prime=\|{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|$, and $\cos\gamma=({{\bf x}},{{{\bf x}^\prime}})/(rr^\prime)$, the following formula holds $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-7cm}\|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|^\nu&=&
\frac{e^{i\pi(\nu+d-1)/2}
\Gamma\left(\frac{d-2}{2}\right)}
{2\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma\left(-\frac{\nu}{2}\right)}
\frac{\left(r_>^2-r_<^2\right)^{(\nu+d-1)/2}}
{\left(rr^\prime\right)^{(d-1)/2}}
\nonumber\\[0.0cm]
&&\hspace{-0.00cm}\times\sum_{{n}=0}^\infty
\left(2{n}+d-2\right)
Q_{{n}+(d-3)/2}^{(1-\nu-d)/2}
\biggl(\frac{r^2+{r^\prime}^2}{2rr^\prime}\biggr)
C_{n}^{d/2-1}(\cos\gamma),
\label{expandgegenpowq}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_\lessgtr:={\min \atop \max}\{r,r^\prime\}$. \[MYCOROLLARY\]
Note that (\[expandgegenpowq\]) is seen to be a generalization of Laplace’s expansion on ${{\mathbf R}}^3$ (see for instance Sack (1964) [@Sacka]) $$\frac{1}{\|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{r_<^n}{r_>^{n+1}}P_n(\cos\gamma),$$ which is demonstrated by utilizing (\[PlCl\]) and simplifying the associated Legendre function of the second kind in (\[expandgegenpowq\]) through $Q_{-1/2}^{1/2}:{{\mathbf C}}\setminus(-\infty,1]\to{{\mathbf C}}$ defined such that $$Q_{-1/2}^{1/2}(z)=i\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}(z^2-1)^{-1/4}$$ (cf. (8.6.10) in Abramowitz & Stegun (1972) [@Abra] and (\[assoclegQseckinddefn2F1\])).
The [*addition theorem for hyperspherical harmonics*]{}, which generalizes $$P_n(\cos\gamma)=\frac{4\pi}{2{n}+1}\sum_{m=-{n}}^{n}
Y_{{n},m}({\mathbf {\widehat x}})
\overline{Y_{{n},m}
(\mathbf {\widehat x^\prime)}},
\label{addtheorem}$$ where $P_{n}(x)$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree ${n}\in{{\mathbf N}}_0$, for $d=3$, is given by $$\sum_{K}
Y_n^K
({\widehat{\bf x}})
\overline{Y_n^K
({{\widehat{\bf x}^\prime}})
}
=\frac{\Gamma(d/2)}{2\pi^{d/2}(d-2)}
(2n+d-2)
C_n^{d/2-1}(\cos\gamma),
\label{additionthmhypspheharm}$$ where $K$ stands for a set of $(d-2)$-quantum numbers identifying degenerate harmonics for a given value of ${n}$ and $d$, and $\gamma$ is the separation angle (\[separationanglegen\]). The functions $Y_{{n}}^{K}:{{\mathbf S}}^{d-1}\to{{\mathbf C}}$ are the normalized hyperspherical harmonics, and $Y_{n,k}:{{\mathbf S}}^2\to{{\mathbf C}}$ are the normalized spherical harmonics for $d=3$. Note that ${\mathbf {\widehat x}},{\mathbf {\widehat x^\prime}}\in{{\mathbf S}}^{d-1}$, are the vectors of unit length in the direction of ${{\bf x}}, {{{\bf x}^\prime}}\in {{\mathbf R}}^d$ respectively. For a proof of the addition theorem for hyperspherical harmonics (\[additionthmhypspheharm\]), see Wen & Avery (1985) [@WenAvery] and for a relevant discussion, see Section 10.2.1 in Fano & Rau (1996) [@FanoRau]. The correspondence between (\[addtheorem\]) and (\[additionthmhypspheharm\]) arises from (\[gegpolydefn\]) and (\[legendrepolydefn\]) namely (\[PlCl\]).
One can use the addition theorem for hyperspherical harmonics to expand a fundamental solution of the polyharmonic equation on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$. Through the use of the addition theorem for hyperspherical harmonics we see that the Gegenbauer polynomials $C_{n}^{d/2-1}(\cos\gamma)$ are hyperspherical harmonics when regarded as a function of ${\widehat{\bf x}}$ only (see Vilenkin (1968) [@Vilen]). Normalization of the hyperspherical harmonics is accomplished through the following integral $$\int_{{{\mathbf S}}^{d-1}}
Y_{n}^K
({\mathbf {\widehat x}})
\overline{Y_{n}^K
({\mathbf {\widehat x}})}
d\Omega
=1,$$ where $d\Omega$ is the Riemannian volume measure on ${{\mathbf S}}^{d-1}$. The degeneracy, i.e., number of linearly independent solutions for a particular value of ${n}$ and $d$, for the space of hyperspherical harmonics is given by $$(2{n}+d-2)\frac{(d-3+{n})!}{{n}!(d-2)!}
\label{degeneracynumber}$$ (see (9.2.11) in Vilenkin (1968) [@Vilen]). The total number of linearly independent solutions (\[degeneracynumber\]) can be determined by counting the total number of terms in the sum over $K$ in (\[additionthmhypspheharm\]). Note that this formula (\[degeneracynumber\]) reduces to the standard result in $d=3$ with a degeneracy given by $2{n}+1$ and in $d=4$ with a degeneracy given by $({n}+1)^2$.
One can show the consistency of [Corollary]{} \[MYCOROLLARY\] with the result for $d=2$ given by $$\displaystyle \|{{\bf x}}-{{{\bf x}^\prime}}\|^\nu=
\frac{e^{i\pi(\nu+1)/2}}{\Gamma(-\nu/2)}
\frac{(r_>^2-r_<^2)^{(\nu+1)/2}}{\sqrt{\pi rr^\prime}}
\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty
e^{im(\phi-\phi^\prime)}
Q_{m-1/2}^{-(\nu+1)/2}
\left(\frac{r^2+{r^\prime}^2}{2rr^\prime}\right),$$ where $\nu\in{{\mathbf C}}\setminus\{0,2,4,\ldots\}$, by considering the limit as $\mu\to 0$ in (\[biggeneralizationgegen2\]) (see (\[recipchebyshev\]) above). These expansions are useful in that they allow one to perform azimuthal Fourier and Gegenbauer polynomial analysis for power-law fundamental solutions of the polyharmonic equation on ${{\mathbf R}}^d$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we introduced a generalization of the generating function for Gegenbauer polynomials which allows one to expand arbitrary powers of the distance between two points on $d$-dimensional Euclidean space ${{\mathbf R}}^d$ in terms of hyperspherical harmonics. This result has already found physical applications such as in Szmytkowski (2011) [@Szmy6] who uses this result to obtain a solution of the momentum-space Schrödinger equation for bound states of the $d$-dimensional Coulomb problem. The Gegenbauer expansions presented in this paper can be used in conjunction with corresponding Fourier expansions (Cohl & Dominici (2010) [@CohlDominici]) to generate infinite sequences of addition theorems for the Fourier coefficients (see Cohl (2010) [@CohlthesisII]) of these expansions. In future publications, we will present some of these addition theorems as well as extensions related to Fourier and Gegenbauer expansions for logarithmic fundamental solutions of the polyharmonic equation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Much thanks to T. H. Koornwinder for valuable discussions. Part of this work was conducted while H. S. Cohl was a National Research Council Research Postdoctoral Associate in the Applied and Computational Mathematics Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.A.
[10]{}
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. , volume 55 of [*National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series*]{}. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.
G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, and R. Roy. , volume 71 of [*Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
J. B. Boyling. Green’s functions for polynomials in the [L]{}aplacian. , 47(3):485–492, 1996.
H. S. [Cohl]{}. . PhD thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 2010. xiv+190 pages.
H. S. [Cohl]{}. . , 2012.
H. S. [Cohl]{}. . , 2012.
H. S. [Cohl]{} and D. E. [Dominici]{}. . , 467:333–345, 2011.
H. S. Cohl, A. R. P. Rau, J. E. Tohline, D. A. Browne, J. E. Cazes, and E. I. Barnes. Useful alternative to the multipole expansion of $1/r$ potentials. , 64(5):052509, Oct 2001.
H. S. [Cohl]{} and J. E. [Tohline]{}. . , 527:86–101, December 1999.
L. Durand, P. M. Fishbane, and L. M. Simmons, Jr. Expansion formulas and addition theorems for [G]{}egenbauer functions. , 17(11):1933–1948, 1976.
A. Erd[é]{}lyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, and F. G. Tricomi. . Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Inc., Melbourne, Fla., 1981.
U. Fano and A. R. P. Rau. . Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, 1996.
L. [Gegenbauer]{}. . , 70:433–443, 1874.
L. [Gegenbauer]{}. . , 75:891–896, 1877.
L. [Gegenbauer]{}. . , 48:293–316, 1884.
L. [Gegenbauer]{}. . , 97:259–270, 1888.
L. [Gegenbauer]{}. . , 102:942–950, 1893.
E. Heine. . Druck und Verlag von G. Reimer, Berlin, 1878.
E. Heine. . Druck und Verlag von G. Reimer, Berlin, 1881.
M. E. H. Ismail. , volume 98 of [*Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. With two chapters by Walter Van Assche, With a foreword by Richard A. Askey.
W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, and R. P. Soni. . Third enlarged edition. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 52. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, 1966.
F. W. J. Olver. . AKP Classics. A K Peters Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 1997. Reprint of the 1974 original \[Academic Press, New York\].
F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, editors. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
R. A. Sack. Generalization of [L]{}aplace’s expansion to arbitrary powers and functions of the distance between two points. , 5:245–251, 1964.
H. M. Srivastava and H. L. Manocha. . Ellis Horwood Series: Mathematics and its Applications. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, 1984.
G. Szeg[ő]{}. . American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 23. Revised ed. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1959.
R. Szmytkowski. Alternative approach to the solution of the momentum-space [S]{}chrödinger equation for bound states of the [$N$]{}-dimensional [C]{}oulomb problem. , 524(6-7):345–352, 2012.
R. [Szmytkowski]{}. . , [23]{}([11]{}):[847–852]{}, [2012]{}.
N. Ja. Vilenkin. . Translated from the Russian by V. N. Singh. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 22. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1968.
Z. Y. Wen and J. Avery. Some properties of hyperspherical harmonics. , 26(3):396–403, 1985.
[^1]: $^\ast$Corresponding author. Email: howard.cohl@nist.gov
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '**We apply general QCD parametrization to describe an octet baryon at rest in a static and uniform magnetic field, in order to demonstrate a dynamical implementation of the hadron model. The derived evolution has the asymptote of Larmor precession, governed by an effective magnetic dipole moment coupling. The parameters appear in the effective magnetic dipole moment has been studied in the original works in kinematic settings. Here we show that the parameters have actual dynamical meaning, and are indeed measured by the process.**'
author:
- 'Dah-Wei Chiou'
- 'Chun-Yen Lin'
title: Larmor precession of the octet baryons in view of the general QCD parametrization
---
Introduction
============
With the success of the standard model, it is generally accepted that hadrons are bound states of quarks and gluons described by the relativistic field theory called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), but limited understanding about the nonperturbative physics of QCD has hindered first-principle calculations on the bound states.
Nevertheless, many physical quantities of hadrons can be computed rather accurately by a simple nonrelativistic quark model (NRQM) in which a hadron (meson or baryon, resp.) is treated as a composite nonrelativistic quantum system composed of (2 or 3, resp.) quarks as spin-$1/2$ constituent particles. (NRQM is called the “static quark model” and detailed in $\S$2.7 of [@Wong:1998ex].) The notable example is that the measured magnetic moments of the baryon octet can be fitted very precisely by only 2 or 3 parameters accounting for the gyromagnetic ratios of constituent $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks (in the 2-parameter fitting scheme, the gyromagnetic ratio of $d$ is identified as $−1/2$ of that of $u$) (see $\S$2.8 of [@Wong:1998ex] for details and [@Morpurgo:1989] for the 2-parameter scheme). On the other hand, dubbed the “spin crisis”, polarized scattering experiments revealed that constituent quarks contribute surprisingly little to the proton’s spin, which is in sharp conflict with the description of NRQM (see [@Jaffe:1995] and references therein).
It is conceivable that the underlying QCD could departure significantly from NRQM. The mystery is rather the other way around: Why does NRQM work so well for some hadron quantities, even though its foundational idea is refuted by polarized scattering experiments? Derived exactly from QCD under certain assumptions, the framework of “general QCD parametrization” (GP) is developed in [@Morpurgo:1989; @Morpurgo:1990; @Dillon:2009pf] to understand and compute many properties of hadrons. In terms of the hierarchy of parameters, GP is used to explain why NRQM is so successful and to predict when and how the results of NRQM are deviated from those of QCD.
The fundation of GP is the existence of a correspondence operator $V$ which maps every NRQM hadron model state into its corresponding QCD hadron state. $V$ is constructed as an adiabatic process of dressing up the model states with full QCD corrections, and it subsequently represents hadron state elements of QFT observables, with the corresponding elements of model operators. The nature of $V$ and the simplicity of the model space then lead to a finite and heirarchical parametrization of the exact hadron observables in terms of the NRQM operators, wherein the parameters are determined by the exact bound states. Existing literature [@Morpurgo:1989; @Morpurgo:1990; @Dillon:2009pf] had proved the kinematic correspondence powerful in accounting for the experimental data on hadron properties.
However, relatively few works are devoted to the dynamical aspects of GP. In addition to the correspondence between the exact and model operators, the relation between the operators and the measurable quantities is also crucial for the model. The latter correspondence can only be established in the context of the dynamical processes of measurements. Analysis on the dynamics can anchor the physical meaning of the model parameters, thereby enable GP to make detailed and testable predictions. To illustrate this point, we derive Larmor precession of the octet baryons by using general QCD parametrization in this paper.
Our goal is to establish a scheme to extract physical properties of hadrons from considering proper dynamical processes, with the application of GP. We will extract the dynamically defined magnetic dipole moments of the octet baryons, from their Larmor precessions caused by a static and uniform magnetic field. The matrix elements of the magnetic dipole moment operator were treated in [@Morpurgo:1989] based on a kinematic definition. Here we show that only the block-diagonal elements, each of which corresponds to a single baryon species, contribute to the Larmor precessions of the baryons. As a result, the dynamically defined magnetic dipole moment is parallel to the spin of the baryons, and is parameterized by the corresponding parameters discussed in [@Morpurgo:1989].
General QCD parametrization (GP)
================================
In this section, we give a brief review on the GP formulation detailed in [@Dillon:2009pf].
General scheme of GP {#sec:general GP scheme}
--------------------
Let $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ be the exact Hamiltonian of QCD, which contains the mass term for the $u$, $d$, $s$ quarks $$\int d^3\mathbf{r}\left( m\left[\bar{u}_R(x)u_R(x)+\bar{d}_R(x)d_R(x)\right]
+(m+\Delta m)\bar{s}_R(x)s_R(x)\right),$$ where the subscript $R$ refers to the mass renormalization point and $\Delta m$ is included for flavor breaking. Let ${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$ be the eigenstate of $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ corresponding to the baryon $B$ in the rest system.[^1] We have $H_\mathrm{QCD}{\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}=M_B{\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$ and $$\label{MB}
M_B={\langle{\Psi_B}\vert} H_\mathrm{QCD} {\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle},$$ with $M_B$ being the mass of the baryon $B$. The state ${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$, being the exact eigenstate of a strongly interacting system of quarks and gluons, is a superposition of an infinite series of Fock space states. Schematically, $${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}={\vert{qqq}\rangle}+{\vert{qqqq\bar{q}}\rangle}+{\vert{qqq,\mathrm{gluons}}\rangle}+\cdots,$$ where the ellipsis stands for the infinite sum of additional states, and the coefficients for each state (depending on the momenta, spins, flavors, colors of intervening quarks, antiquarks and gluons) have been left out as unimportant.
Introduce the *model Hamiltonian* $\mathcal{H}$ which acts only on the $3q$ sector. The only purpose of $\mathcal{H}$ is to provide a set of *model states* ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$, which are to be mapped to the NRQM states $\Phi_B$ of 3 constituent quarks. In principle, we can relate the exact state ${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$ with the model state ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$ as $$\label{Psi and Phi}
{\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}=V{\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle},$$ where $V$ is a very complicated unitary operator, which can be constructed in terms of $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ via the Gell-Mann and Low adiabatic construction of bound states (see Appendix I of [@Dillon:2009pf]). With $V$, the expression [(\[MB\])]{} becomes $$\label{MB 2}
M_B={\langle{\Phi_B}\vert} V^\dag H_\mathrm{QCD} V {\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}.$$
In [(\[MB\])]{}, the operator $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ is simple but the exact QCD state ${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$ is complicated; in [(\[MB 2\])]{}, the model state ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$ is simple and all the complications are transformed into $V^\dag H_\mathrm{QCD}V$. Although $V^\dag H_\mathrm{QCD}V$ is indeed a very complicated operator, since it acts only on the degrees of freedom (space, spin, flavor, color) of the *three* quarks in the model state ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$, it must be a function of these degrees only (after contraction of all creation and annihilation operators). Therefore, $V^\dag H_\mathrm{QCD}V$ behaves as a color singlet 3-body quantum mechanical operator acting on the three quarks of $\Phi_B$ numbered by 1, 2, 3.
The explicit form of $\Phi_B$ depends on how we select the model Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$. By choosing $\mathcal{H}$ to correspond to the simplest NRQM, the NRQM state $\Phi_B$ for the baryon of the $uds$ octet and decuplet takes the form in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanical description: $$\label{PhiB}
\Phi_B = X_{l=0}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\mathbf{r}_3)\, W_B(1,2,3)\, C(1,2,3),$$ where $X_{l=0}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\mathbf{r}_3)$ is the space weve function of orbital angular momentum $\mathbf{L}=0$, $W_B(1,2,3)$ is the spin-flavor function which has the $SU(6)$ structure and total spin $S=1/2$ for the octet and $S=3/2$ for the decuplet, and $C(1,2,3)$ is the color singlet function. Correspondingly, in the relativistic field theory, the model state in the Fock space is given by $$\label{ket Phi}
{\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle} = \sum_{\mathbf{p},w} C^B_{w_1,w_2,w_3}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3)\, a^\dag_{\mathbf{p}_1,w_1}a^\dag_{\mathbf{p}_2,w_2}a^\dag_{\mathbf{p}_2,w_2} {\vert{0}\rangle},$$ where $\sum_{\mathbf{p},w}$ sums over all momenta $\mathbf{p}$’s and spin-flavor-color indices $w$’s, $a^\dag_{\mathbf{p}_i,w_i}$ are creation operators, and $C^B_{w_1,w_2,w_3}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3)$, which contains a factor $\delta(\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2+\mathbf{p}_3)$, is obtained from $\Phi_B$ by performing the Fourier transform on $X_{l=0}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\mathbf{r}_3)$. Intuitively, the transformation $V$ in [(\[Psi and Phi\])]{} can be understood as carrying out the tasks of
1. dressing the three quark state ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$ with an infinite sum of of $q\bar{q}$ pairs and gluons;
2. mixing the pure $l=0$ state of ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$ with $l\neq0$ states;
3. transforming the Pauli 2-spinor states in $\Phi_B$ into the Dirac 4-spinor by completing the Pauli spinor with two zeros in the lower components.
Because ${\vert{\Phi_B}\rangle}$ is a 3-quark state, the only part of $V^\dag H_{QCD}V$ that contributes in [(\[MB 2\])]{} is its projection on the ${\vert{3q}\rangle}$ sector of the Fock space: $$\tilde{H}=\sum_{3q}\sum_{3q'} {\vert{3q}\rangle}{\langle{3q}\vert} V^\dag H_{QCD}V {\vert{3q'}\rangle}{\langle{3q'}\vert}.$$ After contracting the creation and annihilation operators of $\tilde{H}$ with those in [(\[ket Phi\])]{}, the operator $\tilde{H}$ behaves as a quantum mechanical operator depending only on the space-spin-flavor variables of the three quarks. We call the 3-body quantum mechanical operator $\tilde{H}'$. Because both $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ transform as scalars under spatial rotation, the same are true for $V$ and $V^\dag H_{QCD}V$ and consequently $\tilde{H}'$ is a *scalar* quantum mechanical operator. The number of independent scalar operators in the spin-flavor ($\boldsymbol{\sigma}$-$f$) space of the three quarks is of course finite, and we refer to them as $Y_\nu(\boldsymbol{\sigma},f)$, where the index $\nu$ specifies the operator we refer to. The most general form of $\tilde{H}'$ then is given by $$\tilde{H}'=\sum_\nu R_\nu(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')Y_\nu(\boldsymbol{\sigma},f),$$ where $R_\nu(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$ are operators in the spatial coordinates of the three quarks with $\mathbf{r}\equiv(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\mathbf{r}_3)$ and $\mathbf{r}'\equiv(\mathbf{r}'_1,\mathbf{r}'_2,\mathbf{r}'_3)$. Consequently, the mass $M_B$ given by [(\[MB 2\])]{} reads as $$\label{MB 3}
M_B = \sum_\nu k_\nu {\langle{W_B}\vert} Y_\nu(\boldsymbol{\sigma},f) {\vert{W_B}\rangle}
=:{\langle{W_B}\vert}\text{``parameterized mass''}{\vert{W_B}\rangle},$$ where the coefficients $k_\mu$ are $$k_\nu={\langle{X_{l=0}(\mathbf{r})}\vert} R_\nu(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') {\vert{X_{l=0}(\mathbf{r}')}\rangle}.$$
After integrating over the spatial coordinates to obtain $k_\mu$, the “parameterized mass” is a function only of the spin and flavor operators of the three quarks. If we neglect electromagnetic corrections on the baryon masses, we then have the GP baryon mass formula for thee octet and decuplet: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{para mass}
\text{``parameterized mass''} &=&
M_0 +B\sum_iP^s_i +C\sum_{i>k}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_k +D\sum_{i>k}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_k(P^s_i+P^s_k)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{} +E\sum_{i,k\neq j}^{i>k}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_kP^s_j +a\sum_{i<k}P^s_iP^s_k +b\sum_{i<k}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_kP^s_iP^s_k\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{} +c\sum_{i,k\neq j}^{i>k}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_kP^s_j(P^s_i+P^s_k) +dP^s_1P^s_2P^s_3,\end{aligned}$$ where $P^s_i$ denotes the projection onto the $s$ flavor for the $i$-th constituent quark (i.e. $P^s_is_i=s_i$, $P^s_iu_i=P^s_id_i=0$) and $M_0,B,C,D,E,a,b,c,d$ are constant parameters.
Fitted with the experimental baryon masses, the hierarchy of the parameters is evident: Numerical magnitudes of the parameters decrease rather strongly with the “increasing complexity” (i.e. complexity of the summand) of the term in [(\[para mass\])]{}. Each $P^s_i$ in the summand, which accounts for the flavor breaking, gives rise to a reduction factor $\simeq0.3$. Additionally, each pair of different indices in the same $\sum$ corresponds to a “gluon exchange” and yields a reduction factor $\simeq0.37$. Furthermore, terms involving trace $\mathrm{Tr}$ are absent in the mass formula but present in the magnetic moment formula in [(\[para magnetic moment\])]{}-[(\[G nu\])]{}. Each trace $\mathrm{Tr}$ corresponds to a “closed quark loop” and gives rise to a comparatively much smaller reduction factor. We refer readers to $\S$7 of [@Dillon:2009pf] for more details and discussions on the hierarchy of the parameters.
By the hierarchy, we can ignore $a,b,c,d$ and keep only $M_0,B,C,D,E$. This 5-parameter approximation yields the NRQM results: the Gell-Mann-Okubo formula for the octet masses and the two equal spacing formulas of Gell-Mann for the decuplet masses ($\Omega-\Sigma^*=\Xi^*-\Sigma^*=\Sigma^*-\Delta$).
On the other hand, to account for the difference between $m_u$ and $m_d$ (e.g. $p^+\neq n$ for the masses), we have to take into consideration the electromagnetic corrections on baryon masses. In addition to the terms in [(\[para mass\])]{}, we will have more terms involving both $P^s_i$ and $Q_i$, the latter of which gives the charge ($+\frac{2e}{3}$ or $-\frac{e}{3}$) of the $i$-th quark. See $\S$10 of [@Dillon:2009pf] for more details.
The GP formulation can be straightforwardly applied to the lowest nonets of pseudoscalar ($J^\pi=0^-$) and vector ($J^\pi=0^-$) mesons. See $\S$8 of [@Dillon:2009pf].
Magnetic dipole moments
-----------------------
The magnetic moment operator in the rest frame of the baryon is given the standard formula: $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} =\frac{1}{2}\int d^3\mathbf{r}\left(\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r},t)\right),$$ where $\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is the spatial part of the electromagnetic current $j_\mu(x)$: $$\label{j mu}
j_\mu(x) := e\left[
\frac{2}{3}\bar{u}(x)\gamma_\mu u(x)
-\frac{1}{3}\bar{d}(x)\gamma_\mu d(x)
-\frac{1}{3}\bar{s}(x)\gamma_\mu s(x)
\right].$$ Parallel to [(\[MB\])]{}, the magnetic dipole moment of the baryon $B$ is given by $$\label{mu B}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_B={\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}{\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}.$$ Following the same logic in [Sec. \[sec:general GP scheme\]]{} with $H_\mathrm{QCD}$ replaced by $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$, we have, parallel to [(\[MB 3\])]{}, $$\label{parameter g}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_B = \sum_\nu g_\nu {\langle{W_B}\vert} \mathbf{G}_\nu(\boldsymbol{\sigma},f) {\vert{W_B}\rangle}
=:{\langle{W_B}\vert}\text{``parameterized magnetic moment''}{\vert{W_B}\rangle},$$ where $g_\nu$ are constant coefficients.
By the argument of spatial symmetry that $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$ is a pseudovector under spatial rotation, the magnetic moments for the $J^\pi=\frac{1}{2}^+$ octet baryons are, parallel to [(\[para mass\])]{}, given by $$\label{para magnetic moment}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_B = \sum_{\nu=0}^7 g_\nu {\langle{W_B}\vert} \mathbf{G}_\nu {\vert{W_B}\rangle}
\equiv \sum_{\nu=1}^7 \tilde{g}_\nu {\langle{W_B}\vert} \mathbf{G}_\nu {\vert{W_B}\rangle},$$ where the $\mathbf{G}_\nu$’s are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G nu}
&&\mathbf{G}_0=\mathrm{Tr}[QP^s]\sum_i\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i,
\quad
\mathbf{G}_1=\sum_iQ_i\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i,
\quad
\mathbf{G}_2=\sum_iQ_iP_i^s\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i,\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{G}_3=\sum_{i\neq k}Q_i\boldsymbol{\sigma}_k,
\quad
\mathbf{G}_4=\sum_{i\neq k}Q_iP_i^s\boldsymbol{\sigma}_k,
\quad
\mathbf{G}_5=\sum_{i\neq k}Q_kP_i^s\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i,\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{G}_6=\sum_{i\neq k}Q_iP_k^s\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i,
\quad
\mathbf{G}_7=\sum_{i\neq j\neq k}Q_iP_j^s\boldsymbol{\sigma}_k,\end{aligned}$$ and satisfy the relation $$\mathbf{G}_0=-\frac{1}{3}\mathbf{G}_1+\frac{2}{3}\mathbf{G}_2-\frac{5}{6}\mathbf{G}_3
+\frac{5}{3}\mathbf{G}_4+\frac{1}{6}\mathbf{G}_5+\frac{1}{6}\mathbf{G}_6
+\frac{2}{3}\mathbf{G}_7.$$ The magnetic moments of the $J^\pi=\frac{1}{2}^+$ octet are specified by the parameters $\tilde{g}_1,\cdots,\tilde{g}_7$ as explicitly given in Equation (32) of [@Dillon:2009pf]. Again, because of the hierarchy mentioned in [Sec. \[sec:general GP scheme\]]{}, $\tilde{g}_1$ and $\tilde{g}_2$ are much larger than the remaining parameters $\tilde{g}_3,\cdots,\tilde{g}_7$. If we keep only $\tilde{g}_1$ and $\tilde{g}_2$ and ignore $\tilde{g}_3,\cdots,\tilde{g}_7$, [(\[para magnetic moment\])]{} reproduces the NRQM prediction with 2 parameters via the identifications: $$\tilde{g}_1=-3\gamma_d\,\frac{\hbar}{2},
\qquad
\tilde{g}_2=3\left(\gamma_d-\gamma_s\right)\frac{\hbar}{2},$$ where $\gamma_d=-\gamma_u/2$ and $\gamma_s$ are the 2 parameters used in NRQM with $\gamma_u,\gamma_d,\gamma_s$ accounting for the gyromagnetic ratios for $u$, $d$ and $s$ constituent quarks.
Supposedly, the aforementioned GP formulation for magnetic moments can be carried over to the lowest decuplet ($J^\pi=\frac{3}{2}^+$) of baryons as well as to the lowest nonets of vector ($J^\pi=0^-$) mesons, although detailed investigation has yet to be done.
Magnetic dipole ($M1$) transition of radiative decay
----------------------------------------------------
NRQM works very well not only for hadron masses and magnetic moments but also for their radiative decays of the the magnetic dipole ($M1$) transition. For the decays from vector mesons into pseudoscalar mesons, see [@Morpurgo:1990], $\S$9 of [@Dillon:2009pf], and references therein; for the $\Sigma^0\rightarrow \Lambda^0\gamma$ decay, see $\S$VIII of [@Morpurgo:1989]; and for the $\Delta^+\rightarrow p^+\gamma$ dacay, see $\S$IX of [@Morpurgo:1989] and $\S$5 of [@Dillon:2009pf]. The GP method for radiative decays and the corresponding hierarchy of parameters are detailed in (particularly, $\S$9 of) [@Dillon:2009pf]. Here, we adopt the ideas of [@Dillon:2009pf] but, instead of deriving the GP parameters, investigate the relation between $M1$ transition rates and magnetic moments by following the treatment in $\S$2.4 of [@Sakurai].
The QCD Lagrangian is given by $$\mathcal{L}=\bar{q}\left(i\gamma^\mu D_\mu-m_q\right)q-\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{F}^{\mu\nu}\mathbf{F}_{\mu\nu},$$ where $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the $SU(3)$ gauge field and $\mathbf{F}$ is the $SU(3)$ field strength. If we further consider the coupling to the $U(1)$ electromagnetic field, the Lagrangian is augmented as $$\mathcal{L}=\cdots+\bar{q}\,\gamma^\mu\left(-q_e A_\mu\right)q-\frac{1}{4}{F}^{\mu\nu}{F}_{\mu\nu},$$ where $A_\mu$ is the $U(1)$ gauge filed, $F$ is the $U(1)$ field strength, and $q_e$ is the quark’s electromagnetic charge. Consequently, the interaction Hamiltonian between the electromagnetic currents inside the baryon and the radiation field is given by (in $A^0=0$ gauge) $$\label{Hint}
H_\mathrm{int}=-\int d^3\mathbf{r}\
\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r},t)\cdot\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t)$$ where $\mathbf{j}(x)$ is the spatial part of $j_\mu(x)$ defined in [(\[j mu\])]{}, $\mathbf{A}(x)$ is the quantized radiation field given by $$\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int d^3\mathbf{k}\sum_\alpha
\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\,\omega}}
\left[
a_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}\mathbf{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}-i\omega t}
+a^\dag_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}\mathbf{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}+i\omega t}
\right].$$
For the emission of a photon characterized by the momentum $\mathbf{k}$ and polarization $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}$ from the baryon state ${\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}$ into ${\vert{\Psi_B}\rangle}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A Hint B}
{\langle{\Psi_B;n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}+1}\vert}H_\mathrm{int}{\vert{\Psi_A;n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}}\rangle}
=-\sqrt{\frac{(n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}-1)\hbar}{4\pi\omega}}
\int d^3\mathbf{r}\,
{\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\, e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\,\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r})\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}
{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}\, e^{i\omega t}.\end{aligned}$$ In the framework of quantum field theory, *spontaneous* emission ($n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}=0$) and *induced* (or stimulated) emission ($n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}\neq0$) are treated in the same footing.
In the classical theory, as opposed to the quantum field-theoretic treatment, $\mathbf{A}$ is an externally applied potential which influences the charged currents but is not influenced by them. This classical description breaks down for the cases of small $n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}$ and spontaneous emission. However, whenever the applied radiation field is intense enough, the classical description becomes satisfactory even within the framework of quantum field theory, since the occupation number $n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}$ is so large that the radiation field can be regarded as an inexhaustible source/sink of photons. The equivalent classical vector potential used for an emission process is given by $$\label{A cl}
\mathbf{A}^{(\mathrm{class})}(\mathbf{r},t)
=\sqrt{\frac{(n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}+1)\hbar}{4\pi\omega}}\
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\,e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}+i\omega t}
\approx \sqrt{\frac{n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}\hbar}{4\pi\omega}}\
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\,e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}+i\omega t}$$ for $n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}\gg1$.
In typical electromagnetic decays of baryons, the wavelength of the emitted photon is much greater than the linear dimension of the baryon. This means we can replace $\exp(-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})$ by the leading terms in the series: $$\label{exp ikr}
e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
=1-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r} -\frac{(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})^2}{2} +\cdots.$$ The first term in [(\[exp ikr\])]{} give rise to the *electric dipole* ($E1$) transition (see [@Sakurai] for details). The matrix element [(\[A Hint B\])]{} involving the second term of [(\[exp ikr\])]{} is decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E2+M1}
{\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{j}){\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}
&=&\frac{1}{2} {\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{j}) +(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{j})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{r}){\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}
+\frac{1}{2} {\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{j}) -(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{j})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{r}){\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ The radiative transition due to the first term of [(\[E2+M1\])]{}, which can be written as $$(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{j}) +(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{j})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{r})
=\mathbf{k}\cdot\left(\mathbf{x}\,\mathbf{j}+\mathbf{j}\,\mathbf{x}\right)\cdot
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)},$$ is known as the *electric quadrupole* ($E2$) transition (see [@Sakurai] for details). On the other hand, the radiative transition due to the second term of [(\[E2+M1\])]{}, which can be written as $$(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{j}) -(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{j})(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\cdot\mathbf{r})
=(\mathbf{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)})\cdot(\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{j}),$$ is known as the *magnetic dipole* ($M1$) transition.
In the case of spontaneous emission $A\rightarrow B+\gamma$ (a hadron $A$ makes a radiative transition into a different hadron $B$), the transition probability per unit time into a solid angle element $d\Omega_\mathbf{k}$ is given by the famous *Golden rule* (see [@Sakurai] for details): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Golden rule}
w_{d\Omega} &=& \frac{2\pi}{\hbar}
\Big|{\langle{\Psi_B;n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}=1}\vert}H_\mathrm{int}{\vert{\Psi_A;n_{\mathbf{k},\alpha}=0}\rangle}\Big|^2
\frac{\omega^2}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{d\Omega_\mathbf{k}}{\hbar}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\omega}{8\pi^2\hbar}
\left|\int d^3\mathbf{r}\,{\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\,
e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\,\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r})\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}
{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}
\right|^2 d\Omega_\mathbf{k},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of the emitted phone, which satisfies $M_A=M_B+\hbar\omega$. The $M1$ transition rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
w_{d\Omega}^{(M1)} &=& \frac{\omega}{8\pi^2\hbar}
\left|\int d^3\mathbf{r}\,{\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\,
(\mathbf{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)})\cdot(\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{j})
{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}
\right|^2 d\Omega_\mathbf{k}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&
\frac{\omega}{4\pi^2\hbar}
\left|(\mathbf{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)})\cdot
{\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}
\right|^2d\Omega_\mathbf{k}.\end{aligned}$$ In the same spirit of [(\[mu B\])]{}, the relevant matrix element ${\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}$ can be regarded as the “off-diagonal” part of the magnetic dipole moment: $$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{A\rightarrow B}={\langle{\Psi_B}\vert}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}{\vert{\Psi_A}\rangle}
\equiv{\langle{\Phi_B}\vert}V^\dag\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}V{\vert{\Phi_A}\rangle}$$ In parallel to [(\[parameter g\])]{}, $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{A\rightarrow B}$ can be parameterized by the GP scheme: $$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{A\rightarrow B}
={\langle{W_B}\vert}\text{``parameterized magnetic moment''}{\vert{W_A}\rangle}.$$ This explains why NRQM works very well for the radiative decays of the $M1$ transition from the perspective of GP.
Larmor precession and magnetic dipole moments
=============================================
Although we have understood why NRQM is successful for the “diagonal” part of the magnetic moment $\boldsymbol{\mu}_B$ given by [(\[mu B\])]{}, we do not know the exact *dynamical* relevance of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_B$, in the sense that the off-diagonal magnetic moment $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{A\rightarrow B}$ corresponds to the $M1$ radiative decay. To understand the dynamical meaning of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_B$, we repeat the above analysis for the case of spin precession of a hadron subject to a classical electromagnetic field, in parallel to the case of spontaneous emission.
It is known that the octet baryons do not decay strongly. Ignoring the weak interaction, we may thus treat these baryons as “free” QCD systems subject to the electromagnetic perturbation. For this simplicity we will consider only the octet baryons in this paper, despite the applicability of GP on other types of hadrons. The “free Hamiltonian” operator in our case is ${H}_0\equiv {H}_\mathrm{{QCD}}$. The “interaction Hamiltonian" is given by [(\[Hint\])]{}, but with the field $\mathbf A$ set to be a static classical field $\mathbf{A}^{{(\mathrm{class})}}(\mathbf r)$. Thus we have: $${H}_\mathrm{int}=\int d^3\mathbf{r}\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(\mathrm{class})}(\mathbf r)\cdot {\mathbf{j}}(\mathbf{r}).$$ The full Hamiltonian is $ H={H}_{0}+{H}_\mathrm{int}$ for our system of quarks and gluons. In this paper we will restrict to the case with a static and uniform magnetic field $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r},t)= \mathbf{B}_0$, so $\mathbf{A}^{(\mathrm{class})}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{B}_0\times\mathbf{r}$. For this case we have: $$\label{Hint B}
{H}_\mathrm{int}=\mathbf{B}_0\cdot\int d^3\mathbf{r}\, \left(\mathbf{r}\times {\mathbf{j}}(\mathbf{r})\right).$$
In order to focus on the spin degrees of freedom, we want to discuss the octet baryon states at rest. Thus, for consistency we assume $ H_\mathrm{int}$ does not mix the initial octet baryon states at rest with the states having nonzero total momentum. This assumption is consistent with experimental facts, and it allows us to consider the evolution in the zero-momentum subspace of the full QCD Hilbert space, which is spanned by the basis : $$\label{basis}
\begin{split}
{\mathbf{I}}_{(P=0)}= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal N} {\vert{\Psi_{i} }\rangle} {\langle{\Psi_{i}}\vert}+\int_{\mathcal N +1}^{\infty} d\rho {\vert{\Psi_{\rho} }\rangle} {\langle{\Psi_{\rho}}\vert}\equiv \sum^\mathrm{dist}_m {\vert{\Psi_{m} }\rangle} {\langle{\Psi_{m}}\vert} \\
\end{split}$$ where $\{{\vert{\Psi_{i} }\rangle}\}$ includes single-particle states and bound states, and $\{{\vert{\Psi_{\rho}}\rangle}\}$ includes multi-particle states, and we introduced the notation $\sum^\mathrm{dist}_m$ for the expansion with the index $m$ running over both $i$ and $\rho$. Also, we have $\hat{H}_{0} {\vert{\Psi_{m} }\rangle}= E_m {\vert{\Psi_{m} }\rangle}$. Note that we expect the energy seperation $E_{\rho}> E_i $ between the discrete and continuous parts of the spectrum. We also choose the spin-1/2 octet baryon states to be the first sixteen members of the basis, setting $\Psi_{2N-1}$ and $\Psi_{2N}$ to be the spin-up and spin-down states of the $Nth$ octet baryon ($N=1,\cdots,8$).
Let us now evaluate the transition amplitude from a spin-up baryon state $\Psi_{2N}$ to an arbitrary state $\Psi_{j}$ from the basis, assuming the perturbation $H_\mathrm{int}$ is switched on over a period of time $t$: $$\label{trans amp 1}
\begin{split}
{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert} {U}(0,t) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}
={\langle{\Psi_j}\vert}e^{(-i t{H}_{0}/\hbar)} {U}_I(0,t) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}
=e^{-iE_jt/\hbar} {\langle{\Psi_j}\vert} {U}_I(0,t) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
{U}_I(0,t)\equiv \mathcal{T}\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^t H^I_\mathrm{int}(t') dt' \right)\,,\,\,
H^I_\mathrm{int}(t)\equiv e^{(i {H}_{0}t/\hbar)} H_\mathrm{int}\,e^{(-i {H}_{0}t/\hbar)}.
\nonumber
\end{split}$$ We then expand ${U}_I(0,t)$ with Dyson series: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trans amp 2}
{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert} {U}(0,t) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}
&=&e^{-iE_jt/\hbar}{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert}\sum_{K=0}^\infty \left(\frac{-i}{\hbar}\right)^K\prod_{n=1}^K \int_0^{t_{n-1}}dt_n \, H^I_\mathrm{int}(t_n) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}\nonumber\\
&\equiv& e^{-iE_jt/\hbar}\sum_{K=0}^\infty M_K\end{aligned}$$ with $t_0\equiv t$. We may now sandwich each factor of $H^I_\mathrm{int}(t_n)$ in $M_K$ with the basis [(\[basis\])]{} and obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_K}
M_K
&=&\left(\frac{-i}{\hbar}\right)^K \left(\sum_{m_0}\sum_{m_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\sum_{m_{K}}\right) \langle{\Psi_j}|{\Psi_{m_0}}\rangle\langle\Psi_{m_K}|\Psi_{2N}\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\times\prod_{n=1}^K \int_0^{t_{n-1}}dt_n \, e^{-i t_n(E_{m_n}-E_{m_{n-1}}) /\hbar} \,{\langle{\Psi_{m_{n-1}}}\vert} H_\mathrm{int} {\vert{\Psi_{m_n}}\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we assume that baryon degeneracy in the spectrum of ${H}_\mathrm{QCD}$ exists only between the two spin states of a single baryon species , e.q. $E_{2N-1}=E_{2N}$. Accordingly, we then split the basis into a subbasis $\{\Psi_{\bar m}\}\equiv\{\Psi_{2N}, \Psi_{2N-1}\}$ for the $N$th baryon, and that for all other states $\{\Psi_{m'}\}|_{E_{ m'}\neq E_{2N}}$. Clearly, the contributions to $M_K$ involving only intermediate states from $\{\Psi_{\bar m}\}$ will grow as $t^K$ with time. On the other hand, the contributions with at least one of the intermediate states from $\{\Psi_{m'}\}$ will have at least one of the time integrals regularized by the exponential factors, and only grow as $t^{K-1}$ or slower. To separate the two kinds of contributions, we introduce $$\label{N projection}
H_\mathrm{Lar}\equiv\sum_{N} {P}^{\dag}_N \,H_\mathrm{int}\, {P}_N$$ with the projection operator $P_N$ defined as $${P}_N\equiv {\vert{\Psi_{2N} }\rangle} {\langle{\Psi_{2N}}\vert}+{\vert{\Psi_{2N-1} }\rangle} {\langle{\Psi_{2N-1}}\vert},$$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_K}
M_K= \frac{1}{K!}\left(\frac{-i\,t}{\hbar}\right)^K{\langle{\Psi_j}\vert}(H_\mathrm{Lar})^K {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}+O( \tau_{{}_{(N)}}\,t^{K-1})\end{aligned}$$ where in the second term a factor of $t$ is replaced with $\tau_{{}_{(N)}}\equiv \max\{\hbar/|E_i-E_{2N}|\}_{i\neq 2N, 2N-1}$ as a result of the regularization. Note that when $t\gg\tau_{{}_{(N)}}$, the $O( \tau_{{}_{(N)}}\,t^{K-1})$ term becomes negligible compared with the first term in $M_K$, and this leads to the result: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trans amp 3}
\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty}{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert} {U}(0,t) {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}
&=&\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty}e^{-iE_it/\hbar}{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert} e^{-i H_\mathrm{Lar}t/\hbar} {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=&\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty}{\langle{\Psi_j }\vert} e^{-i \left(H_0+H_\mathrm{Lar}\right)t/\hbar} {\vert{\Psi_{2N}}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $[H_0,H_\mathrm{Lar}]=0$. Since the final basis state $\Psi_j$ is arbitrary, we have obtained the asymptotic evolution of the state $\Psi (t)$ with $\Psi (0)=\Psi_{2N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evolution}
\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} {\vert{\Psi (t)}\rangle}
&=&\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} e^{-i \left(H_0+ H_\mathrm{Lar}\right)t/\hbar} {\vert{\Psi(0)}\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, for an arbitrary state $\Psi(0)$ in the subspace of octet baryons with zero momentum: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shrodinger eq}
\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} \left(H_\mathrm{QCD}+H_\mathrm{Lar}\right){\vert{\Psi(t)}\rangle}
&=& \lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\vert{\Psi(t)}\rangle}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Note that $H_0+H_\mathrm{Lar}$ is the effective Hamiltonian governing the dynamics after $t\gg \tau_{{}_{(N)}}$, and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation describes a species-preserving evolution in the subspace of octet baryons. For the details of the evolution, we need further knowledge about $H_\mathrm{Lar}$.
Now we have come to the crucial step of our calculation. Since $\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} {\vert{\Psi(t)}\rangle}$ is a baryon state, we have $\lim_{{t}/{\tau_{{}_{(N)}}}\to \infty} {\vert{\Psi(t)}\rangle}= V{\vert{\Phi(t)}\rangle}$. This allows us to use GP, and the effective Hamiltonian operator $H_0+H_\mathrm{Lar}$ is given by the model operator $ V^{\dag} \left(H_\mathrm{QCD}+H_\mathrm{Lar}\right) V$ with finite set of hierarchical parameters. Then, [(\[shrodinger eq\])]{} implies: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(V^{\dag} H_\mathrm{QCD} V+V^{\dag} H_\mathrm{Lar} V\right){\vert{\Phi(t)}\rangle}
&=& i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} {\vert{\Phi(t)}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ We may expand ${\vert{\Phi(t)}\rangle}$ with the two model spin stastes $\{{\vert{\Phi_{I}}\rangle}\equiv V^{\dag} {\vert{\Psi_{I}}\rangle}\}_{I=2N,2N-1}$ of the $N$th baryon: $${\vert{\Phi(t)}\rangle} =\sum_{I} e^{-iE_{I}t/\hbar} C_{I}(t) {\vert{\Phi_{I}}\rangle}.$$ One can see clearly now, the elements ${\langle{\Phi_{I'}}\vert}V^{\dag} H_\mathrm{QCD} V{\vert{\Phi_{I}}\rangle}= \delta_{I'I}E_I$ are given by the parametrized mass $M_{B=N}$ elements defined in [(\[MB 3\])]{}. Also, from [(\[N projection\])]{} and [(\[Hint B\])]{} we imediately see that the elments $ {\langle{\Phi_{I'}}\vert}V^{\dag} H_\mathrm{Lar} V{\vert{\Phi_{I}}\rangle}= \dot{C}_{I'}(t)/ C_{I}(t) $ are given by the elements $ \mathbf{B}_0\cdot\boldsymbol{\mu}_{B=N}$ defined in [(\[mu B\])]{}.
The result implies that, as a prediction of GP, Larmor precession is the asymptotic behavior of an octet baryon $(N)$ at rest in the static and uniform magnetic field, after the evolution time satisfies $t\gg\tau_{{}_{(N)}}$. Therefore, the dynamical meaning of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_B$ is the magnetic dipole moment of the hadron $B$ measured by the Larmor precession. Moreover, according to [(\[para magnetic moment\])]{} and [(\[G nu\])]{}, the magnetic dipole moment can be parameterized by 7 parameters $\tilde{g}_\nu$ and, as a consequence, $\boldsymbol{\mu}_B$ is parallel to the baryon’s spin.
Conclusions
===========
We had reviewed the method of QCD general parametrization, which prescribes the kinematic correspondence between the exact QCD hadron states and the NRQM model states through the operator $V$. Consequently, the hadron-state matrix elements of a QFT operator are given by the elements of the corresponding NRQM operator, with a finite set of hierarchical parameters.
As shown by our analysis, this kinematic correspondence has dynamical implications. Particularly, it may predict the evolution of an octet-baryon in an external weak classical field. With the above derivation as an example, we propose the following general scheme.
The initial octet baryon state is evolved by $H_\mathrm{QCD}+H_\mathrm{int}$, where $H_\mathrm{int}$ results from the external field. The standard perturbation calculation gives the evolution, in terms of the transition amplitudes induced by $H_\mathrm{int}$ between the eigenstates of $H_\mathrm{QCD}$. From the Fermi golden rules, we expect the dominating terms to come from the transitions between the states close to degeneracy with the initial state. Therefore, if the initial state is a slowly moving octet baryon, the dominating terms will be given by the transition amplitudes between only the baryon states. These are the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian for the evolution, and they lie in the domain of GP . Under GP, the effective Hamiltonian corresponds to a model Hamiltonian in NRQM, and the evolution of the NRQM states gives the evolution of the exact states. Moreover, the finite set of parameters in the model Hamiltonian, determined by the inner structures of the baryons, acquire concrete dynamical meaning as being measured by the physical process.
In this paper we demonstrate the scheme by deriving the evolution from an initial octet baryon state at rest, in a static and uniform magnetic field. We had assumed the total momentum remains zero during the evolution. We find the effective Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{Lar}$ to be the species-diagonal projection of $H_\mathrm{int}$. Through GP, we also find the evolution to be the Larmor precession under the magnetic field. Thus the parameters in the effective Hamiltonian, which have been studied in [@Morpurgo:1989], have the meaning of giving the effective magnetic dipole-moment as measured by the Larmor precession.
Finally, we expect the scheme to be valid in a wide range of dynamical processes involving slowly moving baryons in weak external fields. It is our hope that further studies in this direction would bring more insight into the meanings and implications of the hierarchical parameters from GP, in the dynamical sense.
The authors are grateful to Professor Wei-Tou Ni for valuable advice and inspiring discussions. Dah-Wei Chiou was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the Grant No. 101-2112-M-002-027-MY3; Chun-Yen Lin was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the Grant No. 102-2112-M-008 -015 -MY3.
[99]{}
S. S. M. Wong, *Introductory Nuclear Physics*, New York, USA; Wiley (1998).
G. Morpurgo, “Field theory and the nonrelativistic quark model: A parametrization of the baryon magnetic moments and masses,” Phys. Rev. D, [**40**]{}, 2997 (1989).
R. L. Jaffe, “Where does the proton really get its spin?” Physics Today, Sep 1995, p. 24, and references therein.
G. Morpurgo, “General parametrization of the $V\rightarrow P\gamma$ meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D, [**42**]{}, 1497 (1990).
G. Dillon and G. Morpurgo, “The General QCD parametrization and the hierarchy of its parameters: Why some simple models of hadrons work so well,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. [**33**]{}, 1 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.5326 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. J. Sakurai, *Advanced Quantum Mechanics*, Addison-Wesley (1967).
[^1]: We review on the GP framework for baryons. It is modified in the obvious manner for mesons.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We give examples of non-fibered hyperbolic knot complements in homology spheres that are not commensurable to fibered knot complements in homology spheres. In fact, we give many examples of knot complements in homology spheres where every commensurable knot complement in a homology sphere has non-monic Alexander polynomial.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Harvard University\
Cambridge MA 02138, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Harvard University\
Cambridge MA 02138, USA
author:
- Danny Calegari
- 'Nathan M. Dunfield'
date: 'Version: , Compile: [//]{}, Last commit: '
title: 'Commensurability of 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
For over 20 years, progress in 3-manifold theory has been stimulated by:
Let $M$ be a finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold. Then $M$ has a finite cover which is a surface bundle over $S^1$.
Little progress has been made towards the resolution of this conjecture since it was proposed [@Thurston82]. In fact, there are few 3-manifolds which do not fiber over $S^1$ but are known to have finite covers which do fiber (see the references in [@KirbyList Prob. 3.51]). Moreover, Boileau and Wang [@BoileauWang1996] produced infinitely many examples of closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds for which no solvable cover fibers over $S^1$. However, fundamental groups of hyperbolic 3-manifolds have huge numbers of finite index subgroups with a variety of quotients [@Lubotzky95], and many 3-manifolds fiber over $S^1$ in many different ways. Thus it is likely that more complicated classes of covers provide numerous examples.
A relatively tractable class of 3-manifolds are knot complements in $S^3$, or more generally, knot complements in rational homology spheres. If such a 3-manifold fibers over $S^1$, the fiber is a minimal genus Seifert surface of the knot. Complements of knots in rational homology spheres rarely cover each other, but much more frequently they share a common finite cover—that is, they are [ *commensurable*]{}. For this class of manifolds, the natural analogue of Thurston’s question is:
Let $M$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. When is $M$ commensurable with a fibered knot complement in a rational homology sphere?
Here, we give conditions on a knot complement which ensure that it is not commensurable with a fibered knot complement. These conditions are satisfied in many examples, including the complements of a large number of 2-bridge knots in $S^3$. These conditions are somewhat subtle, but we give examples showing that the subtleties are essential.
Recall the basic:
\[criterion\] Let $M$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. If the Alexander polynomial $\Delta_M$ of $M$ is not monic, then $M$ does not fiber over $S^1$.
Our main idea is to combine this criterion with the fact that the roots of $\Delta_M$ are related to eigenvalues of reducible ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$-representations of $\pi_1(M)$.
We’ll now state the main result. A 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifold $M$ is *generic* if it is not arithmetic and its commensurator orbifold has a flexible cusp. The latter condition holds if the cusp shape of $M$ is not in ${{\mathbb Q}}(i)$ or ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$. Our condition concerns reducible representations $\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to
{\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ whose image is non-abelian. A representation $\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ is called *integral* if the trace of $\rho(\gamma)$ is an algebraic integer for all $\gamma \in \pi_1(M)$. Otherwise, $\rho$ is *non-integral*. As discussed in Section \[reducible\_and\_alex\], whether $M$ has a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral is closely related to whether $\Delta_M$ has a non-integral root. When $M$ fibers, its Alexander polynomial $\Delta_M$ is *monic*, that is, has lead coefficient $\pm 1$, and so all the roots are integral. Using the connection between $\Delta_M$ and reducible representations, it is easy to show that every non-abelian reducible representation of $\pi_1(M)$ is integral.
Let $X_0(M)$ denote the geometric component of the ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$-character variety of $\pi_1(M)$ (see Section \[character\_varieties\]). We will show:
Let $M_1$ be a generic hyperbolic knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Suppose that the geometric component $X_0(M_1)$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation. Then $M_1$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere.
Suppose $M_1$ and $M_2$ are commensurable manifolds. Given a representation $\rho_1 {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M_1) \to {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ one cannot in general induce a representation $\rho_2 {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M_2) \to
{\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ which is *compatible*, that is, agrees with $\rho_1$ on the fundamental group of the common cover of $M_1$ and $M_2$. However, when $M_1$ and $M_2$ are generic commensurable 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds one knows more. Here, the existence of a commensurator [@Borel81], together with Thurston’s Hyperbolic Dehn Surgery Theorem [@Thurston82], gives a natural birational isomorphism between the geometric components of the character varieties of $M_1$ and $M_2$ (this is due to the first author (unpublished) and [@LongReid00]). Moreover, representations of $\pi_1(M_1)$ coming from its geometric component $X_0(M_1)$ correspond to compatible representations of $\pi_1(M_2)$ coming from its geometric component $X_0(M_2)$. The key to Theorem \[main\_thm\] is showing that for a reducible representation of $\pi_1(M_1)$ in $X_0(M_1)$, the corresponding compatible representation of $\pi_1(M_2)$ is also reducible. Then if $X_0(M_1)$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation, there is a corresponding reducible representation of $\pi_1(M_2)$. This representation has to be non-integral as well, and so $M_2$ can’t be fibered.
We end this section with an outline of the rest of the paper. In Section \[commensurablity\], we give basic topological restrictions on when fibered and non-fibered 1-cusped manifolds can be commensurable. We also provide constructions of pairs of commensurable 1-cusped manifolds satisfying these restrictions. Section \[character\_varieties\] contains background material about character varieties. Section \[rep\_comm\] discusses representations of commensurable 3-manifolds. Section \[reducible\_and\_alex\] discusses the Alexander polynomial and its connection to reducible representations. Section \[pf\_of\_main\_thm\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[main\_thm\].
In Section \[ex\_where\_applies\], we show that Theorem \[main\_thm\] applies to the complements of many 2-bridge knots, in particular, to all non-fibered 2-bridge knots $K(p,q)$ where $q < p < 40$.
In Section \[fiber\_and\_non\], we give examples of pairs of commensurable 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds exactly one of which fibers. These illustrate the necessity and subtlety of the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\_thm\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The first author was partially supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship and a NSF VIGRE grant. The second author was partially supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship. We also thank the referee for helpful comments, especially those clarifying the definition of an integral representation.
Commensurability of 1-cusped 3-manifolds {#commensurablity}
========================================
In this section, we’ll discuss some basic necessary conditions for a 1-cusped non-fibered 3-manifold to be commensurable with a 1-cusped fibered 3-manifold. We’ll also describe some constructions of pairs of commensurable manifolds which show that these necessary conditions are satisfied in many examples.
Let $M$ be a 3-manifold. Given $A$ in $H^1(M; {{\mathbb Z}})$ we can think of it in several ways: as a homomorphism of $\pi_1(M)$ to ${{\mathbb Z}}$, as a homotopy class of maps from $M$ to $S^1$, or as a surface representing a class in $H_2(M, {\partial}M)$ (via Lefschetz duality). Thought of as a class of maps from $M$ to $S^1$, it makes sense to say that $A$ is *representable by a fibration over $S^1$.*
We’ll begin with the question: Suppose $M$ is a 3-manifold which does not fiber over $S^1$; when does a finite cover of $M$ fiber? The fundamental fact here is:
\[Stallings\] Suppose $M$ is an orientable 3-manifold which does not fiber over $S^1$. Let $N$ be a finite cover which does fiber over $S^1$, with $\phi {\colon\thinspace}N \to M$ the covering map. If $A$ is a class in $H^1(M;
{{\mathbb Z}})$ then the pullback $\phi^*(A)$ in $H^1(N; {{\mathbb Z}})$ cannot represent a fibration over $S^1$. In particular, $$\operatorname{rank}H^1(N) > \operatorname{rank}H^1(M).$$
Let $A$ be in $H^1(M, {{\mathbb Z}})$. Stallings showed that $A$ can be represented by a fibration over $S^1$ if and only if the kernel of the map $A {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {{\mathbb Z}}$ is finitely generated [@Stallings62]. So as $M$ does not fiber, the kernel of the $A
{\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {{\mathbb Z}}$ is not finitely generated. As $\pi_1(N)$ has finite index in $\pi_1(M)$, it follows that the kernel of the restricted map $\phi^*(A) {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(N) \to {{\mathbb Z}}$ is also not finitely generated. So $\phi^*(A)$ cannot represent a fibration.
Now suppose two manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ are *commensurable*, that is, they have a common finite sheeted cover $N$. The following theorem gives a restriction on when a non-fibered 1-cusped 3-manifold can be commensurable to a fibered one:
\[cusps\_go\_up\] Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be two commensurable hyperbolic knot complements in rational homology spheres. Suppose $M_2$ fibers over $S^1$ but $M_1$ does not. Then a common regular cover must have at least $2$ boundary components.
First, let’s make some basic observations. Throughout, all (co)homology will have coefficients in ${{\mathbb Z}}$. Suppose $\phi {\colon\thinspace}N
\to M$ is a *regular* finite cover of 3-manifolds. Let $G =
\pi_1(M)/\pi_1(N)$ be the covering group. The homomorphism $\phi^*
{\colon\thinspace}H^1(M) \to H^1(N)$ is injective, and $\phi^*(H^1(M))$ is exactly the $G$-invariant cohomology.
Now let’s prove the theorem. Suppose $N$ is a common regular cover of $M_1$ and $M_2$. Let $\phi_i {\colon\thinspace}N \to M_i$ be the covering maps, and $G_i = \pi_1(M_i)/\pi_1(N)$ the covering groups. By Mostow rigidity, we can assume that the covering groups $G_i$ act via isometries of some fixed hyperbolic metric on $N$. As the isometry group of $N$ is finite, so is the group $G = \langle G_1, G_2
\rangle$.
From now on, assume that $N$ has only one cusp. We will show there is a non-zero $G$-invariant class $A$ in $H^1(N)$. This gives a contradiction for the following reason. Every non-zero class in $\phi_2^* (H^1(M_2))$ can be represented by a fibration, while by Lemma \[Stallings\] no non-zero class in $\phi_1^* (H^1(M_1))$ can be represented by a fibration. But because $A$ is $G$-invariant, $A$ is in $\phi_i^* (H^1(M_i))$ for both $i$, which is impossible.
Let $S$ be a Seifert surface for $M_2$ which is a fiber, and let $F =
\phi_2^{-1}(S)$ be the lift to $N$. The surface $F$ represents a non-trivial class in $H_2(N, {\partial}N)$. Moreover, since $[{\partial}S]$ in $H_1({\partial}M_2)$ is nontrivial, so is $[\partial F]$ is in $H_1(\partial N)$. Look at the the class in $H_2(N, {\partial}N)$ which is $$X = \sum_{g \in G} g_*([F]).$$
Consider the restricted coverings $\phi_i {\colon\thinspace}{\partial}N \to {\partial}M_i$. Now the covering group $G_i$ acts freely on the torus ${\partial}N$. Hence $\phi_i$ induces a rational isomorphism on $H_1$, and $G_i$ acts identically on $H_1({\partial}N; {{\mathbb Z}})$. Therefore $G$ acts identically on $H_1({\partial}N; {{\mathbb Z}})$. Thus $${\partial}X = \sum_{g \in G} g_*([{\partial}F]) = \left| G \right| \cdot [{\partial}F] \neq 0.$$ So $X$ is non-zero. If $A$ is the dual class in $H^1(N)$, then $A$ is the non-zero $G$-invariant class we sought.
Suppose $M_1$ and $M_2$ have a common manifold quotient $M$ with a torus cusp. In this case, there are Seifert surfaces generating $H_2(M_i,\partial M_i)$ which are pullbacks of a single Seifert surface in $M$. In particular, if $M_2$ fibers but $M_1$ does not, the commensurator cannot be a manifold, but must be an orbifold.
Suppose $M_1$ and $M_2$ have a common finite regular cover $N$ with covering deck groups $G_1$ and $G_2$. If the $M_i$ are not hyperbolic, it is not always true that there are actions $G_i'$ isotopic to $G_i$ so that $G=\langle G_1',G_2' \rangle$ is finite. For example, let $M_1$ be the unit tangent bundle of the $(2,4,4)$ Euclidean triangle orbifold, and $M_2$ the unit tangent bundle of the $(2,3,6)$ Euclidean triangle orbifold. These manifolds have $T^3$ as a common regular cover, with deck groups $G_1 \cong {{\mathbb Z}}/4{{\mathbb Z}}$ and $G_2
\cong {{\mathbb Z}}/6{{\mathbb Z}}$ respectively. But the action of $\langle G_1,G_2
\rangle$ on $H_1(T^3;{{\mathbb Z}})$ generates a group isomorphic to $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$. Thus, we can’t isotope the $G_i$ so that together they generate a finite group.
In light of Theorem \[cusps\_go\_up\], it is worth producing examples of commensurable 1-cusped manifolds whose common covers have multiple cusps.
Let $N_0 = T^2 \times I$. There are two orientation-preserving involutions $\phi_1,\phi_2$ of $N_0$ defined by $$\phi_1(x,y,t) = (-x,y,1-t), \; \phi_2(x,y,t) = (x,-y,1-t)$$ where $(x,y)$ are angular coordinates on $T^2$ and $t$ is the coordinate on $I = [0,1]$.
Now, the union of the fixed point sets of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ is a graph $\Gamma \subset T^2 \times 1/2$. A regular neighborhood $N(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$ is a genus $5$ handlebody. Let $N_1 = N_0 -
N(\Gamma)$, and let $N_2$ be the double of $N_1$. Then $N_2$ has two sets of cusps, $\{C_1,C_2\}$ and $\{D_1,D_2\}$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the original pair of cusps from $N_0$. The involutions $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ extend to fixed-point–free involutions of $N_2$ which interchange $C_1$ with $C_2$ and $D_1$ with $D_2$. Notice that $$\phi_2 \phi_1^{-1}: T^2 \times 0 \to T^2 \times 0$$ is just the involution $(x,y) \to (-x,-y)$. It follows that these involutions descend to the manifold obtained by equivariantly Dehn filling $D_1$ and $D_2$. Let $N_3$ be obtained from $N_2$ by Dehn filling on both $D_1$ and $D_2$, so that $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ both act on $N_3$. We can also equivariantly surger $N_3$ along some collection of links to destroy any “accidental” additional symmetry to get $N_3'$, so that the quotients $M_1 = N_3'/\phi_1$ and $M_2 = N_3'/\phi_2$ are not homeomorphic, and have no common regular cover with fewer than two cusps. This equivariant surgery can also be used to kill off rational homology and ensure $N_3$ is hyperbolic, so that $M_1$ and $M_2$ can be chosen to be knot complements in rational homology spheres.
These examples have the property that for $S$ a Seifert surface in $M_2$, the class $[\phi_1\phi_2^{-1}(S)]$ is trivial in $H_2(M_1,\partial M_1)$. So the proof of Theorem \[cusps\_go\_up\] does not apply here, and we cannot conclude anything about whether $M_1$ and $M_2$ mutually fiber or do not fiber over $S^1$.
These examples cannot be chosen to be knot complements in ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology spheres because of the very existence of a $2$-fold cover. A modification of this construction gets around this difficulty.
Let $L$ be the unlink in $S^3$ on $n$ components. Arrange these symmetrically so that there is a rotation $r$ with axis $\alpha$ permuting the components of $L$. Let $s$ be a rotation of order $n$ fixing each component, translating $\alpha$, and fixing another axis $\beta$ which links each component of $L$. Let $\phi_1 = rs$ and $\phi_2 = rs^k$ for some $k>1$ coprime with $n$. Then $M_i=(S^3-L)/\phi_i$ is a knot complement in a lens space which is a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere for $n$ odd. By equivariant surgery, we can make the $M_i$ hyperbolic knot complements in ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology spheres whose smallest common cover has $n$ cusps.
Character varieties {#character_varieties}
===================
Here, we review the part of the theory of character varieties of 3-manifolds that we will need for Theorem \[main\_thm\]. For details, see [@CullerShalen83; @ShalenHandbook]. For the technicalities of the ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ as opposed to ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ case see [@BoyerZhang98].
For $M$ a compact 3-manifold, we let $$R(M) = \text{Hom}(\pi_1(M),{\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}})$$ denote the ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ representation variety of $M$.
Further, let $$X(M) = \bigcup_{\rho \in R(M)} \operatorname{tr}_\rho^2 \subseteq {{\mathbb C}}^{\pi_1(M)}$$ denote the ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ character variety of $M$.
Since $\pi_1(M)$ is finitely generated, $R(M)$ is an affine algebraic variety over ${{\mathbb C}}$. For each $\gamma \in \pi_1(M)$, the function $\tau_\gamma:R(M) \to {{\mathbb C}}$ defined by $$\tau_\gamma(\rho)=\operatorname{tr}_\rho^2(\gamma)$$ is a regular function on $R(M)$. As $\pi_1(M)$ is finitely generated, the ring of functions generated by the $\tau_\gamma$ is finitely generated. It follows that $X(M)$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^{\pi_1(M)}$ projects isomorphically to an algebraic subvariety of ${{\mathbb C}}^G$ for some finite subset $G \subset \pi_1(M)$. Therefore $X(M)$ has the structure of an affine algebraic variety over ${{\mathbb C}}$.
Away from the reducible locus, the action of ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ on $R(M)$ by conjugation is transverse, and the natural projection $R(M)/{\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}} \to X(M)$ is injective on a Zariski open set. Let $t {\colon\thinspace}R(M) \to X(M)$ be the projection. For a character $\chi$ in $X(M)$, $t^{-1}(\chi)$ either consists solely of the conjugates of a single irreducible representation, or $t^{-1}(\chi)$ consists of reducible representations. In the latter case, the reducible representations in $t^{-1}(\chi)$ may not all be conjugate (it is easy to see that the closure of the orbit of a non-abelian reducible representation contains an abelian reducible representation).
We will need the following, which is Proposition 6.2 of [@CGLS].
\[non\_abel\_red\] Let $X$ be an irreducible component of $X(M)$ which contains the character of an irreducible representation. Let $\chi \in X$ be the character of a reducible representation. Then there is a non-abelian reducible representation with character $\chi$.
The lemma follows from the fact that the fibers of $t$ over $X$ are all at least 3-dimensional whereas the orbit under conjugation of an abelian reducible representation is 2-dimensional.
If $M$ is an orientable finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold, there is a unique discrete faithful representation $$\rho_\delta:\pi_1(M) \to {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$$ up to conjugacy in $O(3,1) \cong {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}} \rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$. Up to conjugacy in ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$, there are a pair of such representations which differ by complex conjugation, and their characters may occur in different irreducible components of $X(M)$. Fixing an orientation of $M$ fixes a ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$-conjugacy class of discrete faithful representations. We will assume our manifolds are oriented in what follows, and therefore that $\rho_\delta$ is well-defined up to conjugacy in ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$.
Let $M$ be a finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold. Let $X_0(M)$ denote the irreducible component of $X(M)$ containing the character of the discrete faithful representation $\rho_\delta$. The component $X_0(M)$ is called the *geometric component* of $X(M)$.
Representations of commensurable manifolds {#rep_comm}
==========================================
Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be commensurable hyperbolic 3-manifolds with common finite cover $N$. Two representations $\rho_i {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M_i)
\to {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ are said to be *compatible* if they agree on $\pi_1(N)$. For instance, if $\rho_1$ is a discrete faithful representation for $M_1$, then Mostow rigidity implies that there is a discrete faithful representation $\rho_2$ of $\pi_1(M_2)$ which is compatible with $\rho_1$. The property of having compatible representations extends to other representations whose characters are in $X_0(M_1)$.
\[compat\_on\_geom\_comp\] Suppose $M_1$ and $M_2$ are generic commensurable orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds with one cusp. Let $\chi_1$ be a character in the geometric component $X_0(M_1)$. Then there exist compatible representations $\rho_i$ of $\pi_1(M_i)$ such that $\rho_1$ has character $\chi_1$ and the character of $\chi_2$ lies in a geometric component $X_0(M_2)$.
The reason for weaseling around with $\chi_1$ instead of just starting with $\rho_1$ is that for characters of reducible representations, there can be different conjugacy classes of representations with that character. It turns out that you can’t always specify $\rho_1$, but only $\chi_1$, in this case.
As the $M_i$ are non-arithmetic, they cover a common orientable commensurator orbifold $Q$ [@Borel81]. Let $p_i {\colon\thinspace}M_i \to Q$ be the (orbifold) covering maps. The inclusion of $\pi_1( M_i)$ into $\pi_1(Q)$ induces a map ${p_i}_* {\colon\thinspace}X_0(Q) \to X_0(M_i)$ via restriction of representations. Because the $M_i$ are generic, $Q$ has a flexible cusp, and the variety $X_0(Q)$ is also a complex curve. In fact, ${p_i}_*$ is a birational isomorphism, though we will not need this [@LongReid00]. The main step is:
\[surjects\] The map ${p_1}_* {\colon\thinspace}X_0(Q) \to X_0(M_1)$ is onto.
The map ${p_1}_*$ is a non-constant map of irreducible affine algebraic curves over ${{\mathbb C}}$. Let $\bar{X}_0(Q)$ denote the smooth projective model of $X_0(Q)$. The curve $\bar{X}_0(Q)$ is the normalization of $X_0(Q)$ compactified by adding an ideal point for each end of $X_0(Q)$ [@CGLS §1.5]. Similarly, let $\bar{X}_0(M_1)$ be the smooth projective model of $X_0(M_1)$. The map ${p_1}_*$ induces a regular map of the same name between $\bar{X}_0(Q)$ and $\bar{X}_0(M_1)$ (this map is just a branched covering of closed Riemann surfaces). Let $\chi_1$ be a point in $\bar{X}_0(M_1)$ which corresponds to a character—that is, not an ideal point. As the map from $\bar{X}_0(Q)$ to $\bar{X}_0(M_1)$ is surjective, choose $\chi_0$ in $\bar{X}_0(Q)$ with ${p_1}_*(\chi_0) =
\chi_1$. We need to show that $\chi_0$ is not an ideal point. Suppose that $\chi_0$ is an ideal point. By Proposition 1.4.4 of [@CullerShalen83] there is some $\gamma$ in $\pi_1(Q)$ for which $\operatorname{tr}^2_\gamma(\chi_0) = \infty$. That is, there is some element of $\pi_1(Q)$ which acts by a hyperbolic isometry on the simplicial tree associated to the ideal point $\chi_0$. Now for any $n>0$, $\gamma^n$ also acts by a hyperbolic isometry on the tree and so $\operatorname{tr}^2_{\gamma^n}(\chi_0) = \infty$. As $\pi_1(M_1)$ is of finite index in $\pi_1(Q)$, we can choose $n$ so that $\gamma^n$ is in $\pi_1(M_1)$. But then $\operatorname{tr}^2_{\gamma^n} \chi_0 = \operatorname{tr}^2_{\gamma^n}
\chi_1 = \infty$, contradicting that $\chi_1$ is the character of a representation. So $\chi_0$ is not an ideal point and hence ${p_1}_*
{\colon\thinspace}X_0(Q) \to X_0(M_1)$ is onto.
Now to finish the proof of the theorem, let $\chi_1 \in X_0(M_1)$. By the lemma, there is some character $\chi_0$ in $X_0(Q)$ with ${p_1}_*(\chi_0) = \chi_1$. Let $\rho_0$ be a representation with character $\chi_0$. Then the restrictions of $\rho_0$ to the subgroups $\pi_1(M_i)$ give a pair of compatible representations with the required properties.
The Alexander polynomial and reducible representations {#reducible_and_alex}
======================================================
Let $M$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. Let $N$ denote the universal free abelian cover of $M$. That is, set $H =
H_1(M;{{\mathbb Z}})/(\mathrm{torsion})$ and take the covering corresponding to the kernel of the natural homomorphism $\pi_1(M) \to H$. Then $N$ is a regular covering of $M$, and the group $\pi_1(M)/\pi_1(N) = H {\cong}{{\mathbb Z}}$ acts on $N$ by deck transformations. It follows that $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$ has the natural structure of a ${{\mathbb Z}}[H]$-module. If $t$ denotes the generator of $H$, then $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$ is a ${{\mathbb Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$-module. The *Alexander polynomial* $\Delta_M$ of $M$ is an invariant of this module. In the case that $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$ is cyclic, that is $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}}) =
{{\mathbb Z}}[t,t^{-1}]/p(t)$, the polynomial $\Delta_M$ is just $p(t)$. In general, $\Delta_M$ is the greatest common divisor of the $0$-th elementary ideal of a matrix which presents $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$ as a ${{\mathbb Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$-module. The Laurent polynomial $\Delta_M$ is only defined up to multiplication by a unit $\pm t^n$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$. A key property for us is that the Alexander polynomial is symmetric, that is $\Delta_M(t^{-1}) = \pm t^n \Delta_M(t)$ [@Turaev75]. For more on the Alexander polynomial see [@Rolfsen76].
If $M$ is a surface bundle over $S^1$ with fiber $F$ and monodromy $\phi:F \to F$, then $N = F \times {{\mathbb R}}$ and the action of $t$ on $H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$ is exactly equal to the action of $\phi_*$ on $H_1(F;{{\mathbb Z}}) = H_1(N;{{\mathbb Z}})$. In this case, $\Delta_M$ is the characteristic polynomial of $\phi_*$. Since $\phi$ is a homeomorphism, $\phi_*$ is an automorphism, and $\Delta_M$ is [*monic.*]{}
Now consider a non-abelian reducible representation $\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to
{\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$. Conjugate $\rho$ so that its image is upper-triangular. Given $\gamma \in \pi_1(M)$ we will say that the *primary eigenvalue* of $\rho(\gamma)$ is the $(1,1)$ entry of the matrix $\rho(\gamma)$. This is well defined for the following reason. Since $\rho$ has non-abelian image, there is a unique line $L$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ which is left invariant by all $\rho(\pi_1(M))$. The primary eigenvalue of $\rho(\gamma)$ is just the eigenvalue of $\rho(\gamma)$ with eigenspace $L$.
A reducible representation into ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ has meta-abelian (two-step solvable) image. The Alexander polynomial of $M$ is an invariant of the maximal meta-abelian quotient of $\pi_1(M)$, so it’s not surprising that it is related to non-abelian reducible representations of $\pi_1(M)$ into ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$. For knots in ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology spheres, the statement is:
\[de\_Rham\] Let $M$ be a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Let $\mu$ in $\pi_1({\partial}M)$ be a meridian. The following are equivalent:
- There is a non-abelian reducible representation $$\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$$ such that $\rho(\mu)$ has primary eigenvalue $m$.
- $m^2$ is a root of $\Delta_M(t)$.
More generally, for knots in ${{\mathbb Q}}$-homology spheres there is a similar connection that is a bit harder to state. Let $\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M)
\to {\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ be a non-abelian reducible representation. Then $\rho$ acts on ${{ {\mathbb C}\,
\mbox{\fontfamily{cmr}\fontshape{n}\selectfont P} }}^1$ and has a unique fixed point. Translating that point to $\infty$, $\rho$ can be interpreted as a homomorphism from $\pi_1(M)$ into the (complex) affine group of ${{\mathbb C}}$: $$\operatorname{Affine}({{\mathbb C}}) = \left\{ \text{maps } z \mapsto a z + b \right\}
{\cong}\left\{ \left(
\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ 0& 1 \end{array} \right) \right\}
{\quad\mbox{where $a \in {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ and $b \in {{\mathbb C}}$.}\quad}$$ Define a homomorphism $x_\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ by setting $x_\rho(\gamma) = a$, where $a$ is the homothety part of $\rho(\gamma)$ thought of as an element of $\operatorname{Affine}({{\mathbb C}})$. Note that $x_\rho(\gamma)$ is just the square of the primary eigenvalue of $\rho(\gamma)$ regarded as being in ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$. The map $x_\rho$ is often called the character of $\rho$ but to prevent confusion we’ll avoid this practice. The case of knots in ${{\mathbb Q}}$-homology spheres is more complicated than the ${{\mathbb Z}}$ case because not every homomorphism $x
{\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ factors through the *free* abelianization of $\pi_1(M)$. For those homomorphisms that do, Theorem \[de\_Rham\] in this context is just:
\[free\_ab\] Let $M$ be a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Q}}$-homology sphere. Let $H$ be the free abelianization of $\pi_1(M)$. Let $x {\colon\thinspace}H \to {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ be a homomorphism. Then the following are equivalent:
- There is a non-abelian reducible representation $$\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to {\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$$ with $x_\rho = x$.
- $x'(\Delta_M) = 0$, where $x'$ is the map $x$ induces from ${{\mathbb Z}}[H]$ to ${{\mathbb C}}$.
For a proof, see e.g. [@McMullenNorm §3].
Non-integral reducible representations
--------------------------------------
From the introduction, recall that a representation $\rho$ of $\pi_1(M)$ into ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ is *integral* if the trace of every $\rho(\gamma)$ is an algebraic integer. Otherwise $\rho$ is *non-integral*. Let’s reformulate this a little. Consider a matrix $A \in {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$. An eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ (well-defined up to sign) is a root of the monic polynomial $x^2 \pm
\operatorname{tr}(A) x + 1$. Therefore if $\operatorname{tr}(A)$ is integral, the eigenvalues of $A$ are also algebraic integers. The converse is clearly true, so $A$ has integral trace if and only if *both* eigenvalues of $A$ are integral. Now if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, then the other eigenvalue is $1/\lambda$. Thus we see that $A$ has integral trace if and only if the eigenvalues of $A$ are algebraic units. In the terminology of the last section, a reducible representation $\rho$ is integral if and only if the primary eigenvalues of all the $\rho(\gamma)$ are algebraic units. Since the primary eigenvalue of $\rho(\gamma^{-1})$ is the inverse of the primary eigenvalue of $\rho(\gamma)$, we see that a reducible representation is integral if and only if every primary eigenvalue is an algebraic integer. If we think of $\rho$ as a homomorphism to $\operatorname{Affine}({{\mathbb C}})$, we see that $\rho$ is integral if and only if the homothety of each $\rho(\gamma)$ is integral.
For knots in ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology spheres, the Alexander polynomial determines the existence of non-abelian reducible representations which are non-integral:
\[non\_int\_non\_monic\] Let $M$ be a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Then $M$ has a non-abelian reducible representation into ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ which is non-integral if and only if $\Delta_M$ is not monic.
As $M$ is a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere, the cohomology group $H^2(M; {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})$ vanishes and every representation into ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ lifts to ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$, so we’re free to think about ${\mathrm{SL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$-representations instead. Consider a reducible representation $\rho$. Since $H_1(M) = {{\mathbb Z}}$ is generated by $\mu$, we see that the primary eigenvalue of any $\rho(\gamma)$ is a power of the primary eigenvalue of $\rho(\mu)$. Thus, it follows from Theorem \[de\_Rham\] that $M$ has a non-integral reducible representation if and only if $\Delta_M$ has a root which is not an algebraic unit.
Suppose that $\Delta_M$ is not monic. Then $\Delta_M$ has a non-integral root provided that $\Delta_M$ is not an integer multiple of a monic integer polynomial. As we’re in the ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere case, $\Delta_M(1) = \pm 1$, and this can’t happen. So $\Delta_M$ has a non-integral root, and thus a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral.
Now suppose that $\Delta_M$ is monic. Then all the roots of $\Delta_M$ are algebraic integers. Let $\alpha$ be a root of $\Delta_M$. Because $\Delta_M$ is symmetric, $1/\alpha$ is also a root of $\Delta_M$ and so is integral. Thus all the roots of $\Delta_M$ are algebraic units. So all the non-abelian reducible representations of $\pi_1(M)$ are integral, completing the proof of the theorem.
In the general ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere case, there isn’t an easy statement like this because Theorem \[free\_ab\] only applies to representations coming from certain homomorphisms to ${{\mathbb C}}^\times$. It is true that if $M$ has a non-integral representation then $\Delta_M$ is non-monic (to prove this, a nice point of view is the theory of BNS invariants [@Dunfield:norms; @BieriNeumannStrebel87; @Brown87]). However, if $\Delta_M$ is non-monic, $M$ need not have a non-integral reducible representation (e.g. the SnapPea census manifold $m261$). Nor is the above proposition true for the ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere case if one replaces the non-monic hypothesis with “has a non-integral root” (to see that the “only if” direction is false, take the complement of a fibered knot in $S^3$ connected sum with a lens space).
Regardless, the following proposition, which in the ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere case follows immediately from Proposition \[non\_int\_non\_monic\] and Criterion \[criterion\], is easy to prove in general.
\[reps\_of\_fibered\] Let $M$ be a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. If $M$ fibers over $S^1$ then every non-abelian reducible representation of $\pi_1(M)$ into ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ is integral.
Let $\rho {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M) \to \operatorname{Affine}({{\mathbb C}})$ be a lift of a given non-abelian reducible ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ representation. As $M$ fibers over $S^1$, the universal abelian cover of $M$ is of the form $F
\times {{\mathbb R}}$ where $F$ is a compact surface (here $F$ is some finite abelian cover of a fiber in the fibration of $M$). As $\pi_1(F)$ is the commutator subgroup of $\pi_1(M)$, the representation $\rho$ takes $\pi_1(F)$ to a finitely generated abelian subgroup $G$ consisting of translations. The subgroup $G$ is non-trivial as $\rho$ is non-abelian. For each $\gamma \in \pi_1(M)$ we need to show that if $A = \rho(\gamma) = (z \mapsto a z + b)$ then the homothety $a$ is an algebraic integer. The action of $A$ by conjugation on the normal subgroup $G$ takes an element $(z \mapsto z + \tau)$ to $(z \mapsto z
+ a \tau )$. So $A$ is a group automorphism of the lattice $G {\cong}{{\mathbb Z}}^n$. Thought of as an element of ${\mathrm{SL}_{n} {{\mathbb Z}}}$, the map $A$ satisfies its characteristic polynomial $f(t)$, which is a monic polynomial with integer coefficients. Let $B = (z \mapsto z + \tau)$ be a non-identity element of $G$. If we act on $B$ via $f(A)$ we get that $f(a) \tau = 0$. Thus $f(a) = 0$ and $a$ is an algebraic integer. So $\rho$ is integral.
Inducing reducible representations of commensurable manifolds {#pf_of_main_thm}
=============================================================
This section is devoted to proving:
\[main\_thm\] Let $M_1$ be a generic hyperbolic knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Suppose that the geometric component $X_0(M_1)$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation. Then $M_1$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere.
Suppose that $M_1$ is commensurable to another knot complement $M_2$ in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Call the common finite cover $N$. We will show that $M_2$ has a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral, and so cannot fiber.
Let $\chi_1$ in $X_0(M_1)$ be the character of a non-integral reducible representation. As $M_1$ is generic, by Proposition \[compat\_on\_geom\_comp\], there are representations $\rho_i {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M_i) \to {\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ which agree on $\pi_1(N)$ where the character of $\rho_1$ is equal to $\chi_1$. In particular, $\rho_1$ is reducible and non-integral ($\rho_1$ may be abelian, because we don’t get to pick $\rho_1$, just $\chi_1$). Also, the character of $\rho_2$ is in $X_0(M_2)$.
We will show
\[claim\] The representation $\rho_2$ of $\pi_1(M_2)$ is reducible.
Assuming the claim, let’s prove that $M_2$ is not fibered. Pick $\gamma$ in $\pi_1(M_1)$ such that $\rho_1(\gamma)$ has non-integral trace. Then for any $n>0$, the matrix $\rho_1(\gamma^n)$ also has non-integral trace as its eigenvalues are powers of those of $\rho_1(\gamma)$. Since $\pi_1(N)$ is of finite index in $\pi_1(M_1)$, choose an $n$ such that $\gamma^n$ is in $\pi_1(N)$. But then $\gamma^n$ is in $\pi_1(M_2)$ as well, and so $\rho_2(\gamma^n) = \rho_1(\gamma^n)$ has non-integral trace. Thus $\rho_2$ is non-integral. Since the character of $\rho_2$ is in $X_0(M_2)$, by Lemma \[non\_abel\_red\] there is a non-abelian reducible representation $\rho'_2$ which has the same character as $\rho_2$. As $\rho'_2$ has the same character as $\rho_2$, it is non-integral. By Lemma \[reps\_of\_fibered\], $M_2$ does not fiber over $S^1$. This completes the proof of the theorem modulo the claim.
Now let’s go back and prove Claim \[claim\]. Let $\Gamma =
\pi_1(M_2)$ and $\Gamma' = \pi_1(N)$. Now $\rho_2$ restricted to $\Gamma'$ is the same as $\rho_1$ restricted to $\Gamma'$, and $\rho_1$ is reducible. Thus $\rho_2$ is reducible on $\Gamma'$. The subgroup $\Gamma'$ is of finite index in $\Gamma$, so we can replace it by a finite index normal subgroup of $\Gamma$. Let $G =
\rho_2(\Gamma)$ and $G' = \rho_2(\Gamma')$, two subgroups of ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$. Note that $\Gamma'$ is not the trivial subgroup because $\rho_1$ is non-trivial, in fact non-integral, on any finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(M_1)$.
Now suppose that $\rho_2$ is irreducible, that is, the fixed point set of $G$ acting on ${\partial}{{\mathbb H}}^3$ is empty. As $G'$ is reducible, $\operatorname{fix}(G')$ is either 1 or 2 points. As $G'$ is normal in $G$, the set $\operatorname{fix}(G')$ is $G$-invariant. So if $\operatorname{fix}(G')$ consisted of a single point, $G$ would be reducible as well. So $\operatorname{fix}(G')$ is 2 points. Look at the homomorphism $h {\colon\thinspace}G \to {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ where ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ is thought of as the symmetric group on $\operatorname{fix}(G')$. The homomorphism $h$ is non-trivial as $G$ is irreducible. Any $A \in G$ leaves invariant the geodesic $g$ joining the two points $\operatorname{fix}(G')$. If $h(A) = 1$ then $A$ acts on $g$ by an orientation reversing isometry, and $A$ has order $2$. Note that $G$ is meta-abelian, as the kernel of $h$ is abelian because it consists of isometries which fix the pair of points $\operatorname{fix}(G')$.
To finish the proof of the claim, we look at $H = \rho_2(\pi_1({\partial}M_2))$. We claim that $H$ is finite. Let $\mu_2$ in $\pi_1({\partial}M_2)$ be a meridian, that is, Dehn filling in along $\mu_2$ yields a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere. Let $\lambda_2$ in $\pi_1({\partial}M_2)$ be a longitude, that is, a generator of the kernel $H_1({\partial}M_2, {{\mathbb Z}}) \to
H_1(M_2, {{\mathbb Z}})$. If $M$ were the complement of a knot in a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere, $(\mu_2, \lambda_2)$ would be a basis of $\pi_1({\partial}M_2)$. In general, $(\mu_2, \lambda_2)$ generate a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1({\partial}M_2)$. As $\mu_2$ generates $H_1(M_2, {{\mathbb Z}}_2)$, we must have $h \circ \rho_2(\mu_2) = 1$ and $\rho_2(\mu_2)$ has order two.
We claim that since $M_2$ is a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere, if $K$ is the kernel of the unique surjection $\pi_1(M_2) \to
{{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ then $\lambda_2 \in [ K, K ]$. Consider a Seifert surface $S$ for $M$. The surface $S$ has $[{\partial}S]$ equal to $[\lambda_2]$ in $H_1({\partial}M)$. We can explicitly construct the cover $M_2'$ corresponding to $K$ by gluing together two copies of $M_2$ cut along $S$. Thus we see that $S$ lifts to $M_2'$. This shows that the boundary of $S$, namely $[\lambda_2]$, is $0$ in $H_1(M_2', {{\mathbb Z}})$. Thus $\lambda_2$ is in $[K, K]$. Therefore, as $\rho_2(K)$ is an abelian group of isometries fixing $\operatorname{fix}(G')$, we have $\rho_2(\lambda_2) =
I$. So the subgroup of $H$ generated by the images of $(\mu_2,
\lambda_2)$ is finite, in fact has order 2. Thus $H$ itself is finite.
Now we’ll argue that $H$ is infinite, yielding a contradiction. Look at $M_1$ and in particular at $\rho_1(\pi_1({\partial}M_1))$. Let $\mu_1$ be a meridian in $\pi_1({\partial}M_1)$. As $\rho_1$ is non-integral, it is easy to see from the homomorphism $x_{\rho_1} {\colon\thinspace}\pi_1(M_1) \to
{{\mathbb C}}^\times$ that the $\gamma$ in $\pi_1(M_1)$ with non-integral trace are exactly those $\gamma$ which are non-zero in $H_1(M_1,
{{\mathbb Z}})/(\mathrm{torsion})$. Therefore, $\rho(\mu_1)$ has non-integral trace. In particular, $\rho_1(\mu_1)$ has infinite order, and hence $\rho_1(\pi_1({\partial}M_1))$ is infinite. As $\pi_1({\partial}M_1)$ shares a finite index subgroup with $\pi_1({\partial}M_2)$, $H$ shares a finite index subgroup with $\rho_1(\pi_1({\partial}M_1))$. Thus $H$ is infinite. But we’ve already shown that $H$ is finite. This is a contradiction, and so $\rho_2$ must be reducible. This proves Claim \[claim\] and thus the theorem.
2-bridge knots to which the theorem applies {#ex_where_applies}
===========================================
Theorem \[main\_thm\] applies to many 2-bridge knots in $S^3$. A 2-bridge knot is determined by a pair of relatively prime odd integers $(p,q)$ with $0 < q < p$ (for background see [@BurdeZieschang §12], [@HatcherThurston]). In this section, we describe computations which show:
\[2-bridge\] Let $K(p,q)$ be a 2-bridge knot such that $p < 40$. Let $M$ be the exterior of $K(p,q)$. If $M$ does not fiber over the circle, then $M$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\_thm\], and so $M$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere.
Let $K(p,q)$ be a 2-bridge knot, and $M$ be its exterior. We will follow [@HildenLozanoMontesinos96], where Hilden, Lozano, and Montesinos, building on work of Burde and Riley, give a simple method for computing the ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$-character variety $X(M)$.
The standard presentation of $\pi_1(M)$ has as generators two elements $a$ and $b$, each of which is a meridian at the top of one of the two bridges. As $a$ and $b$ are conjugate, we can take coordinates on $X(M)$ to be $x = \operatorname{tr}_{a^2}$ and $z = \operatorname{tr}_{ab}$ (the latter makes sense even in ${\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ because $a$ and $b$ are conjugate). Thus $X(M)$ is a plane curve. There is a polynomial with integer coefficients $f(x,z)$ such that $X(M)$ is the set of points in ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ satisfying $f(x,z)=0$. Section 5 of [@HildenLozanoMontesinos96] gives a simple recursive procedure for computing this polynomial.
Let $M$ be the complement of a 2-bridge knot which does not fiber. Because 2-bridge knots are alternating, this is equivalent to $\Delta_M$ being non-monic (see e.g. [@BurdeZieschang §13.C]). To decide if $M$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\_thm\], we first need to factor the polynomial $f(x,z)$ into irreducible factors over ${{\mathbb C}}$, and determine which component is $X_0(M)$. Let $f_0(x,z)$ be the polynomial defining $X_0(M)$. It is easy to check that a character in $X(M)$ comes from a reducible representation if and only if $x = z$. So $X_0(M)$ contains a non-integral reducible representation if and only if the polynomial $g(x) = f_0(x,x)$ has a non-integral root.
So the hard part of checking whether Theorem \[main\_thm\] applies is determining the factor $f_0$ of $f$. First, since $f(x,z)$ has rational coefficients, there is an algorithm for factoring it over ${{\mathbb C}}$. This is because one can a priori determine a finite extension $k$ of ${{\mathbb Q}}$ such that the irreducible factors of $f$ over $k$ are the same as those of $f$ over ${{\mathbb C}}$. Take a rational line $L$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ which has simple intersections with the algebraic set $V = \{f = 0\}$ and such that $L$ and $V$ don’t intersect at infinity in ${{ {\mathbb C}\,
\mbox{\fontfamily{cmr}\fontshape{n}\selectfont P} }}^2$. Then take $k$ to be ${{\mathbb Q}}$ adjoin the coordinates of $L \cap V$. The factoring of a multivariable polynomial with coefficients in a number field is a well-studied problem (for surveys see [@Kaltofen82; @Kaltofen90]). It is worth mentioning that $f$ sometimes factors into more components over ${{\mathbb C}}$ than over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, the lexicographically smallest example being $K(45,29)$. The computations for Theorem \[2-bridge\] were done using the computer algebra system `Maple` [@Maple6], which has a built in procedure for factoring polynomials over ${{\mathbb C}}$.
For most of the 2-bridge knots included in Theorem \[2-bridge\], every factor $f_i$ of $f$ contained a non-integral reducible representation, and so it was not necessary to determine which $f_i$ defined $X_0(M)$. In the exceptional cases $\{(15, 11)$, $(27, 5)$, $(27, 11)$, $(27, 17)$, $(27, 19)$, $(33, 23)$, $(35, 29)\}$, we used the result of Section 6.4 of [@HildenLozanoMontesinos96], who determined $f_i$ for $p < 40$ ([@HildenLozanoMontesinos96] gives an algorithm for determining $f_0$ in general, but it is quite involved).
Finally, to apply Theorem \[main\_thm\] we have to check that $M$ is generic. Reid [@Reid91 §4] showed that the only arithmetic knot complement in $S^3$ is the figure-8 complement, which fibers. So $M$ is non-arithmetic. We also need to check that the cusp of the commensurator is non-rigid. We did this by checking that the cusp shape is not in ${{\mathbb Q}}(i)$ or ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$. Let $\Gamma \subset
{\mathrm{PSL}_{2} {{\mathbb C}}}$ be the image of the discrete faithful representation of $\pi_1(M)$. Conjugate $\Gamma$ so that the meridian generators are:
$$a = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}
b = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ u & 1 \end{array}\right)$$ for some $u \in {{\mathbb C}}$. Riley showed that $u$ is always an algebraic integer [@Riley72 §3]. Thus $\Gamma$ consists solely of matrices with algebraic integer entries. A longitude in the same copy of $\pi_1({\partial}M)$ as $a$ has the form
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \tau \\
0 & 1 \end{array}\right).$$ The cusp shape of $M$ is $\tau$, and so the cusp shape of $M$ is always an algebraic *integer*. The integers in ${{\mathbb Q}}(i)$ and ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$ are discrete, and so it’s easy to check numerically using [`SnapPea`]{} [@SnapPea] that the cusp shape of $M$ is not in ${{\mathbb Q}}(i)$ or ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$, and hence that $M$ is generic.
It would have been nicer to prove that every non-fibered 2-bridge knot satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[main\_thm\], but this seems a difficult thing to do—in some cases there are components of $X(M)$ which contain no reducible representations, and it is hard to see any special property $X_0(M)$ that would prevent this from happening there.
Actually, worrying about how $f$ splits up over ${{\mathbb C}}$ as opposed to ${{\mathbb Q}}$ is not really necessary. The character varieties and all the maps between them in the proof of Theorem \[main\_thm\] are all defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. Thus we could weaken the hypothesis of having a non-integral reducible representation in $X_0(M_1)$ to having a such a representation in the ${{\mathbb Q}}$-irreducible component of $X(M)$ containing $X_0(M_1)$.
Examples of fibered and non-fibered pairs {#fiber_and_non}
=========================================
The dodecahedral knots
----------------------
The two dodecahedral knots $D_f$ and $D_s$ were introduced by Aitchison and Rubinstein in [@AitchisonRubinstein92]. They are a pair of knots in $S^3$. The complements $M_f$ and $M_s$ are hyperbolic and both are quotients of ${{\mathbb H}}^3$ by subgroups of the symmetry group of the tiling of ${{\mathbb H}}^3$ by $\{5, 3, 6\}$-ideal dodecahedra. Thus $M_f$ and $M_s$ are commensurable. In [@AitchisonRubinstein92], they show that $M_f$ is fibered. On the other hand, $M_s$ is not fibered because its Alexander polynomial is non-monic: $$\Delta_{M_s}=25t^4 - 250t^3 + 1035t^2 - 2300t + 2981 - 2300t^{-1} +
1035t^{-2} - 240t^{-3} + 25t^{-4}.$$ The commensurator of $M_f$ and $M_s$ has a rigid cusp, and so $D_f$ and $D_s$ are not generic (though they are non-arithmetic). So the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\_thm\] are not satisfied by $M_s$.
Small volume examples
---------------------
Here is an example of two 1-cusped manifolds which are commensurable where one is fibered and the other not. The two manifolds are $M_1 = m035$ and $M_2 = m039$ from the Callahan-Hildebrand-Weeks census [@CallahanHildebrandWeeks]. These manifolds have the same volume, $3.177293278...$, and same first homology group, ${{\mathbb Z}}/4{{\mathbb Z}}\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}$. Weeks’ computer program [`SnapPea`]{} [@SnapPea], checks that $M_1$ and $M_2$ have a common 2-fold cover. Presentations for the manifolds’ fundamental groups are: $$\pi_1(M_1) = {{ \left\langle {a,b} \ \left| \ {a b^3 a^{-2} b^3 a b^{-2}} \right. \right\rangle }} {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}
\pi_1(M_2) = {{ \left\langle {a,b} \ \left| \ {a b^4 a b^{-1} a^{-1} b^2 a^{-1} b^{-1} } \right. \right\rangle }}.$$ An easy calculation shows that the Alexander polynomials are: $$\Delta_{M_1} = 3 t - 2 + 3 t^{-1} {\quad\mbox{and}\quad} \Delta_{M_2} = t - 6 + t^{-1}.$$ Because of the lead coefficient of $\Delta_{M_1}$, the manifold $M_1$ does not fiber over $S^1$. On the other hand, $M_2$ is the punctured torus bundle over $S^1$ with monodromy $+L^4 R$.
Goodman’s program [`Snap`]{} [@Snap], calculates that these manifolds are not arithmetic and that the cusp field is a cubic extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}$. Thus they are generic. It is not too hard to check that there are non-integral reducible representations on $X_0(M_1)$. Thus this example shows that the hypothesis of Theorem \[main\_thm\] requiring knot complements in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology sphere is necessary. Some further examples among the census manifolds are:
- The pair $(m037, m040)$ have a common 2-fold cover and $m037$ doesn’t fiber but $m040$ does. This pair is also commensurable with $m035$ and $m039$ via 4-fold covers.
- The pair $(m139,m140)$ have a common 4-fold cover, and $m139$ doesn’t fiber but $m140$ does. Both of these manifold are arithmetic and so not generic.
None of these examples are knot complements in ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-homology spheres.
The strategy for finding these examples was this. First, we used the data provided with [`Snap`]{} to get a list of census manifolds grouped by commensurability invariants. Then we used Lackenby’s taut ideal triangulations [@Lackenby2000] to identify many census manifolds which fiber over $S^1$. From this, we selected pairs of manifolds whose trace field and cusp density were the same, one of which fibered and the other of which did not appear to fiber. Most of the census manifolds fiber, making examples rare.
Surgeries on the Whitehead link
-------------------------------
Let $W$ be the complement of the Whitehead link in $S^3$. Let $W(a,b)$ denote the 1-cusped manifold obtained by filling in one of the two cusps of $W$ via $(a,b)$ Dehn filling. Hodgson, Meyerhoff, and Weeks gave a very elegant construction of a family of fibered/non-fibered pairs which are fillings of $W$ [@HodgsonMeyerhoffWeeks]. They showed that
Let $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ be a multiple of $4$, $m \not\in \{0, 4\}$. Then $M_1 =
W(m, -1-(m/2))$ and $M_2 = W(m, -1)$ are a pair of 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds such that:
- $M_1$ and $M_2$ have a common 2-fold cover with two cusps.
- $M_1$ does not fiber over $S^1$ because its Alexander polynomial is not monic.
- $M_2$ fibers over $S^1$, being the punctured torus bundle with monodromy $\pm R L^m$.
These examples overlap with the ones in the preceding section. Namely, the pairs $(m035$, $m039)$ and $(m037, m040)$ are of this type. The manifold $M_1$ doesn’t satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\_thm\] because $H_1(M_1; {{\mathbb Z}}) = {{\mathbb Z}}\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}/m{{\mathbb Z}}$. As $m$ is divisible by $4$, $M_1$ is not a knot complement in a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ homology sphere.
[HMW]{}
I. R. Aitchison and J. H. Rubinstein, *Combinatorial cubings, cusps, and the dodecahedral knots*, Topology ’90 (Columbus, OH, 1990), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1992, pp. 17–26. [MR ]{}[93i:57016]{}
Robert Bieri, Walter D. Neumann, and Ralph Strebel, *A geometric invariant of discrete groups*, Invent. Math. **90** (1987), no. 3, 451–477. [MR ]{}[89b:20108]{}
A. Borel, *Commensurability classes and volumes of hyperbolic $3$-manifolds*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) **8** (1981), no. 1, 1–33. [MR ]{}[82j:22008]{}
Kenneth S. Brown, *Trees, valuations, and the [B]{}ieri-[N]{}eumann-[S]{}trebel invariant*, Invent. Math. **90** (1987), no. 3, 479–504. [MR ]{}[89e:20060]{}
Michel Boileau and Shicheng Wang, *Non-zero degree maps and surface bundles over ${S}\sp 1$*, J. Differential Geom. **43** (1996), no. 4, 789–806. [MR ]{}[98g:57023]{}
S. Boyer and X. Zhang, *On [C]{}uller-[S]{}halen seminorms and [D]{}ehn filling*, Ann. of Math. (2) **148** (1998), no. 3, 737–801. [MR ]{}[2000d:57028]{}
Gerhard Burde and Heiner Zieschang, *Knots*, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1985. [MR ]{}[87b:57004]{}
Marc Culler, C. McA. Gordon, J. Luecke, and Peter B. Shalen, *Dehn surgery on knots*, Ann. of Math. (2) **125** (1987), no. 2, 237–300. [MR ]{}[88a:57026]{}
Patrick J. Callahan, Martin V. Hildebrand, and Jeffrey R. Weeks, *A census of cusped hyperbolic $3$-manifolds*, Math. Comp. **68** (1999), no. 225, 321–332. [MR ]{}[99c:57035]{}
Marc Culler and Peter B. Shalen, *Varieties of group representations and splittings of $3$-manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2) **117** (1983), no. 1, 109–146. [MR ]{}[84k:57005]{}
Nathan M. Dunfield, *Alexander and thurston norms of 3-manifolds fibering over the circle*, Pacific J. Math **200** (2001), no. 1, 43–58, arXiv:math.GT/9908050.
O. Goodman, *[S]{}nap*, [http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/\~ snap/]{}.
Hugh M. Hilden, Mar[í]{}a Teresa Lozano, and Jos[é]{} Mar[í]{}a Montesinos-Amilibia, *On the arithmetic $2$-bridge knots and link orbifolds and a new knot invariant*, J. Knot Theory Ramifications **4** (1995), no. 1, 81–114. [MR ]{}[96a:57019]{}
Craig D. Hodgson, G. Robert Meyerhoff, and Jeffrey R. Weeks, *Surgeries on the [W]{}hitehead link yield geometrically similar manifolds*, Topology ’90 (Columbus, OH, 1990), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1992, pp. 195–206. [MR ]{}[93i:57019]{}
A. Hatcher and W. Thurston, *Incompressible surfaces in $2$-bridge knot complements*, Invent. Math. **79** (1985), no. 2, 225–246. [MR ]{}[86g:57003]{}
E. Kaltofen, *Polynomial factorization*, Computer Algebra (B. Buchberger, G. Collins, and R. Loos, eds.), Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2 ed., 1982, pp. 95–113.
Erich Kaltofen, *Polynomial factorization 1982–1986*, Computers in mathematics (Stanford, CA, 1986), Dekker, New York, 1990, pp. 285–309. [MR ]{}[92f:12001]{}
Rob Kirby, *Problems in low-dimensional topology*, Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, `http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/`, pp. 35–473. [MR ]{}[1 470 751]{}
Marc Lackenby, *Taut ideal triangulations of 3-manifolds*, Geom. Topol. **4** (2000), 369–395, arXiv:math.GT/0003132. [MR ]{}[1 790 190]{}
D. D. Long and A. W. Reid, *Commensurability and the character variety*, Math. Res. Lett. **6** (1999), no. 5-6, 581–591. [MR ]{}[2000m:57017]{}
Alexander Lubotzky, *Subgroup growth and congruence subgroups*, Invent. Math. **119** (1995), no. 2, 267–295. [MR ]{}[95m:20054]{}
Curtis T. McMullen, *The [A]{}lexander polynomial of a 3-manifold and the [T]{}hurston norm on cohomology*, Preprint, 1998.
Alan W. Reid, *Arithmeticity of knot complements*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) **43** (1991), no. 1, 171–184. [MR ]{}[92a:57011]{}
Robert Riley, *Parabolic representations of knot groups. [I]{}*, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **24** (1972), 217–242. [MR ]{}[45 \#9313]{}
Dale Rolfsen, *Knots and links*, Publish or Perish Inc., Berkeley, Calif., 1976, Mathematics Lecture Series, No. 7. [MR ]{}[58 \#24236]{}
P. B. Shalen, *Representations of 3-manifold groups*, Handbook of geometric topology, Elsevier Press, to appear.
John Stallings, *On fibering certain $3$-manifolds*, Topology of 3-manifolds and related topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962, pp. 95–100. [MR ]{}[28 \#1600]{}
William P. Thurston, *Three-dimensional manifolds, [K]{}leinian groups and hyperbolic geometry*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) **6** (1982), no. 3, 357–381. [MR ]{}[83h:57019]{}
V. G. Turaev, *The [A]{}lexander polynomial of a three-dimensional manifold*, Math. USSR Sbornik **26** (1975), 313–329. [MR ]{}[52 \#4306]{}
J. Weeks, *[S]{}nap[P]{}ea*, [http://www.northnet.org/weeks/]{}.
aterloo [M]{}aple [S]{}oftware, *[M]{}aple [6]{}*, 2000.
[^1]: Both authors were partially supported by the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider a certain sequence of homogeneous flat vector bundles on a compact locally symmetric orbifold, and we compute explicitly the associated asymptotic Ray-Singer analytic torsion. The basic idea is converting this question via the Selberg’s trace formula into computing the semisimple orbital integrals. Then the central part is to evaluate the elliptic orbital integrals which are not identity orbital integrals. For that purpose, we deduce a geometric localization formula, so that we can rewrite an elliptic orbital integral as a sum of certain identity orbital integrals associated with a smaller Lie group. The explicit geometric formula of Bismut for semisimple orbital integrals plays an essential role in these computations.'
author:
- Bingxiao LIU
bibliography:
- 'References2.bib'
title: On full asymptotics of analytic torsions for compact locally symmetric orbifolds
---
\[subsection\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Example]{}
Introduction
============
Let $(Z,g^{TZ})$ be closed Riemannian manifold of dimension $m$, and let $(F,\nabla^{F,f})\rightarrow Z$ be a flat complex vector bundle equipped with a Hermitian metric $h^{F}$. Let $(\Omega^\cdot(Z,F),
d^{Z,F})$ be the associated de Rham complex valued in $F$. It is equipped with an $L_{2}$-metric induced by $g^{TZ}$, $h^{F}$. Let $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}$ be the corresponding de Rham - Hodge Laplacian. The real analytic torsion $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$ is a (graded) spectral invariant of $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}$ introduced by Ray and Singer [@RaySinger1971a; @RaySinger1973]. When $Z$ is odd-dimensional, this invariant does not depend on the metric data $g^{TZ}$, $h^{F}$. Ray and Singer also conjectured that, for unitarily flat vector bundle $F$ (i.e., $\nabla^{F,f}h^{F}=0$), this invariant coincides with the Reidemeister torsion, a topological invariant associated with $(F,\nabla^{F,f})\rightarrow Z$. This conjecture was later proved by Cheeger [@MR528965] and Müller [@MR498252]. Using the Witten deformation, Bismut and Zhang [@MR1139837; @bismutzhang1992] gave an extension of the Cheeger-Müller theorem for arbitrary flat vector bundles.
If $Z$ is a compact orbifold, and if $F$ is a flat orbifold vector bundle on $Z$, the Ray-Singer analytic torsion $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$ extends naturally to this case (cf. Definition \[def:2.2.5ss20\]). In particular, if $F$ is acyclic, and if $m$ is odd, then $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$ is independent of the metric data (cf. [@2017arXiv170408369S Corollary 4.9]). We refer to [@MR2140438], [@2017arXiv170408369S], etc for more details.
In this paper, we consider a certain sequence of (acyclic) flat vector bundles $\{F_{d}\}_{d\in
{\mathbb{N}}}$ on a compact locally symmetric space $Z$, and we study the asymptotic behavior of $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})$ as $d\rightarrow +\infty$. When $Z$ is smooth, i.e., $\Gamma$ is torsion-free, such question was already studied by Müller [@Muller2012torsion], by Bismut-Ma-Zhang [@MR2838248; @BMZ2015toeplitz] and by Müller-Pfaff [@MP2013raysinger; @MR3128980]. When $Z$ is a compact hyperbolic orbifold, such question was studied by Ksenia Fedosova in [@Fedosova2015compact] using the method of harmonic analysis. Here, we consider this question for an arbitrary compact locally symmetric orbifold (of noncompact type).
Let $G$ be a connected linear reductive Lie group, and let $\theta\in \mathrm{Aut}(G)$ be a Cartan involution. Let $K\subset G$ be the fixed point set of $\theta$, which is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. Put $$X=G/K.
\label{eq:0.1.1fev}$$ Then $X$ is a symmetric space. For convenience, we also assume that $G$ has a compact center, then $X$ is of noncompact type.
Now let $\Gamma\subset G$ be a cocompact discrete subgroup. Set $$Z=\Gamma\backslash X.$$ Then $Z$ is a compact locally symmetric space. In general, $Z$ is an orbifold. Let $\Sigma Z$ denote the orbifold resolution of the singular points in $Z$, whose connected components are corresponding to nontrivial elliptic conjugacy classes of $\Gamma$.
Since $G$ has compact center, the compact form $U$ of $G$ exists and is a connected compact linear Lie group. If $(E,\rho^{E}, h^{E})$ is a unitary (analytic) representation of $U$, then it extends uniquely to a representation of $G$ by unitary trick. This way, $F=G\times_K E$ is a (unimodular) vector bundle on $X$ equipped with an invariant flat connection $\nabla^{F,f}$ and a Hermitian metric $h^{F}$ induced by $h^{E}$. Moreover, $(F,\nabla^{F,f},h^{F})$ descends to a flat orbifold vector bundle on $Z$. Let $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}$ denote the corresponding de Rham - Hodge Laplacian.
The fundamental rank $\delta(G)$ (or $\delta(X)$) of $G$ (or $X$) is the difference of the complex ranks of $G$ and of $K$. As we will see in Theorem \[thm:4.1.4paris20\], if $\delta(G)\neq 1$, we always have $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F)=0.
\label{eq:1.0.4fp2}$$ If $F$ is defined instead by a unitary representation of $\Gamma$, this result is obtained by Moscovici and Stanton [@MS1991 Corollary 2.2]. If $\Gamma$ is torsion-free, with $F$ defined via a representation of $G$ as above, was proved in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Remark 8.7] by using Bismut’s formula for orbital integrals [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1] (also cf. [@Ma2017bourbaki Theorems 5.4 & 5.5]). A new proof was given in [@MR3128980 Proposition 4.2]. Note that in [@Ma2017bourbaki Remark 5.6], Ma has indicated that, using essentially [@Ma2017bourbaki Theorem 5.4], the identity still holds if $\Gamma$ is not torsion-free (i.e., $Z$ is an orbifold), which gives us exactly Theorem \[thm:4.1.4paris20\] here. Due to this vanishing result, we only need to deal with the case $\delta(G)=1$.
We now describe the sequence of flat vector bundles $\{F_{d}\}_{d\in
{\mathbb{N}}}$ which is concerned here. After fixing a root data for $U$, let $P_{++}(U)$ denote the set of (real) dominant weights of $U$. If $\lambda\in P_{++}(U)$, let $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $U$ with the highest weight $\lambda$. We extend it to a representation of $G$. We require $\lambda$ to be nondegenerate, i.e., as $G$-representations, $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_\lambda})$ is not isomorphic to $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}}\circ\theta)$. We also take an arbitrary $\lambda_{0}\in
P_{++}(U)$. If $d\in\mathbb{N}$, let $(E_{d},\rho^{E_d}, h^{E_{d}})$ be the unitary representation of $U$ with highest weight $d\lambda+\lambda_{0}$. By Weyl’s dimension formula, $\dim E_{d}$ is a polynomial in $d$. This way, we get a sequence of (unimodular) flat vector bundles $\{(F_{d},\nabla^{F_{d}},h^{F_{d}})\}_{d\in
{\mathbb{N}}}$ on $X$ or on $Z$.
Note that we do not have a canonical choice of $h^{E_{d}}$ (or $h^{F_{d}}$) for each $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, but this makes no trouble here. Indeed, since $\lambda$ is nondegenerate, for $d$ large enough, we will have $$H^{\cdot}(Z,F_{d})=0.
\label{eq:1.00cohom}$$ Furthermore, $\dim Z$ is odd when $\delta(G)=1$. Then $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})$ is independent of the different choices of $h^{E_{d}}$ (or $h^{F_{d}}$).
Let $E[\Gamma]$ be the finite set of elliptic classes in $\Gamma$. Set $E^{+}[\Gamma]=E[\Gamma]\backslash\{1\}$. The first main result in this paper is the following theorem.
\[thm:0.00001s\] Assume that $\delta(G)=1$. There exists a (real) polynomial $P(d)$ in $d$, and for each $[\gamma]\in
E^{+}[\Gamma]$, there exists a nice pseudopolynomial $PE^{[\gamma]}(d)$ in $d$ (i.e., a finite sum of the terms of the form $\alpha
d^{l}e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\beta
d}$ with $\alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}, l\in{\mathbb{N}}, \beta\in \mathbb{Q}$), such that there exists a constant $c>0$, for $d$ large, we have $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})=P(d)+\sum_{[\gamma]\in E^{+}[\Gamma]}
PE^{[\gamma]}(d)+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}).
\label{eq:1.0.6kkss}$$ Moreover, the degrees of $P(d)$, $PE_{[\gamma]}(d)$ can be determined in terms of $\lambda$, $\lambda_{0}$.
In [@Muller2012torsion Theorem 1.1], for a hyperbolic $3$-manifold $Z$, Müller computed explicitly the leading term of $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})$ as $d\rightarrow +\infty$. In [@MR2838248; @BMZ2015toeplitz], under a more general setting for a closed manifold $Z$, Bismut, Ma and Zhang proved that there exists a constant $c>0$ such that [@BMZ2015toeplitz Remark 7.8] $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})=\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}),
\label{eq:L2torsion}$$ where $\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})$ denotes the $L_{2}$-torsion [@MR1158345][@MATHAI1992369] associated with $F_{d}\rightarrow Z$. Moreover, they constructed universally an element $W\in\Omega^{\bullet}(Z,o(TZ))$ such that if $n_{0}=\deg E_{d}$, then $$\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})=d^{n_{0}+1}\int_{Z} W
+\mathcal{O}(d^{n_{0}}).
\label{eq:Wleading}$$ The integral of $W$ in the right-hand side of is called a $W$-invariant. If we specialize for a compact locally symmetric manifold $Z$, we get $$\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})=d^{n_{0}+1}\mathrm{Vol}(Z)[W]^{\mathrm{max}}
+\mathcal{O}(d^{n_{0}}).
\label{eq:Wleading2}$$ In [@BMZ2015toeplitz Subsection 8.7], the explicit computation on $[W]^{\mathrm{max}}$ was carried out for $G=\mathrm{SL}_{2}({\mathbb{C}})$ to recover the result of Müller [@Muller2012torsion Theorem 1.1].
We now compare with . If ignoring that $\Gamma$ may act on $X$ non-effectively, we can extend the notion of $L_{2}$-torsion to the orbifold $Z$, so that $\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})$ is still defined in terms of the $\Gamma$-trace of certain heat operators on $X$. Then the term $P(d)$ in will be exactly $\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})$. But different from , we still have the nontrivial terms $PE^{[\gamma]}(d)$, $[\gamma]\in E^{+}[\Gamma]$ in . We will see, in a refined version of stated in Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\], that the term $PE^{[\gamma]}(d)$ is an oscillating combination of the $L_{2}$-torsions for $\Sigma Z$ associated with several smaller versions of the sequence $\{F_{d}\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$. Therefore, we can define a special $L_{2}$-torsion for $\Sigma Z$ as follows, $$\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})=\sum_{[\gamma]\in E^{+}[\Gamma]}
PE^{[\gamma]}(d).
\label{eq:1.0.11v2}$$ Then, as an analogue to , we restate our Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] as follows.
[1.0.1’]{}\[thm:1.0.1bis\] Assume that $\Gamma$ acts on $X$ effectively. For $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$, as $d\rightarrow +\infty$, we have $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})=\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})+\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}).
\label{eq:L2orbifolds}$$ Moreover, $\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})$ is a polynomial in $d$, and $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})$ is a nice pseudopolynomial in $d$. Their leading terms can be determined in terms of $W$-invariants as in .
In , the term $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})$ represents the nontrivial contribution of $\Sigma Z$. Such term is always expected in the context of orbifold. Note that if $\Gamma$ acts on $X$ non-effectively, we should use Propositions \[prop:3.4.1lead\] & \[prop:3.5.2news\] to understand properly the $L_{2}$-torsions in Theorem \[thm:1.0.1bis\].
For a compact locally symmetric manifold $Z$, Müller and Pfaff in [@MR3128980] (also in [@MP2013raysinger] for hyperbolic case) gave a new proof to and showed that $\mathcal{T}_{L_{2}}(Z,F_{d})$ is a polynomial in $d$. This way, they proved Theorem \[thm:1.0.1bis\] with $\Sigma
Z=\emptyset$.
Let us give more detail on their results. Let $\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}$ be the $G$-invariant Laplacian operator on $X$ which is the lift of $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}$. For $t>0$, let $p_{t}^{X,F_{d}}(x,x')$ denote the heat kernel of $\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}$ with respect to the Riemannian volume element on $X$. For $t>0$, the identity orbital integral $\mathcal{I}_{X}(E_d,t)$ of $p^{X,F_{d}}_{t}$ is defined as $$\mathcal{I}_{X}(F_d,t)=\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}_{x}X)\otimes
F_{d,x}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}_{x}X)}-\frac{m}{2})p^{X,F_{d}}_{t}(x,x)],
\label{eq:04.2.4ppaa}$$ where $N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}_{x}X)}$ is the number operator on $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}_{x}X)$, and the right-hand side of is independent of the choice of $x\in X$. Let $\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_d,s)$, $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ denote the Mellin transform (cf. ) of $\mathcal{I}_{X}(F_d,t)$. Then it is holomorphic at $0$, and we set $$\mathcal{PI}_{X}(F_d)=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}|_{s=0}
\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_d,s).
\label{eq:04.2.6kk20}$$ The $L_{2}$-torsion is defined as $$\mathcal{T}_{L^{2}}(Z,F_{d})=\mathrm{Vol}(Z)\mathcal{PI}_{X}(F_d).
\label{eq:1.0.7mar20}$$
Using essentially the Harish-Chandra’s Plancherel theorem for $\mathcal{I}_{X}(F_d,t)$, Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980] managed to show that $\mathcal{PI}_{X}(F_d)$ is a polynomial in $d$ (for $d$ large enough), so that there exists a constant $C_{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}>0$ such that $$\mathcal{PI}_{X}(F_d)=C_{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}d\dim E_{d}+R(d),
\label{eq:1.0.9parisconf}$$ where $R(d)$ is a polynomial in $d$ of degree no greater than $\deg \dim E_{d}$. They also gave concrete formulae for $C_{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}$ in some model cases [@MR3128980 Corollaries 1.4 & 1.5].
As we said before, the polynomial $P(d)$ in our Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] is essentially the same one in obtained by Müller and Pfaff. In Subsection \[section7.3\], we use instead an explicit geometric formula of Bismut [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1] for semisimple orbital integrals to give a different computation on $\mathcal{PI}_{X}(F_d)$. In Subsection \[section7.4kk\], we verify that our computational results coincide with the ones of Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980].
If $Z$ is a hyperbolic orbifold, i.e. $G=\mathrm{Spin}(1,2n+1)$, the result in Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] (or Theorem \[thm:1.0.1bis\]) was obtained by Ksenia Fedosova in [@Fedosova2015compact Theorem 1.1], where she got the pseudopolynomials $PE^{[\gamma]}(d)$ by evaluating the elliptic orbital integrals associated with nontrivial elliptic elements in $\Gamma$. Correspondingly, for any $Z$ in our setting, a key ingredient to Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] is to evaluate explicitly the elliptic orbital integrals associated with $[\gamma]\in E^{+}[\Gamma]$. For that purpose, we have the full power of Bismut’s formula [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1].
Instead of proving Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\], we would like to state a refined version of it, where we give more explicit descriptions on the pseudopolynomials $PE^{[\gamma]}(d)$ or $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})$. For a clear statement of our results, we need introduce some notations and facts. Note that $U$ contains $K$ as a Lie subgroup. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $K$, and let $T_{U}$ be the the maximal torus of $U$ containing $T$.
Let $X(k)$ denote the fixed point set of $k$ acting on $X$. Then $X(k)$ is a connected symmetric space with $\delta(X(k))=1$. Let $Z(k)^{0}$ be the identity component of the centralizer $Z(k)$ of $k$ in $G$. Then $X(k)=Z(k)^{0}/K(k)^{0}$ with $K(k)^{0}=Z(k)^{0}\cap K$. Let $U(k)$ denote the centralizer of $k$ in $U$. Then $U(k)^{0}$ is naturally a compact form of $Z(k)^{0}$. Then the triple $(X(k),Z(k)^{0},U(k)^{0})$ becomes a smaller version of $(X,G,U)$, except that $Z(k)^{0}$ may have noncompact center.
Let ${\mathfrak{u}}$ be the Lie algebra of $U$, and let ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}\subset {\mathfrak{u}}$ be the Lie algebra of $T_{U}$. Let $R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ be the associated real root system with a system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Then $P_{++}(U)\subset {\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{\ast}$ is taken with respect to the above root data.
Now we fix $k\in T$, and let ${\mathfrak{u}}(k)$ denote the Lie algebra of $U(k)^{0}$. Then $T_{U}$ is also a maximal torus of $U(k)^{0}$. We get the following splitting of root systems $$R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})=R({\mathfrak{u}}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})\cup
R({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}),
\label{eq:mmmmtttt}$$ where ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(k)$ is the orthogonal space of ${\mathfrak{u}}(k)$ in ${\mathfrak{u}}$ with respect to the Killing form. Let $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ be the induced positive root systems, and let $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$, $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(k)}$ denote the half of the sum of the roots in $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ respectively.
Let $W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$ be the Weyl group associated with the pair $({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Put $$W^{1}_{U}(k)=\{\omega\in W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})\;|\;
\omega^{-1}(R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}))\subset R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})\}.
\label{eq:05.4.13ss20}$$ If $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$, let $\varepsilon(\sigma)$ denote its sign. If $\mu\in P_{++}(U)$, set $$\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,\mu)=\varepsilon(\sigma)\frac{\xi_{\sigma(\mu+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}}(k)}{\Pi_{\alpha\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(k),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})}(\xi_{\alpha}(k)-1)}\in{\mathbb{C}}^{\ast},
\label{eq:06.2.7kk20}$$ where $\xi_{\alpha}$ is the character of $T_{U}$ with (dominant) weight $2\pi\sqrt{-1}\alpha$.
Now we state our second main theorem.
\[thm:maintheorem\] Assume that $\delta(G)=1$. For elliptic $\gamma\in G$, there exists a pseudopolynomial $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ in $d$ (cf. Definition \[def:7.5.1kk20\]) such that
1. ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ depends only on the conjugacy class of $\gamma$ in $G$, and $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,1}(F_d)={\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d}).
\label{eq:1.0.22kkss}$$
2. If $\gamma=k\in T$, for $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$, $\sigma\lambda$ is a nondegenerate dominant weight of $U(k)^{0}$. Let $E^{k}_{\sigma,d}$ denote the unitary representations of $U(k)^{0}$ (up to a finite central extension) with highest weight $d\sigma\lambda+\sigma(\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(k)}$, $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and let $\{F^{k}_{\sigma,d}\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ be the corresponding sequence of flat vector bundles on $X(k)$.
3. If $\gamma=k\in T$, we have $$\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)=\sum_{\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)}
\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})
\mathcal{PI}_{X(k)}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d}),
\label{eq:1.0.22parisconf}$$ where $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ is given by , and $\mathcal{PI}_{X(k)}(F^{k}_{d,\sigma})$ is just the (real) polynomial in $d$ defined via with the sequence $F^{k}_{\sigma,d}\rightarrow X(k)$. Moreover, there exist constants $C^{k}_{\sigma}>0$, $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$ such that $$\mathcal{PI}_{X(k)}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d})=C^{k}_{\sigma}d\dim
E^{k}_{\sigma,d}+R^{k}_{\sigma}(d),
\label{eq:1.0.23parisconf}$$ where $R^{k}_{\sigma}(d)$ is a polynomial in $d$ $\leq \deg\dim E^{k}_{\sigma,d}$.
4. For $\sigma\in
W^{1}_{U}(k)$, $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ is an oscillating term of the form $c_{1}e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}c_{2}d}$ with $c_{1}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{\ast}$, $c_{2}\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, if $\gamma$ is of finite order, ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ is a nice pseudopolynomial in $d$ (i.e. the parameter $c_{2}\in \mathbb{Q}$).
5. If $\Gamma\subset G$ is a cocompact discrete subgroup, if $\gamma\in \Gamma$ is elliptic, let $S(\gamma)$ denote the finite subgroup of $\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)$ which acts on $X(\gamma)$ trivially. Then there exists a constant $c>0$, such that for $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$, as $d\rightarrow +\infty$, we have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{T}(Z,
F_{d})=&\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(Z)}{|S|}{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_d)\\
&+\sum_{[\gamma]\in
E^{+}[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|} {\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:04.2.5kk20}$$ In particular, each ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ in is a nice pseudopolynomial in $d$.
Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] now is just a consequence of . Note that for $[\gamma]\in E^{+}[\Gamma]$, the (compact) orbifold $\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma)$ represents an orbifold stratum in $\Sigma Z$. An important observation on is that the sequence $\{\mathcal{T}(Z,
F_{d})\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ encodes the volume information of $Z$ and of $\Sigma Z$. Moreover, combining , with , we justify that the quantity $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{L_{2}}(\Sigma Z, F_{d})$ defined by is indeed a certain $L_{2}$-torsion for $\Sigma
Z$. For saving notation, in the rest part of this paper, we will not discuss any further about the $L_{2}$-torsions, but focus on Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\].
Now we explain our approach to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\]. Note that the result (2) in it follows from the representation theory, and (4) is an observation on the defining formula of $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$. Moreover, is just a consequence of . Therefore, we will concentrate on defining $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$, and on explaining and .
Let us begin with . In fact, $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_d)$ can be rewritten as the derivative at $0$ of the Mellin transform of $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}/2)],\; t>0,
\label{eq:1.0.24parisconf}$$ where $\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[\cdot]$ denotes the supertrace with respect to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$-grading on $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)$.
If $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, let $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ denote the orbital integral (cf. Subsection \[section3.3\]) of the Schwartz kernel of $(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}/2)$ associated with $\gamma$. Note that in $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$, we should take the supertrace of the endomorphism on $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)\otimes F$ as in . Moreover, $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ depends only on the conjugacy class of $\gamma$ in $G$. Let $\mathcal{ME}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,s)$ denote the Mellin transform of $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$, $t>0$ with appropriate $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$.
We use the notation in Subsection \[section3.5\]. Let $[\Gamma]$ denote the set of the conjugacy classes in $\Gamma$. By applying the Selberg’s trace formula to $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$, we get $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}/2)]=\sum_{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash
X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t).
\end{split}
\label{eq:03.5.14ksd}$$ Now we compare with . Then a proof to mainly includes the following three parts:
1. We show that if $[\gamma]\in E[\Gamma]$, then $\mathcal{ME}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,s)$ admits a meromorphic extension to $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ which is holomorphic at $s=0$. Thus we define $$\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}|_{s=0}
\mathcal{ME}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,s).
\label{eq:01.0.25kk20}$$ Then $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ satisfies well the result $(1)$ in Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\]. Such consideration extends to every elliptic element $\gamma\in G$.
2. If $\gamma\in G$ is elliptic, we show that $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ is a pseudopolynomial in $d$ for $d$ large enough. Moreover, if $\gamma$ is also of finite order, for instance, $[\gamma]\in E[\Gamma]$, then $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ is a nice pseudopolynomial.
3. We prove that all the terms in the big sum of associated with nonelliptic $[\gamma]\in
[\Gamma]$ contribute as $\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd})$ in $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_d)$.
Indeed, to handle the contribution of the nonelliptic $[\gamma]\in
[\Gamma]$, we use a spectral gap of $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}$ due to the nondegeneracy of $\lambda$. By [@MR2838248 Théorème 3.2], [@BMZ2015toeplitz Theorem 4.4] which holds for a more general setting (cf. also [@MR3128980 Proposition 7.5, Corollary 7.6] for a proof by using representation theory for symmetric spaces), there exist constants $C>0$, $c>0$ such that for $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $$\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}\geq cd^{2}-C.
\label{eq:1.0.27kkss20}$$ That is why holds for $d$ large enough. The Part 3 follows from a technical argument which makes good use of and the fact that nonelliptic elements in $\Gamma$ admit a uniform positive lower bound for their displacement distances on $X$.
For elliptic $\gamma\in \Gamma$, we apply Bismut’s formula [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1] to evaluate $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$. Then we can write $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$ as an Gaussian-like integral with the integrand given as a product of an analytic function determined by the adjoint action of $\gamma$ on Lie algebras and the character $\chi_{E_{d}}$ of the representation $E_{d}$. By coordinating these two factors, especially using all sorts of character formulae for $\chi_{E_{d}}$, we can integrate it out. We show that $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$ is a finite sum of the terms as follows, $$t^{-j-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-t(cd+b)^{2}}Q(d),
\label{eq:1.0.28kkss}$$ where $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $c\neq 0$, $b$ are real constants, and $Q(d)$ is a (nice) pseudopolynomial in $d$. It is crucial that $c\neq 0$. Indeed, we will see in Subsection \[section4.3\] that this quantity $c$ measures the difference between the representations $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ and $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}}\circ \theta)$.
By , $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ is well-defined in , which is a (nice) pseudopolynomial in $d$ (for $d$ large enough). The details on these computations are carried out in Subsections \[section7.3\] and \[subsection7.5\], where we apply the techniques inspired by the computations in Shen’s approach to the Fried conjecture [@Shen_2016 Section 7].
The formula is a refined version of the above results on $\mathcal{PE}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$, since each $\mathcal{PI}_{X(k)}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d})$ is already well understood. For proving it, we apply a geometric localization formula for $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$ as follows.
\[thm:local0000\] Assume that $\delta(G)=1$. We use the same notation as in Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\]. Let $\gamma\in \Gamma$ be semisimple, up to a conjugation, we can write $\gamma$ uniquely as a commuting product of its elliptic part $k\in
T$ and its hyperbolic part $\gamma_{h}\in G$. Then there exists a constant $c(\gamma)>0$ such that for $t>0$, $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $$\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)=c(\gamma)\sum_{\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)}
\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})
\mathcal{E}_{X(k),\gamma_{h}}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d},t).
\label{eq:1.0.29sskk}$$
The above theorem will be restated as Theorem \[thm:6.2.1ss\]. When $\gamma=k\in T$, then $\gamma_{h}=1$ and $c(\gamma)=1$. Then reduces to $$\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)=\sum_{\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)}
\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})
\mathcal{I}_{X(k)}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d},t).
\label{eq:1.0.30sskk}$$ After taking the Mellin transform on both sides of , we get exactly .
Our approach to Theorem \[thm:local0000\] is a more delicate application of Bismut’s formula [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1]. As we said before, $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$, $\mathcal{E}_{X(k),\gamma_{h}}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d},t)$ are equal to integrals of some integrands involving $\chi_{E_{d}}$, $\chi_{E^{k}_{\sigma,d}}$ respectively. To relate the both sides of , we employ a generalized version of Kirillov character formula (cf. Theorem \[thm:5.4.4ss20\]) which gives an explicit way of decomposing $\chi_{E_{d}}|_{U(k)^{0}}$ into a sum of $\chi_{E^{k}_{\sigma,d}}$, $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$. This character formula was proved by Duflo, Heckman and Vergne in [@DufloHeckmanVergne1984 Theorem (7)] under a general setting, and we will recall its special case for our need in Subsection \[section5.4\]. Then we expand the integral for $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$ carefully, after replacing $\chi_{E_{d}}|_{U(k)^{0}}$ by the sum of $\chi_{E^{k}_{\sigma,d}}$, we rewrite this big integral as a sum of certain small integrals. Then we verify that each small integral is exactly some $\mathcal{E}_{X(k),\gamma_{h}}(F^{k}_{\sigma,d},t)$ by Bismut’s formula. This way, we prove .
Theorem \[thm:local0000\] can be interpreted as follows, the elliptic part $k$ in $\gamma$ could lead to a geometric localization onto its fixed point set $X(k)$ when we evaluate the orbital integrals. Even thought we only prove it for a very restrictive situation, we still expect such phenomenon in general due to a geometric formulation for the semisimple orbital integrals (cf. [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Chapter 4], also Subsection \[section3.3\]).
Finally, we note that in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Section 8], the authors explained well how to use Bismut’s formula for semisimple orbital integrals to study the asymptotic analytic torsion. Here, we go one step further in that direction to get a refined evaluation on it. Bergeron and Venkatesh [@BV2013torsion] also studied the asymptotic analytic torsion but under a totally different setting. In [@liu2019hypoelliptic Section 7], the asymptotic equivariant analytic torsion for a locally symmetric space was studied, and the oscillating terms also appeared naturally in that case.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section2paris\], we recall the definition of Ray-Singer analytic torsion for compact orbifolds. We also include a brief introduction to the orbifolds at beginning.
In Section \[section2\], we introduce the explicit geometric formula of Bismut for semisimple orbital integrals and the Selberg’s trace formula for compact locally symmetric orbifolds. They are the main tools to study the analytic torsions in this paper.
In Section \[section3.6\], we give a vanishing theorem for $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$, so that we only need to focus on the case $\delta(G)=1$.
In Section \[section4\], we study the Lie algebra of $G$ provided $
\delta(G)=1$. Furthermore, we introduce a generalized Kirillov formula for compact Lie groups.
In Section \[section6paris\], we prove Theorem \[thm:local0000\].
In Section \[section7paris\], given the sequence $\{F_{d}\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, we compute explicitly ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ in terms of root data for elliptic $\gamma$, in particular, we prove . Then we give the formulae for ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$, ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$.
Finally, in Section \[section8paris\], we introduce the spectral gap and we give a proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\].
In this paper, if $V$ is a real vector spaces and if $E$ is a complex vector space, we will use the symbol $V\otimes E$ to denote the complex vector space $V\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}E$. If both $V$ and $E$ are complex vector spaces, then $V\otimes E$ is just the usual tensor over ${\mathbb{C}}$.
**Acknowledgments.** I would like to thank Prof. Jean-Michel Bismut, and Prof. Werner Müller for encouraging me to work on this subject, and for many useful discussions. I also thank Dr. Taiwang Deng for educating me about the cohomology of arithmetic groups, and Dr. Ksenia Fedosova for explanations of her results on the hyperbolic case.
This work is carried out during my stay in Max Planck Institute for Mathematics (MPIM) in Bonn. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to MPIM for providing so nice research environment.
Ray-Singer analytic torsion {#section2paris}
===========================
In this section, we recall the definitions of the orbifold and the orbifold vector bundle. We also refer to [@MR0079769; @SATAKE_1957] and [@Adem_2007 Chapter 1] for more details. Then we recall the definition of Ray-Singer analytic torsion for compact orbifolds, where we refer to [@MR2140438], [@2017arXiv170408369S] for more details.
Orbifolds and orbifold vector bundles {#subs:2.1}
-------------------------------------
Let $Z$ be a topological space.
If $U$ is a connected open subset of $Z$, an orbifold chart for $U$ is a triple $(\widetilde{U},\pi_U,G_U)$ such that
- $\widetilde{U}$ is a connected open set of some ${\mathbb{R}}^m$, $G_U$ is a finite group acting smoothly and effectively on $\widetilde{U}$ on the left;
- $\pi_U$ is a continuous surjective $\widetilde{U}\rightarrow U$, which is invariant by $G_U$-action;
- $\pi_U$ induces a homeomorphism between $G_U\backslash \widetilde{U}$ and $U$.
If $V\subset U$ is a connected open subset, an embedding of orbifold chart for the inclusion $i: V\rightarrow U$ is an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{V}, \pi_V, G_V)$ for $V$ and an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U},\pi_U,G_U)$ for $U$ together with a smooth embedding $\phi_{UV}: \widetilde{V}\rightarrow \widetilde{U}$ such that the following diagram commutes, $$\begin{gathered} \xymatrix{
\widetilde{V}\ar[r]^{\phi_{UV}}\ar[d]_{\pi_V}& \widetilde{U}\ar[d]^{\pi_U} \\
V\ar[r]^{i}& U
}\end{gathered}.$$
If $U_1$, $U_2$ are two connected open subsets of $Z$ with the charts $(\widetilde{U}_1,\pi_{U_1},G_{U_1})$, $(\widetilde{U}_2,\pi_{U_2},G_{U_2})$ respectively. We say that these two orbifold charts are compatible if for any point $z\in U_1\cap U_2$, there exists an open connected neighborhood $V\subset U_1\cap U_2$ of $z$ with an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{V}, \pi_V, G_V)$ such that there exist two embeddings of orbifold charts $\phi_{U_1V}:(\widetilde{V}, \pi_V, G_V)\rightarrow (\widetilde{U}_{1}, \pi_{U_1}, G_{U_1})$, $\phi_{U_2V}:(\widetilde{V}, \pi_V, G_V)\rightarrow (\widetilde{U}_{2},\pi_{U_2}, G_{U_2})$. In this case, the diffeomorphism $\phi_{U_2 V}\circ \phi_{U_1V}^{-1}: \phi_{U_1 V}(\widetilde{V})\rightarrow \phi_{U_2 V}(\widetilde{V})$ is called a coordinate transformation.
An orbifold atlas on $Z$ is couple $(\mathcal{U},\widetilde{\mathcal{U}} )$ consisting of a cover $\mathcal{U}$ of open connected subsets of $Z$ and a family of compatible orbifold charts $\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}=\{(\widetilde{U},\pi_U, G_U)\}_{U\in\mathcal{U}}$.
An orbifold atlas $(\mathcal{V},\widetilde{\mathcal{V}})$ is called a refinement of $(\mathcal{U},\widetilde{\mathcal{U}})$ if $\mathcal{V}$ is a refinement of $\mathcal{U}$ and if every orbifold chart in $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}$ has an embedding into some orbifold chart in $\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}$. Two orbifold atlas are said to be equivalent if they have a common refinement, and the equivalent class of an orbifold atlas is called an orbifold structure on $Z$.
An orbifold is a second countable Hausdorff space equipped with an orbifold structure. It is said to have dimension $m$ if all the orbifold charts which defines the orbifold structure are of dimension $m$.
If $Z, Y$ are two orbifolds, a smooth map $f: Z\rightarrow Y$ is a continuous map from $Z$ to $Y$ such that it lifts locally to an equivariant smooth map from an orbifold chart of $Z$ to an orbifold chart of $Y$. In this way, we can define the notion of smooth functions and the smooth action of Lie groups.
By [@2017arXiv170408369S Proposition 2.12], if $\Gamma$ is discrete group acting smoothly and properly discontinuously on the left on an orbifold $X$, then $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$ has a canonical orbifold structure induced from $X$.
In the sequel, let $Z$ be an orbifold with an orbifold structure given by $(\mathcal{U},\widetilde{\mathcal{U}})$. If $z\in Z$, there exists an open connected neighborhood $U_z$ of $z$ with a compatible orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}_z, G_z, \pi_z)$ such that $\pi_z^{-1}(z)$ contains only one point $x\in \widetilde{U}_z$. Then $G_z$ does not depend on the choice of such open connected neighborhood (up to canonical isomorphisms compatible with the orbifold structure), then $G_z$ is called the local group at $z$.
Put $$Z_{\mathrm{reg}}=\{z\in Z\,:\, G_z=\{1\}\},\;\; Z_{\mathrm{sing}}=\{z\in Z\,:\, G_z\neq\{1\}\}.$$ Then $Z_{\mathrm{reg}}$ is naturally a smooth manifold. But $Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$ is not necessarily an orbifold. In [@MR0474432 Section 2], the author provided two different methods to view $Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$ as an immersed image of a disjoint union of orbifolds. We just recall that method which appears naturally in Kawasaki’s local index theorems for orbifolds [@MR0474432; @MR527023].
If $z\in Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$, let $1=(h_{z}^{0}), (h_{z}^{1}), \cdots,
(h^{l_{z}}_{z})$ be the conjugacy classes in $G_{z}$. Put $$\Sigma Z=\{(z,(h^{j}_{z}))\;|\; z\in Z_{\mathrm{sing}},
j=1,\cdots, l_{z}\}.
\label{eq:1.1.3}$$ Let $(\widetilde{U}_z, G_z, \pi_z)$ be the local orbifold chart for $z\in Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$ such that $\pi_z^{-1}(z)$ contains only one point. For $j=1,\cdots, l_{z}$, let $\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}\subset \widetilde{U}_z$ be the fixed point set of $h^{j}_{z}$, which is a submanifold of $\widetilde{U}_z$. Note that $\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}\subset
Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$. Let $Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z})$ be the centralizer of $h^{j}_{z}$ in $G_z$. Then $Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z})$ acts smoothly on $\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}$. Put $$K^{j}_{z}=\ker (Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z})\rightarrow
\mathrm{Aut}(\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}})).
\label{eq:1.1.4}$$ Then $(\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}},Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z})/K^{j}_{z},
\pi^{j}_{z}: \widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}\rightarrow
\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}/Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z}))$ defines an orbifold chart near $(z, (h^{j}_{z}))\in \Sigma Z$. They form an orbifold structure for $\Sigma Z$. Let $Z^{i}, i=1,\cdots, l$ denote the connected component of the orbifold $\Sigma Z$.
The integer $m^{j}_{z}=|K^{j}_{z}|$ is called the multiplicity of $\Sigma Z$ in $Z$ at $(z, (h^{j}_{z}))$. This defines a function $m: \Sigma Z\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{+}$. As explained in [@MR0474432 Section 1], $m$ is locally constant on $\Sigma Z$, which is equal $m_{i}$ on $Z^{i}$ for $i=1,\cdots,l$. We call $m_{i}$ the multiplicity of $Z^{i}$ in $Z$. As in [@2017arXiv170408369S Section 2.2], we put $$Z^{0}=Z,\; m_{0}=1.
\label{eq:1.1.5}$$
We say $E$ to be an orbifold vector bundle of rank $r$ on $Z$ if there exists a smooth map of orbifolds $\pi: E\rightarrow Z$ such that for any $U\in
\mathcal{U}$ and $(\widetilde{U}, G_{U}, \pi_{U})\in
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}$, there exists an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}^{E}, G^{E}_{U}, \pi^{E}_{U})$ of $E$ such that $\widetilde{U}^{E}$ is an vector bundle on $\widetilde{U}$ of rank $r$ equipped an effective action of $G^{E}_{U}$ and $\pi^{E}_{U}(\widetilde{U}^{E})=\pi^{-1}(U)$. Moreover, there exists a surjective group morphism $\psi_{U}: G^{E}_{U}\rightarrow G_{U}$ such that the action of $G^{E}_{U}$ on $\widetilde{U}$ is identified via $\psi_{U}$ with the action of $G_{U}$ on $\widetilde{U}$. If we have an open embedding $\phi_{UV}:(\widetilde{V}, \pi_V, G_V)\rightarrow (\widetilde{U},
\pi_{U}, G_{U})$, we require that it lifts to the open embedding $\phi^{E}_{UV}:(\widetilde{V}^{E}, \pi^{E}_V, G^{E}_V)\rightarrow
(\widetilde{U}^{E},
\pi_{U}^{E}, G_{U}^{E})$ of the orbifold charts of $E$ such that $\phi^{E}_{UV}:\widetilde{V}^{E} \rightarrow \widetilde{U}^{E}$ is a morphism of vector bundles associated with the open embedding $\phi_{UV}:\widetilde{V} \rightarrow \widetilde{U}$. If every $\psi_{U}: G^{E}_{U}\rightarrow G_{U}$ is an isomorphism of groups, we call $E$ a proper orbifold vector bundle on $Z$.
Note that if $E$ is proper, then the rank of $E$ can be extended to a locally constant function $\rho$ on $\Sigma Z$. The orbifold chart of $Z^{i}$ is given by the triples such as $(\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}},Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z})/K^{j}_{z},
\pi^{j}_{z}: \widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}\rightarrow
\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}/Z_{G_{z}}(h^{j}_{z}))$. By the above definition of $E$, we have an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}^{E},
G^{E}_{U}=G_{U}, \pi^{E}_{U})$ such that $\widetilde{U}^{E}$ is a $G_{U}$-equivariant vector bundle on $\widetilde{U}$. Then for $x\in
\widetilde{U}_z^{h^{j}_{z}}$, $h^{j}_{z}$ acts on the fibres $\widetilde{U}^{E}_{z}$ linearly, so that we can set $\rho(z,(h^{j}_{z}))=\mathrm{Tr}^{\widetilde{U}^{E}_{z}}[h^{j}_{z}]$. One can verify this way, $\rho$ is really a locally constant function on $\Sigma Z$. For $i=1,\cdots, l$, let $\rho_{i}$ be the value of $\rho$ on the component $Z^{i}$. We also put $\rho_{0}=r$.
We call $s: Z\rightarrow E$ a smooth section of $E$ over $Z$ if it is a smooth map between orbifolds such that $\pi\circ
s=\mathrm{Id}_{Z}$. We will use $C^{\infty}(Z,E)$ to denote the vector space of smooth sections of $E$ over $Z$.
Take an orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}, G_{U}, \pi_{U})\in
\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}$ of $Z$, $G_{U}$ acts canonically on the tangent vector bundle $T\widetilde{U}$ of $\widetilde{U}$. The open embeddings of orbifold charts of $Z$ also lift to the open embeddings of their tangent vector bundles. This way, we get a proper orbifold vector bundle $TZ$ on $Z$, and the projection $\pi: TZ\rightarrow Z$ is just given by the obvious projection $T\widetilde{U}\rightarrow
\widetilde{U}$. We call $TZ$ the tangent vector bundle of $Z$. If we equipped $TZ$ with Euclidean metric $g^{TZ}$, we will call $Z$ a Riemannian orbifold and call $g^{TZ}$ a Riemannian metric of $Z$.
Let $\Omega^{\cdot}(Z)$ denote the set of smooth differential forms of $Z$, which has a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-graded structure by degrees. The de Rham operator $d^{Z}: \Omega^{\cdot}(Z)\rightarrow
\Omega^{\cdot+1}(Z)$ is given by the family of de Rham operator $d^{\widetilde{U}}: \Omega^{\cdot}(\widetilde{U})\rightarrow
\Omega^{\cdot+1}(\widetilde{U})$. Then we can define the de Rham complex $(\Omega^{\cdot}(Z), d^{Z})$ of $Z$ and the associated de Rham cohomology $H^{\cdot}(Z,{\mathbb{R}})$. By [@MR0474432 Section 1], there is a natural isomorphism between $H^{\cdot}(Z,{\mathbb{R}})$ and the singular cohomology of the underlying topological space $Z$.
The Chern-Weil theory on the characteristic forms extends to orbifolds. We refer to [@2017arXiv170408369S Section 3] for more details. Note that, as in [@MR0474432; @MR527023], the characteristic forms are not only defined on $Z$ but also defined on $\Sigma Z$. The part $\Sigma Z$ has a nontrivial contribution in Kawasaki’s local index theorems for orbifolds.
Finally, let us recall the integrals on $Z$. Assume that $Z$ is compact. We may take a finite open covering $\{U_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ of the precompact orbifold charts for $Z$. Since $Z$ is Hausdorff, then there exists a partition of unity subordinate to this open cover. We can find a family of smooth functions $\{\phi_{i}\in C^{\infty}_{c}(Z)\}_{i\in I}$ with values in $[0,1]$ such that $\mathrm{Supp}(\phi_{i})\subset U_{i}$, and that $$\sum_{i\in I} \phi_{i}=1.
\label{eq:1.1.6alpha}$$ Take $\widetilde{\phi}_{i}=\pi^{*}_{U_{i}}(\phi_{i})\in
C^{\infty}_{c}(\widetilde{U}_{i})^{G_{U_{i}}}$.
If $\alpha\in \Omega^{m}(Z,o(TZ))$, let $\widetilde{\alpha}_{U_{i}}$ be its lift on the chart $(\widetilde{U}_{i},\pi_{U_{i}},G_{U_{i}})$. We define $$\int_{Z} \alpha = \sum_{i}\frac{1}{|G_{U_{i}}|}
\int_{\widetilde{U}_{i}}
\widetilde{\phi}_{i}\widetilde{\alpha}_{U_{i}}.
\label{eq:1.1.7alpha}$$ By [@2017arXiv170408369S Section 3.2], if $\alpha\in
\Omega^{m}(Z,o(TZ))$, then $\alpha$ is also integrable on $Z_{\mathrm{reg}}$, so that $$\int_{Z} \alpha = \int_{Z_{\mathrm{reg}}}\alpha.
\label{eq:1.1.8alpha}$$ Also if $\alpha\in
\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,o(TZ))$, we have $$\int_{Z} d^{Z}\alpha=0.
\label{eq:1.19a}$$
If $(Z,g^{TZ})$ is a Riemannian orbifold, we can define the integration on $Z$ with respect to the Riemannian volume element. If we have a Hermitian orbifold vector bundle $(F,h^{F})\rightarrow
(Z,g^{TZ})$, one can define the $L_{2}$ scalar product for the space of continuous sections of $F$ as usual. Then we get the Hilbert space $L^{2}(Z,F)$. If we also have a connection $\nabla^{F}$, one also can define the Sobolev spaces of sections of $F$ with respect to $\nabla^{F}$ and $\nabla^{TZ}$. These constructions are parallel to the case of smooth manifolds. We refer [@2017arXiv170408369S Section 3] for more details.
Now we introduce the orbifold Euler characteristic number of $(Z,
g^{TZ})$ [@SATAKE_1957]. The Euler form $e(TZ,\nabla^{TZ})\in
\Omega^{m}(Z,o(TZ))$ is given by the family of closed forms $$\big\{e(\widetilde{U}_{i},g^{T\widetilde{U}_{i}})\in
\Omega^{m}(\widetilde{U}_{i},o(T\widetilde{U}_{i}))^{G_{U_i}}\big\}_{U_{i}\in \mathcal{U}}.
\label{eq:2.1.10ssd}$$ If $Z$ is oriented, then we can view $e(TZ,\nabla^{TZ})$ as a differential form on $Z$.
If $Z$ is compact, set $$\chi_{\mathrm{orb}}(Z)=\int_{Z}e(TZ,\nabla^{TZ}).
\label{eq:2.1.11ssdd}$$ By [@SATAKE_1957 Section 3], $\chi_{\mathrm{orb}}(Z)$ is a rational number, and it vanishes when $Z$ is odd dimensional.
Flat vector bundles and analytic torsions of orbifolds {#subs:2.2}
------------------------------------------------------
If $(F,\nabla^{F})$ is an orbifold vector bundle over $Z$ with a connection $\nabla^{F}$, we call $(F,\nabla^{F})$ a flat vector bundle if the curvature $R^{F}=\nabla^{F,2}$ vanishes identically on $Z$. A detailed discussion for the flat vector bundles on $Z$ is given in [@2017arXiv170408369S Section 2.5].
Let $(Z,g^{TZ})$ be a compact Riemannian orbifold of dimension $m$. Let $(F,\nabla^F)$ be a flat complex orbifold vector bundle of rank $r$ on $Z$ with Hermitian metric $h^F$. Note that we do not assume that $F$ is proper.
Let $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$ be the set of smooth sections of $\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)\otimes F$ on $Z$. Let $d^Z$ be the exterior differential acting on $\Omega^\cdot(Z,{\mathbb{R}})$.
For $i=0,1,\cdots, m$, if $\alpha\in\Omega^i(Z,{\mathbb{R}})$, $s\in C^\infty(Z,F)$, the operator $d^{Z,F}$ acting on $\Omega^i(Z,F)$ is defined by $$d^{Z,F}(\alpha\otimes s)=(d^Z\alpha)\otimes s + (-1)^i \alpha\wedge \nabla^F s \in \Omega^{i+1}(Z,F).
\label{eq:deRhamop}$$
Since $\nabla^{F,2}=0$, then $(\Omega^\cdot(Z,F),d^{Z,F})$ is a complex, which is called the de Rham complex for the flat orbifold vector bundle $(F,\nabla^F)$ on $Z$. Let $H^\cdot(Z,F)$ be its cohomology, which is called the de Rham cohomology of $Z$ valued in $F$, as in the case of closed manifolds, $H^\cdot(Z,F)$ are always finite dimensional.
Let $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)\otimes F,z}$ be the Hermitian metric on $\Lambda^\cdot(T_z^*Z)\otimes F_z$, $z\in Z$ induced by $g^{TZ}_z$ and $h^F_z$. Let $dv$ be the Riemannian volume element on $Z$ induced by $g^{TZ}$. The $L_2$-scalar product on $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$ is given as follows, if $s, s'\in \Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$, then $$\label{eq:L2metric}
\langle s, s'\rangle_{L^2}=\int_{Z}\langle s(z),s(z')\rangle_{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)\otimes F,z} dv(z).$$ By , it will be the same if we take the integrals on $Z_{\mathrm{reg}}$.
Let $d^{Z,F,*}$ be the formal adjoint of $d^{Z,F}$ with respect to the $L_{2}$-metric on $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$, i.e., for $s, s' \in \Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$, $$\label{eq:formaladj}
\langle d^{Z,F,*}s,s'\rangle_{L^2}=\langle s, d^{Z,F}s'\rangle_{L^2}.$$ Then $d^{Z,F,*}$ is a first-order differential operator acting $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$ on which decreases the degree by $1$.
The de Rham - Hodge operator $D^{Z,F}$ of $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$ is defined as $$\label{eq:DZFop}
D^{Z,F} = d^{Z,F}+d^{Z,F,*}.$$ It is a first-order self-adjoint elliptic differential operator acting on $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$.
The Hodge Laplacian is $$\label{eq:HodgeLap}
D^{F,Z,2}=[d^{Z,F}, d^{Z,F,*}]=d^{Z,F}d^{Z,F,*}+d^{Z,F,*}d^{Z,F}.$$ Here, $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the supercommutator. Then $D^{Z,F,2}$ is a second-order essentially self-adjoint positive elliptic operator, which preserves the degree. Let $\mathbf{H}^{2}(Z,F)$ be the Sobolev space of the bundle $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}Z)\otimes F$ of order $2$ with respect to $\nabla^{TZ}$, $\nabla^{F}$. Then the domain of the self-adjoint extension of $D^{F,Z,2}$ is just $\mathbf{H}^{2}(Z,F)$.
The Hodge decomposition for $\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,F)$ still holds in this case (cf. [@MR2140438 Proposition 2.2], [@MR3623749 Proposition 2.1]). We have the following orthogonal decomposition, $$\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,F)= \ker D^{Z,F,2} \oplus
\mathrm{Im}(d^{Z,F}|_{\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,F)})\oplus
\mathrm{Im}(d^{Z,F,*}|_{\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,F)}).
\label{eq:1.2.6ab}$$ Then we have the canonical identification of vector spaces, $$\ker D^{Z,F,2} \simeq H^{\cdot}(Z,F).
\label{eq:1.2.7alpha}$$
For $i=0,1, \cdots, m$, let $D_i^{Z,F,2}$ denote the restriction of $D^{Z,F,2}$ to $\Omega^i(Z,F)$. Let $\mathcal{H}^i(Z,F)\subset \Omega^i(Z,F)$ be the kernel of $D^{Z,F,2}_i$, whose elements are called harmonic forms of degree $i$. By Hodge theory, we have the canonical isomorphism of finite dimensional vector spaces for $i=0,1,\cdots, m$, $$H^i(Z,F)\simeq \mathcal{H}^i(Z,F).
\label{eq:1.2.8alpha}$$ Put $\mathcal{H}^\cdot(Z,F)=\oplus_{i=0}^m \mathcal{H}^i(Z,F)\subset
\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$. We have $$\label{eq:kernelDZF}
\ker D^{Z,F}=\mathcal{H}^\cdot(Z,F).$$
Put $$\chi(Z,F)=\sum_{j=0}^m (-1)^j
\dim H^j(Z,F),\; \chi'(Z,F)=\sum_{j=0}^m (-1)^j j \dim H^j(Z,F).
\label{eq:7.8.8s}$$
If $F$ is proper, recall that the numbers $\rho_{i}$, $i=0,\cdots, l$ are defined in previous subsection as the extension of the rank of $F$. Then by [@2017arXiv170408369S Theorem 4.3], we have $$\chi(Z,F)=\sum_{i=0}^{l}\rho_{i}\frac{\chi_{\mathrm{orb}}(Z_{i})}{m_{i}}.
\label{eq:1.2.12alpha}$$ The right-hand side of contains the nontrivial contributions from $\Sigma Z$.
The spectrum (with multiplicities) of $D_i^{Z,F,2}$ is of the form $$\label{eq:eigenvalues}
0\leq\lambda_0 \leq \lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_n \leq \cdots\rightarrow +\infty.$$
If $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$, let $\Re(s)\in {\mathbb{R}}$ denote its real part.
If $i=0, 1, \cdots, m$, the zeta function of $D_i^{Z,F,2}$ acting on $\Omega^i(Z,F)$ is defined as follows, if $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$ is such that $\Re(s)$ is big enough, $$\label{eq:zetadegreei}
\vartheta_i(F)(s)=-\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{\lambda\in \mathrm{Spec}(D_i^{Z,F,2})}{\lambda > 0}} \frac{1}{\lambda^s}.$$
Let $\Gamma(s)$ be the Gamma function for $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$. For $t>0$, let $\exp(-tD^{Z,F,2}_i)$ be the heat operator associated with $D^{Z,F,2}_i$. Then $\exp(-tD^{Z,F,2}_i/2)$ is of trace-class. Let $(D_i^{Z,F,2})^{-1}$ be the inverse of $D_i^{Z,F,2}$ acting on the orthogonal subspace of $\mathcal{H}^i(Z,F)$ in $\Omega^i(Z,F)$. Let $P_i$ denote the orthogonal projection from $\Omega^i(Z,F)$ onto $\mathcal{H}^i(Z,F)$, then we can rewrite as $$\label{eq:zetaiheat}
\vartheta_i(F)(s)=-\mathrm{Tr}[(D_i^{Z,F,2})^{-s}]=-\frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{+\infty} \mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-tD_i^{Z,F,2})(1-P_i)]t^{s-1}dt.$$
By the standard heat equation method, one can see that $\vartheta_i(F)(s)$ is well-defined for $\Re(s)> \frac{m}{2}$, and that $\vartheta_i(F)(s)$ admits a meromorphic extension to $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ which is holomorphic at $s=0$. We also denote by $\vartheta_i(s)$ this meromorphic extension. Then $$\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0}\vartheta_i(F)(s)\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
\[def:2.2.5ss20\] Let $\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)\in {\mathbb{R}}$ be given by $$\label{eq:1.1.12bonn}
\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)=\sum_{i=1}^m (-1)^{i}i \frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0}\vartheta_i(F)(s).$$ The quantity $\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)$ is called Ray-Singer analytic torsion associated with $(F,\nabla^F,h^F)$.
If $m$ is even and if $Z$ is orientable, then $\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)=0$. If $m$ is odd, then $\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)$ is independent of the metrics $g^{TZ}$ and $h^F$.
Let $P=\oplus_i P_i$ be the orthogonal projection from $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$ to $\mathcal{H}^\cdot(Z,F)$. Let $\mathcal{H}^\perp$ denote the orthogonal subspace of $\mathcal{H}^\cdot(Z,F)$ in $\Omega^\cdot(Z,F)$, and let $(D^{Z,F,2})^{-1}$ be the inverse of $D^{Z,F,2}$ acting on $\mathcal{H}^\perp$. Let $N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)}$ be the number operator on $\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)$ which acts on $\Lambda^i(T^*Z)$ by multiplication of $i$.
Put $$\label{eq:zetaalldegree}
\vartheta(F)(s)=\sum_{i=1}^m (-1)^{i} i \vartheta_i(F)(s).$$
By , , we get that if $\Re(s)$ is big enough, then $$\begin{split}
\vartheta(F)(s) &= -\mathrm{Tr_s}[N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)}(D^{Z,F,2})^{-s}]\\
&= - \frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{+\infty} \mathrm{Tr_s}[N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)}\exp(-tD^{Z,F,2})(1-P)]t^{s-1}dt.
\end{split}$$ By , , we get $$\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ},\nabla^F,h^F)=\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \vartheta(F)(s).$$
For $t>0$, as in [@BL2008RaySinger eq.(1.8.5)], put $$b_t(g^{TZ},F)=(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial
t})\mathrm{Tr_s}\bigg[\big(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)}-\frac{m}{2}\big)\exp(-tD^{Z,F,2}/2)\bigg].
\label{eq:7.8.7kkkk}$$ Then $b_t(g^{TZ},F)$ is a smooth function in $t>0$.
By [@BL2008RaySinger Eqs.(1.8.7) & (1.8.8)] and [@2017arXiv170408369S Subsection 4.3], as $t\rightarrow 0$, $$b_t(g^{TZ},F)=\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{t}).
\label{eq:7.8.8kkkk}$$ As $t\rightarrow +\infty$, $$b_t(g^{TZ},F)=\frac{1}{2} \chi'(Z,F)-\frac{m}{4}\chi(Z,F)+\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{t}).
\label{eq:7.8.9kkkk}$$
Set $$b_\infty(g^{TZ},F)=\frac{1}{2} \chi'(Z,F)-\frac{m}{4}\chi(Z,F).
\label{eq:7.8.10kkkk}$$ By [@BL2008RaySinger Eq.(1.8.11)] and [@2017arXiv170408369S Corollary 4.14], we have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ}, \nabla^{F},h^{F})=-\int_0^1 b_t(g^{TZ},F)\frac{dt}{t}-\int_1^{+\infty}(b_t(g^{TZ},F)-b_\infty(g^{TZ},F))\frac{dt}{t}&\\
-(\Gamma'(1)+\log(2)-2)b_\infty(g^{TZ},F).&
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.8.11ssss}$$ In particular, if $(F,\nabla^F)$ is acyclic, i.e. $H^\cdot(Z,F)=0$, then $b_{\infty}(g^{TZ},F)=0$, and $$\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ}, \nabla^{F},h^{F})=-\int_0^{+\infty}
b_t(g^{TZ},F)\frac{dt}{t}.
\label{eq:7.8.11bonn}$$
Orbital integrals and locally symmetric spaces {#section2}
==============================================
In this section, we recall some geometric properties of the symmetric space $X$, and we recall an explicit geometric formula of Bismut [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Chapter 6] for semisimple orbital integrals. Then, given a cocompact discrete subgroup $\Gamma\subset G$, we describe the orbifold structure on $Z=\Gamma\backslash
X$, and we deduce in detail the Selberg’s trace formula for $Z$.
In this section, $G$ is taken as a connected linear real reductive Lie group, we do not require that it has a compact center. Then $X$ is a symmetric space which may have de Rham components of both noncompact type and Euclidean type.
Real reductive Lie group {#section3.1}
------------------------
Let $G$ be a connected linear real reductive Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, and let $\theta\in \mathrm{Aut}(G)$ be a Cartan involution. Let $K$ be the fixed point set of $\theta$ in $G$. Then $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, and let ${\mathfrak{k}}$ be its Lie algebra. Let ${\mathfrak{p}}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$ be the eigenspace of $\theta$ associated with the eigenvalue $-1$. The Cartan decomposition of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is given by $$\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{p}\oplus \mathfrak{k}.
\label{eq:0.2.1ugc}$$ Put $m=\dim {\mathfrak{p}}$, $n=\dim {\mathfrak{k}}$.
Let $B$ be a $G$- and $\theta$-invariant nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, which is positive on ${\mathfrak{p}}$ and negative on ${\mathfrak{k}}$. It induces a symmetric bilinear form $B^{*}$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}^{*}$, which extends to a symmetric bilinear form on $\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{g}}^{*})$. The $K$-invariant bilinear form $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle=-B(\cdot,\theta\cdot)$ is a scalar product on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, which extends to a scalar product on $\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{g}}^{*})$. We will use $|\cdot|$ to denote the norm under this scalar product.
Let $U{\mathfrak{g}}$ be the universal enveloping algebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $C^{\mathfrak{g}}\in U{\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Casimir element associated with $B$, i.e., if $\{e_i\}_{i=1,\cdots, m+n}$ is a basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}$, and if $\{e^*_i\}_{i=1,\cdots, m+n}$ is the dual basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with respect to $B$, then $$C^{\mathfrak{g}}= -\sum e^*_i e_i.
\label{eq:3.1.2th19}$$ We can identify $U{\mathfrak{g}}$ with the algebra of left-invariant differential operators over $G$, then $C^{\mathfrak{g}}$ is a second-order differential operator, which is $\mathrm{Ad}(G)$-invariant.
Let ${\mathfrak{z}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$ be the center of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Put $${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}=[{\mathfrak{g}},{\mathfrak{g}}].
\label{eq:3.1.3th19}$$ Then $${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{z}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\oplus{\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}.
\label{eq:3.1.4th19}$$ They are orthogonal with respect to $B$.
Let $Z_{G}$ be the center of $G$, let $G_{\mathrm{ss}}$ be the analytic subgroup of $G$ associated with ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$. Then $G$ is the commutative product of $Z_{G}$ and $G_{\mathrm{ss}}$, in particular, $$G=Z_{G}^0G_{\mathrm{ss}}.
\label{eq:3.1.5th19}$$
Let $i=\sqrt{-1}$ denote one square root of $-1$. Put $${\mathfrak{u}}=\sqrt{-1} {\mathfrak{p}}\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}.
\label{eq:3.1.6th19}$$ For saving notation, if $a\in{\mathfrak{p}}$, we use notation $ia\in\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}\subset{\mathfrak{u}}$ to denote the corresponding vector.
Then ${\mathfrak{u}}$ is a (real) Lie algebra, which is called the compact form of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Then $${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}={\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathbb{C}}.
\label{eq:3.1.7th19}$$
Let $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ be the complexification of $G$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}$. Then $G$ is the analytic subgroup of $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $U\subset G_{\mathbb{C}}$ be the analytic subgroup associated with ${\mathfrak{u}}$. By [@knapp1986representation Proposition 5.3], if $G$ has compact center, i.e. ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{g}})\cap{\mathfrak{p}}=\{0\}$, then $U$ is a compact Lie group and a maximal compact subgroup of $G_{\mathbb{C}}$.
An element $\gamma\in G$ is said to be semisimple if there exists $g\in G$ such that $$\gamma=g(e^ak)g^{-1}, a\in{\mathfrak{p}}, k\in K, \mathrm{Ad}(k)a=a.$$ We call $\gamma_h=ge^ag^{-1}$, $\gamma_e=gkg^{-1}$ the hyperbolic, elliptic parts of $\gamma$. These two parts are uniquely determined by $\gamma$. If $\gamma_h=1$, we say $\gamma$ to be elliptic, and if $\gamma_e=1$, we say $\gamma$ to be hyperbolic.
Let $Z(\gamma)$ be the centralizer of $\gamma$ in $G$. If $ v\in {\mathfrak{g}}$, let $Z(v)\subset G$ be the stabilizer of $v$ in $G$ via the adjoint action. Let ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{z}}(v)$ be the Lie algebras of $Z(\gamma)$, $Z(v)$ respectively.
If $\gamma=\gamma_{h}\gamma_{e}$ is semisimple, then $$Z(\gamma)=Z(\gamma_{h})\cap Z(\gamma_{e}), \;
Z(\gamma_{h})=Z(\mathrm{Ad}(g)a).
\label{eq:3.1.3ff}$$ Correspondingly, we have $${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{h})\cap {\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e}),\;
{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{h})={\mathfrak{z}}(\mathrm{Ad}(g)a).
\label{eq:3.1.4ffb}$$ By [@knapp2002liegroupe Proposition 7.25], $Z(\gamma)$ is reductive. Set $$\theta_{g}=C(g)\theta C(g^{-1}),\;
B_{g}(\cdot,\cdot)=B(\mathrm{Ad}(g^{-1})\cdot,\mathrm{Ad}(g^{-1})\cdot).
\label{eq:3.1.4ff}$$ Then $\theta_{g}$ is a Cartan involution of $Z(\gamma)$ and $B_{g}$ is a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form on ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$. Let $K(\gamma)$ be the fixed point set of $\theta_{g}$ in $Z(\gamma)$, then $$K(\gamma)=Z(\gamma)\cap gKg^{-1}.
\label{eq:ap3.1.6}$$ Moreover, $K(\gamma)$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $Z(\gamma)$, which meets every connected components of $Z(\gamma)$.
Let ${\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)\subset{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$ be the Lie algebra of $K(\gamma)$. Put $${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)\cap\mathrm{Ad}(g){\mathfrak{p}}.
\label{eq:3.1.11ff}$$ Then the Cartan decomposition of ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$ with respect to $\theta_{g}$ is given by $${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma).
\label{eq:3.1.12ff}$$ Moreover, $B_{g}$ is positive on ${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, and negative on ${\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$. The splitting in is orthogonal with respect to $B_{g}$.
Symmetric space {#section3.2}
---------------
Set $$X=G/K.
\label{eq:3.2.1ee}$$ Then $X$ is a smooth manifold with the differential structure induced by $G$. By definition, $X$ is diffeomorphism to ${\mathfrak{p}}$.
Let $\omega^{\mathfrak{g}}\in \Omega^1(G,{\mathfrak{g}})$ be the canonical left-invariant $1$-form on $G$. Then by , $$\omega^{\mathfrak{g}}=\omega^{\mathfrak{p}}+\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}.$$
Let $p: G\rightarrow X$ denote the obvious projection. Then $p$ is a $K$-principal bundle over $X$. Then $\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}$ is a connection form of this principal bundle. The associated curvature form $$\Omega^{\mathfrak{k}}=d\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}+\frac{1}{2}[\omega^{\mathfrak{k}},\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}]=-\frac{1}{2}[\omega^{\mathfrak{p}},\omega^{\mathfrak{p}}].
\label{eq:3.2.2ee}$$
If $(E,\rho^E, h^E)$ is a finite dimensional unitary or Euclidean representation of $K$, then $F=G\times_K E$ is a Hermitian or Euclidean vector bundle over $X$ with the unitary or Euclidean connection $\nabla^F$ induced by $\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}$. In particular, $$TX=G\times_K {\mathfrak{p}}.
\label{eq:3.2.3ee}$$ The bilinear form $B$ restricting to ${\mathfrak{p}}$ gives a Riemannian metric $g^{TX}$, and $\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}$ induces the associated Levi-Civita connection $\nabla^{TX}$. Let $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ denote the Riemannian distance on $X$.
Let $C(G,E)$ denote the set of continuous map from $G$ into $E$, if $k\in K$, $s\in C(G,E)$, put $$(k.s)(g)=\rho^E(k)s(gk).
\label{eq:3.2.5bbs}$$ Let $C_K(G,E)$ be the set of $K$-invariant maps in $C(G,E)$. Let $C(X,F)$ denote the continuous sections of $F$ over $X$. Then $$C_K(G,E)=C(X,F).
\label{eq:3.2.6bbs}$$ Also $C^\infty_K(G,E)=C^\infty(X,F)$.
The Casimir operator $C^{\mathfrak{g}}$ acting on $C^\infty(G,E)$ preserves $C^\infty_K(G,E)$, so it induces an operator $C^{{\mathfrak{g}},X}$ acting on $C^\infty(X,F)$. Let $\Delta^{H,X}$ be the Bochner Laplacian acting on $C^\infty(X,F)$ given by $\nabla^F$, and let $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},
E}\in\mathrm{End}(E)$ be the action of the Casimir $C^{\mathfrak{k}}$ on $E$ via $\rho^E$. The element $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},E}$ induces an self-adjoint section of $\mathrm{End}(F)$ over $X$. Then $$C^{{\mathfrak{g}},X}=-\Delta^{H,X}+C^{{\mathfrak{k}},E}.
\label{eq:3.2.7bbsd}$$
Let $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}\in\mathrm{End}({\mathfrak{p}})$, $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{k}}}\in\mathrm{End}({\mathfrak{k}})$ be the actions of Casimir $C^{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ acting on ${\mathfrak{p}}$, ${\mathfrak{k}}$ via the adjoint actions. Moreover, we can view $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}$ as a parallel section of $\mathrm{End}(TX)$. Let $\mathrm{Ric}^{X}$ denote the Ricci curvature of $(X,g^{TX})$. By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eq. (2.6.8)], $$\mathrm{Ric}^{X}=C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}.
\label{eq:2.2.7a}$$
If $A\in\mathrm{End}(E)$ commutes with $K$, then it can be viewed a parallel section of $\mathrm{End}(F)$ over $X$. Let $dx$ be the Riemannian volume element of $(X, g^{TX})$.
Let $\mathcal{L}^X_A$ be the Bochner-like Laplacian acting on $C^\infty(X,F)$ given by $$\mathcal{L}^X_A=\frac{1}{2}C^{g,X} +
\frac{1}{16}\mathrm{Tr}^{{\mathfrak{p}}}[C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}]+\frac{1}{28}\mathrm{Tr}^{{\mathfrak{k}}}[C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{k}}}]+A.
\label{eq:3.2.9ssd}$$ For $t>0$, $x,x'\in X$, let $p^X_t(x,x')$ denote its heat kernel with respect to $dx'$.
Since $\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A}$ is $G$-invariant, then $p^X_t(x,x')$ lifts to a function $p^{X}_{t}(g,g')$ on $G\times G$ valued in $\mathrm{End}(E)$ such that for $g''\in G$, $k,k'\in K$, $$p^{X}_{t}(g''g,g''g')=p^{X}_{t}(g,g'),
p^{X}_{t}(gk,g'k')=\rho^{E}(k^{-1})p^{X}_{t}(g,g')\rho^{E}(k').
\label{eq:3.2.10ffe}$$ We set $$p^{X}_{t}(g)=p^{X}_{t}(1,g).
\label{eq:3.2.11ffe}$$ Then $p^{X}_{t}$ is a $K\times K$-invariant smooth function on $G$ valued in $\mathrm{End}(E)$. We will not distinguish the heat kernel $p^{X}_{t}(x,x')$ and the function $p^{X}_{t}(g)$ in the sequel.
Bismut’s formula for semisimple orbital integrals {#section3.3}
-------------------------------------------------
The group $G$ acts on $X$ isometrically. If $\gamma\in G$, for $x\in
X$, put $$d_{\gamma}(x)=d(x,\gamma x).
\label{eq:3.2.4ee}$$ It is called the displacement function associated with $\gamma$, which is a continuous convex function on $X$. Moreover, $d_{\gamma}^{2}$ is a smooth convex function on $X$. By [@eberlein1996geometry Definition 2.19.21] and [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 3.1.2], $\gamma$ is semisimple if and only if $d_{\gamma}$ can reach its minimum $m_{\gamma}\geq 0$ in $X$. In particular, $\gamma$ is elliptic if and only if $\gamma$ has fixed points in $X$. If $\gamma$ is semisimple, let $X(\gamma)$ be the minimizing set of $d_{\gamma}$, which is a geodesically convex submanifold of $X$.
If $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, then there exists $g_{\gamma}\in G$ such that $$\gamma=g_{\gamma}e^{a}kg^{-1}_{\gamma}, a\in {\mathfrak{p}}, k\in K, \mathrm{Ad}(k)a=a.
\label{eq:3.3.1ee}$$ By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 3.1.2], $$m_{\gamma}=|a|=|\mathrm{Ad}(g_{\gamma})a|_{B_{g_\gamma}}.
\label{eq:3.3.2ff}$$
Let $Z(\gamma)^{0}$, $K(\gamma)^{0}$ be the connected components of the identity of $Z(\gamma)$, $K(\gamma)$ respectively. By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 3.3.1], $Z(\gamma)^{0}$ acts on $X(\gamma)$ isometrically and transitively. Moreover, $$X(\gamma)\simeq Z(\gamma)/K(\gamma)=Z(\gamma)^{0}/K(\gamma)^{0}.
\label{eq:3.3.3ff}$$ We equip the symmetric space $Z(\gamma)/K(\gamma)$ with the Riemannian metric induced from $B_{g_{\gamma}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)}$, then the above identifications are isometric.
Let $dg$ be the left-invariant Haar measure on $G$ induced by $({\mathfrak{g}},\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle)$. Since $G$ is unimodular, then $dg$ is also right-invariant. Let $dk$ be the Haar measure on $K$ induced by $-B_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$, then $$dg=dxdk.
\label{eq:3.2.9cc}$$
Let $dy$ be the Riemannian volume element of $X(\gamma)$, and let $dz$ be the bi-invariant Haar measure on $Z(\gamma)$ induced by $B_{g_{\gamma}}$. Let $dk(\gamma)$ be the Haar measure on $K(\gamma)$ such that $$dz=dydk(\gamma).
\label{eq:3.3.7ffd}$$ Let $\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma)\backslash K)$ be the volume of $K(\gamma)\backslash K$ with respect to $dk, dk(\gamma)$. In particular, we have $$\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma)\backslash
K)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma))}.
\label{eq:3.3.7bisf}$$
Let $dv$ be the $G$-left invariant measure on $Z(\gamma)\backslash G$ such that $$dg=dzdv.
\label{eq:3.3.6ff}$$ By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Definition 4.2.2, Proposition 4.4.2], for $t>0$, the orbital integral $$\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma)\backslash K)}\int_{Z(\gamma)\backslash G}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(v^{-1}\gamma v)]dv
\label{eq:3.3.8ffe}$$ is well-defined. As indicated by the notation, it only depends on the conjugacy class $[\gamma]$ of $\gamma$ in $G$.
In [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Section 4.2], a geometric formula for $\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]$ is established. We explain it as follows. Recall that $X(\gamma)$ is a totally geodesic submanifold of $X$ on which $Z(\gamma)$ acts isometrically and transitively. Let $N_{X(\gamma)/X}$ be the orthogonal normal bundle of $X(\gamma)$ in $X$, and let $\mathcal{N}_{X(\gamma)/X}$ denote its total space. Then $\mathcal{N}_{X(\gamma)/X}\simeq X$ via the normal geodesics.
For $x\in X(\gamma)$, let $df$ be the Euclidean volume element on $N_{X(\gamma)/X,x}$. Then there exists a positive function $r(f)$ on $N_{X(\gamma)/X,x}$ such that $dx=r(f)dydf$. We have $$\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]=\int_{N_{X(\gamma)/X,x}}\mathrm{Tr}^{F}[p^{X}_{t}(\exp_{x}(f),\gamma \exp_{x}(f))\gamma]r(f)df.
\label{eq:3.5.26octs}$$ It is clear that the right-hand side of does not depend on the choice of $x\in X(\gamma)$. Because of this geometric interpretation for $\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]$, we also call it a geometric orbital integral.
An explicit formula for $\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]$ is given in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1], and an extension to the wave operators of $\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A}$ is given in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Section 6.3]. Now we describe in detail this formula of Bismut. We assume that $$\gamma=e^{a}k,\; a\in{\mathfrak{p}},\; k\in K,\; \mathrm{Ad}(k)a=a.
\label{eq:3.3.10ff}$$
Recall that ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$ is the Lie algebra of $Z(\gamma)^{0}\subset
G$. Put $${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)\cap{\mathfrak{p}},\; {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)\cap
{\mathfrak{k}}.$$ Then $${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma).$$
Put $${\mathfrak{z}}_0={\mathfrak{z}}(a),\;\;{\mathfrak{p}}_0=\ker{{\mathrm{ad}}(a)}\cap {\mathfrak{p}},\;\;{\mathfrak{k}}_0=\ker{{\mathrm{ad}}(a)}\cap {\mathfrak{k}}.
\label{eq:1.6.4ugc}$$ Let ${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_0$, ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_0$, ${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_0$ be the orthogonal vector spaces to ${\mathfrak{z}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{p}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_0$ in ${\mathfrak{g}}, {\mathfrak{p}},
{\mathfrak{k}}$ with respect to $B$. Then $${\mathfrak{z}}_0={\mathfrak{p}}_0\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}_0,\;\; {\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_0={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_0\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_0.
\label{eq:1.6.6ugcd}$$
By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eq.(3.3.6)], $${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{z}}_{0}\cap {\mathfrak{z}}(k).$$ Also ${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$ are subspaces of ${\mathfrak{p}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_0$ respectively. Let ${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)$ be the orthogonal spaces to ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$ in ${\mathfrak{z}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{p}}_0$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_0$. Then $${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma).
\label{eq:1.6.7ugcd}$$ Also the action $\mathrm{ad}(a)$ gives an isomorphism between ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_0$ and ${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_0$.
For $Y_0^{{\mathfrak{k}}}\in {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $\mathrm{ad}(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_0)$ preserves ${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma), {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma),
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma), {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)$, and it is an antisymmetric endomorphism with respect to the scalar product.
Recall that the function $\widehat{A}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Ahatfunction}
\widehat{A}(x)=\frac{x/2}{\sinh(x/2)}.$$ Let $H$ be a finite-dimensional Hermitian vector space. If $B\in
\mathrm{End}(H)$ is self-adjoint, then $\dfrac{B/2}{\sinh(B/2)}$ is a self-adjoint positive endomorphism. Put $$\label{eq:AhatB}
\widehat{A}(B)=\det{}^{1/2}\bigg[\frac{B/2}{\sinh(B/2)}\bigg].$$ In , the square root is taken to be the positive square root.
If $Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0\in{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, as explained in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic pp. 105], the following function $A(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})$ has a natural square root that is analytic in $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}\in {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $$A(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})=\frac{1}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \cdot\frac{\det
(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}{\det (1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}.
\label{eq:AinJ}$$ Its square root is denoted by $$\bigg[ \frac{1}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \cdot\frac{\det
(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}{\det (1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \bigg]^{1/2}.
\label{eq:Aroot}$$ The value of at $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}=0$ is taken to be such that $$\frac{1}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k^{-1}))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}.
\label{eq:3.3.16ffed}$$
We recall the definition of the function $J_\gamma$ in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic eq. (5.5.5)].
\[def:3.3.1ss20\] Let $J_{\gamma}(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})$ be the analytic function of $Y_0^{{\mathfrak{k}}}\in {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$ given by $$\label{Jfunction}
\begin{split}
&J_{\gamma}(Y_0^{{\mathfrak{k}}})=\frac{1}{|\det (1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_0}|^{1/2}} \frac{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}})|_{{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)})}{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}})|_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)})}\\
&\bigg[ \frac{1}{\det (1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \frac{\det (1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}{\det (1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y_0^{\mathfrak{k}}))\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \bigg]^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$
By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eq. (6.1.1)], there exists $C_{\gamma}>0$, $c_{\gamma}>0$ such that if $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}\in
{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $$|J_{\gamma}(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})|\leq
C_{\gamma}e^{c_{\gamma}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|}.
\label{eq:3.3.17ffed}$$
Put $p=\dim {\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, $q=\dim {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$. Then $r=\dim
{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)=p+q$. By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 6.1.1], for $t>0$, we have $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\\
&=\frac{1}{(2\pi
t)^{p/2}}\int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)}J_{\gamma}(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})\mathrm{Tr}^{E}\big[\rho^{E}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E}(Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0})-tA)\big]e^{-|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|^{2}/2t}\frac{dY^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:3.3.18ffed}$$
A generalization of Bismut’s formula to the twisted case is obtained in [@LIU201974; @liu2019hypoelliptic]. An extension of this formula for considering arbitrary elements in the center of enveloping algebra instead of Casimir operator was obtained in [@bismut2019geometric] by Bismut and Shen.
Compact locally symmetric spaces {#section3.4}
--------------------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a cocompact discrete subgroup of $G$. Then $\Gamma$ acts on $X$ isometrically and properly discontinuously. Then $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$ is compact second countable Hausdorff space.
If $x\in X$, put $$\Gamma_x=\{\gamma\in \Gamma : \gamma x=x\}.
\label{eq:3.2.9bbc}$$ Then $\Gamma_{x}$ is a finite subgroup of $\Gamma$. Put $$r_{x}=\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma\backslash \Gamma_{x}}d(x,\gamma x).
\label{eq:3.2.10bbc}$$ Then we always have $r_{x}>0$. Set $$U_{x}=B(x,\frac{r_{x}}{4})\subset X.
\label{eq:3.2.11bbc}$$ If $x\in X$, $\gamma\in\Gamma$, we have $$r_{\gamma x}=r_{x},\; U_{\gamma x}=\gamma U_{x}.
\label{eq:3.2.12bbc}$$ It is clear that $\Gamma_{x}\backslash U_{x}$ can identified with a connected open subset of $Z$.
Set $$S=\ker (\Gamma\rightarrow \mathrm{Diffeo}(X))=\Gamma\cap
\ker(K\xrightarrow{\mathrm{Ad}}\mathrm{Aut}({\mathfrak{p}})).
\label{eq:3.2.9aa}$$ Then $S$ is a finite subgroup of $\Gamma\cap K$, and a normal subgroup of $\Gamma$.
Put $$\Gamma'=\Gamma/S.
\label{eq:3.2.10aa}$$ Then $\Gamma'$ acts on $X$ effectively and we have $Z=\Gamma'\backslash X$.
If $x\in X$, we have $$S\subset \Gamma_{x},\; \Gamma'_{x}=\Gamma_{x}/S.
\label{eq:3.3.7aa}$$ Then the orbifold charts $(U_{x}, \Gamma'_{x}, \pi_{x}:
U_{x}\rightarrow \Gamma'_{x}\backslash U_{x})_{x\in X}$ together with the action of $\Gamma'$ on these charts give an orbifold structure for $Z$, so that $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$ is a compact orbifold with a Riemannian metric $g^{TZ}$ induced by $g^{TX}$.
By [@Selberg1960 Lemma 1], if $\gamma\in \Gamma$, then $\gamma$ is semisimple. Let $[\Gamma]$ denote the set of the conjugacy classes of $\Gamma$. If $\gamma\in \Gamma$, we say $[\gamma]\in [\Gamma]$ to be an elliptic class if $\gamma$ is elliptic. Let $\mathrm{E}[\Gamma]\subset [\Gamma]$ be the set of elliptic classes, then $\mathrm{E}[\Gamma]$ is always a finite set. If $\mathrm{E}[\Gamma]=\emptyset$, i.e. $\Gamma$ is torsion free, then $Z$ is compact smooth manifold.
Let $[\Gamma']$ be the set of conjugacy classes in $\Gamma'$, and let $\mathrm{E}[\Gamma']$ denote the set of elliptic classes in $[\Gamma']$. If $\gamma'\in \Gamma'$, let $Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')$ denote the centralizer of $\gamma'$ in $\Gamma'$, and let $[\gamma']'$ denote the conjugacy class of $\gamma'$ in $\Gamma'$. If $\gamma'\in \Gamma'$ is elliptic, let $X(\gamma')$ be its fixed point set in $X$ on which $Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')$ acts isometrically and properly discontinuously (cf. [@Selberg1960 Lemma 2]). Note that if $\gamma\in\Gamma$ is a lift of $\gamma'\in \Gamma'$, then $X(\gamma)=X(\gamma')$, and $\gamma$ is elliptic if and only if $\gamma'$ is elliptic.
\[prop:3.4.1lead\] We have $$Z_{\mathrm{sing}}=\Gamma'\backslash
\Gamma'\big(\cup_{[\gamma']'\in
\mathrm{E}[\Gamma']\backslash \{1\}} X(\gamma')\big)\subset Z.
\label{eq:3.3.8aa}$$ Moreover, we have $$\Sigma Z=\cup_{[\gamma']'\in \mathrm{E}[\Gamma']\backslash
\{1\}} Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma').
\label{eq:3.2.11aa}$$ Note that the right-hand side of is a disjoint union of compact orbifolds.
If $\gamma'\in
\Gamma'$, put $$S'(\gamma')=\ker (Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\rightarrow
\mathrm{Diffeo}(X(\gamma'))).
\label{eq:3.5.15oct9s}$$ Then $|S'(\gamma')|$ is the multiplicity of the connected component $Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma')$ in $\Sigma Z$
Note that $z\in Z$ with a lift $x\in X$ belongs to $Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$ if and only if the stabilizer $\Gamma'_{x}$ is nontrivial. Thus $x$ is a fixed point of some $\gamma'\in
\Gamma'$, from which follows. By definition in Subsection \[subs:2.1\], we get the rest part of this proposition. This completes the proof.
Note that $\Gamma\backslash G$ is a compact smooth homogeneous space equipped with a right action of $K$. Moreover, the action of $K$ is almost free, i.e. for each $\bar{g}\in \Gamma\backslash G$, the stabilizer $K_{\bar{g}}$ is finite. Then the quotient space $(\Gamma\backslash G)/K$ also have a natural orbifold structure, which is equivalent to $Z$. Indeed, given $\bar{g}\in
\Gamma\backslash G$, we get a unique Cartan decomposition of $g=e^{f}k$ with $f\in {\mathfrak{p}}$, $k\in K$, then $C(k^{-1})S\subset
K_{\bar{g}}$. One can verify that $S$ represents the isotropy group of the principal orbit type for the right action of $K$ on $\Gamma\backslash G$. If $B^{{\mathfrak{p}}}(0,\varepsilon)$ is a small enough open ball in ${\mathfrak{p}}$ centered at $0$, then $\bar{g}B^{{\mathfrak{p}}}(0,\varepsilon)$ is an equivariant slice at $\bar{g}$ with respect to the action of $K$. Then the orbifold charts of $(\Gamma\backslash G)/K$ are given by the effective right action of $
C(k^{-1})S\backslash K_{\bar{g}}$ on $\bar{g}B^{{\mathfrak{p}}}(0,\epsilon)$. If $x=pg\in X$, then the adjoint action of $K_{\bar{g}}$ on $B^{{\mathfrak{p}}}(0,\epsilon)$ is equivalent to the action of $\Gamma_{x}$ on the corresponding open ball in $X$ centered $x$. This implies exactly that $Z=(\Gamma\backslash G)/K$.
Set $$\Delta=\ker (K\rightarrow
\mathrm{Diffeo}(\Gamma\backslash G)).
\label{eq:3.3.11cc}$$ Recall that $Z_{G}$ is the center of $G$. Using the fact that $\Gamma$ is discrete, we get $$\Delta=Z_{G}\cap \Gamma\cap K.
\label{eq:3.3.11dd}$$ Moreover, $$\Delta\subset S, \; \Delta=\cap_{g\in G}K_{\bar{g}}=\cap_{k\in
K}C(k)S.
\label{eq:3.3.12ddd}$$
Let $d\bar{g}$ be the volume element on $\Gamma\backslash G$ induced by $dg$. By , we get $$\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\backslash G)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}{|S|}\mathrm{Vol}(Z).
\label{eq:3.3.13ddd}$$
Let $G,K,\theta, \Gamma$ be as before. Take $K'$ a connected compact linear group which is center free, and let $\Sigma\subset K'$ be any nontrivial finite subgroup. Put $\widetilde{G}=G\times K'$, $\widetilde{K}=K\times K'$, the Cartan involution $\widetilde{\theta}$ is just the extension of $\theta$ with trivial action on $K'$. Then $X=G/K=\widetilde{G}/\widetilde{K}$.
Put $\widetilde{\Gamma}=\Gamma\times \Sigma$, which is a cocompact lattice in $\widetilde{G}$. Then the corresponding $\widetilde{S}=S\times
\Sigma$. But the group $\widetilde{\Delta}=\Delta$. This way, we can construct many examples such that $S\neq \Delta$.
If $G_{\mathrm{ss}}$ is a connected noncompact simple linear Lie group, then $$S=\Delta=Z_G\cap \Gamma\cap K.
\label{eq:3.4.16th19}$$
We only need to prove that in this case, $S\subset Z_{G}$. Since $G$ is connected, it is enough to prove that if $s\in S$, the adjoint action of $s$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is trivial.
The action of $\theta$ preserves the splitting in . Let ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}={\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ be the Cartan decomposition of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ with respect to $\theta$, where ${\mathfrak{k}}_{\mathrm{ss}}\subset {\mathfrak{k}}$, ${\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}\subset {\mathfrak{p}}$. Moreover, since $G_{\mathrm{ss}}$ is noncompact, then ${\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ is nonzero.
Since ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ is simple, then we have $$[{\mathfrak{k}}_{\mathrm{ss}},{\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}]={\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}},\;[{\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}},{\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}]={\mathfrak{k}}_{\mathrm{ss}}.
\label{eq:3.4.17th19}$$ If $s\in S$, then $\mathrm{Ad}(s)$ acts trivially on ${\mathfrak{p}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$, thus it acts trivially on ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}$. This completes the proof of our lemma.
If ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}$ has no compact simple factor, then $$S=\Delta=Z_G\cap \Gamma\cap K.
\label{eq:3.4.18th19}$$
We note that in many interesting cases, we can reduce to the case of $S=\{1\}$. For instance, given a Riemannian symmetric space $(X,g^{TX})$ of noncompact type, let $G=\mathrm{Isom}(X)^{0}$ be the connected component of identity of the Lie group of isometries of $X$. By [@eberlein1996geometry Proposition 2.1.1], $G$ is a semisimple Lie group with trivial center. We refer to [@eberlein1996geometry Chapter 2] and [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Chapter 3] for more details. This way, any subgroup of $G$ acts on $X$ effectively. In particular, if $\Gamma$ is a cocompact discrete subgroup of $G$, then $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$ is a compact good orbifold with the orbifold fundamental group $\Gamma$. By , we have $$\Sigma Z=\cup_{[\gamma]\in E[\Gamma]\backslash \{1\}} \Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma).
\label{eq:3.4.22bbs}$$ In general, by [@helgason1979differential Ch.V §4, Theorem 4.1], $G=\mathrm{Isom}(X=G/K)^{0}$ if and only if $K$ acts on ${\mathfrak{p}}$ effectively. Another particular case is that $S=\Delta$. Then after replacing $G$, $K$ by their quotients $G/S$, $K/S$, we also go back to the case of $S=\{1\}$.
If $\rho:\Gamma'\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}({\mathbb{C}}^{k})$ is a representation of $\Gamma'$, which can be viewed as a representation of $\Gamma$ via the projection $\Gamma\rightarrow \Gamma'=\Gamma/S$, then $F=X{}_{\Gamma'}\times {\mathbb{C}}^{k}$ is a proper flat orbifold vector bundle on $Z$ with the flat connection $\nabla^{F,f}$ induced from the exterior differential $d^{X}$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{k}$-valued functions. By [@2017arXiv170408369S Theorem 2.31], all the proper orbifold vector bundle on $Z$ of rank $k$ comes from this way.
Now let $\rho:\Gamma\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}({\mathbb{C}}^{k})$ be a representation of $\Gamma$, we do not assume that it comes from a representation of $\Gamma'$. We still have a flat orbifold vector bundle $(F,\nabla^{F,f})$ on $Z$, which is not proper in general. Note that $\Gamma$ acts on $C^{\infty}(X,{\mathbb{C}}^{k})$ so that if $\varphi\in C^{\infty}(X,{\mathbb{C}}^{k})$, $\gamma\in\Gamma$, then $$(\gamma\varphi)(x) =\rho(\gamma)\varphi(\gamma^{-1}x).
\label{eq:3.4.16bdf}$$ Let $C^{\infty}(X,{\mathbb{C}}^{k})^{\Gamma}$ denote the $\Gamma$-invariant sections in $C^{\infty}(X,{\mathbb{C}}^{k})$. Then $$C^{\infty}(Z,F)=C^{\infty}(X,{\mathbb{C}}^{k})^{\Gamma}.
\label{eq:eq:3.4.15bk}$$
We have the following results.
\[prop:3.4.2octs\] Let $(V,\rho^{V})$ be the isotypic component of $({\mathbb{C}}^{k},\rho|_S)$ corresponding to the trivial representation of $S$ on ${\mathbb{C}}$, i.e. the maximal $S$-invariant subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}^{k}$ via $\rho$. Set $F^{\mathrm{pr}}=X{}_{\Gamma}\times V$, then $F^{\mathrm{pr}}$ is a proper flat orbifold vector bundle on $Z$. Moreover, $$C^{\infty}(Z,F)=C^{\infty}(Z,F^{\mathrm{pr}}).
\label{eq:3.4.14bf}$$
In particular, if $\rho|_{S}:S\rightarrow
\mathrm{GL}({\mathbb{C}}^{k})$ does not have the isotypic component of the trivial representation of $S$ on ${\mathbb{C}}$, then $$C^{\infty}(Z,F)=\{0\}.
\label{eq:3.4.15bf}$$
Let $(E,\rho^{E})$ be a finite dimensional complex representation of $G$. When restricting to $\Gamma$, $K$, we get the corresponding representations of $\Gamma$, $K$ respectively, which are still denoted by $\rho^{E}$.
Set $F=G\times_{K} E$. Then $F$ is a homogeneous vector bundle on $X$ discussed in Subsection \[section3.2\]. Moreover, $G$ acts on $F$. Then it descends to an orbifold vector bundle on $Z$.
The map $(g,v)\in G\times_{K} E\rightarrow (pg, \rho^{E}(g)v)\in
X\times E$ gives a canonical trivialization of $F$ over $X$. This identification gives a flat connection $\nabla^{F,f}$ for $F$. Recall that the connection $\nabla^{F}$ is induced from $\omega^{{\mathfrak{k}}}$. Then $$\nabla^{F,f}=\nabla^{F}+\rho^{E}(\omega^{{\mathfrak{p}}}).
\label{eq:3.4.20ab}$$ This flat connection is $G$-invariant on $X$, then it descends to a flat connection on the orbifold vector bundle $F$ on $Z$. Moreover, the above trivialization of $F\rightarrow X$ implies that the flat orbifold vector bundle $(F,\nabla^{F,f})$ is exactly the one given by $X{}_{\Gamma}\times E$ with $\nabla^{F,f}$ induced by $d^{X}$. By , , we get $$C^{\infty}(Z,F)=C_{K}^{\infty}(G,E)^{\Gamma}.
\label{eq:3.4.21bbs}$$
Selberg’s trace formula {#section3.5}
-----------------------
Let $Z$ be the compact locally symmetric space discussed in Subsection \[section3.4\], and let $(F,\nabla^{F})$ be a Hermitian vector bundle on $X$ defined by a unitary representation $(E,\rho^{E})$ of $K$. As said before, $(F,\nabla^{F})$ descends to a Hermitian orbifold vector bundle on $Z$. Recall the Bochner-like Laplacian $\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A}$ is defined by . Since it commutes with $G$, then it descends to a Bochner-like Laplacian $\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A}$ acting on $C^{\infty}(Z,F)$.
Here the convergences of the integrals and infinite sums are already guaranteed by the results in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Chapters 2 & 4] and in [@Shen_2016 Section 4D].
For $t>0$, let $p^{Z}_{t}(z,z')$, $z,z'\in Z$ be the heat kernel of $\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A}$ over $Z$ with respect to $dz'$. If $z,z'$ are identified with their lifts in $X$, then $$p^{Z}_{t}(z,z')=\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma} \gamma
p^{X}_{t}(\gamma^{-1}z,z')=\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}
p^{X}_{t}(z,\gamma z')\gamma.
\label{eq:3.5.1ksd}$$ If $F$ is a proper orbifold vector bundle on $Z$, i.e., $S$ acts trivially on $E$, then $\Gamma'$ acts on $F\rightarrow X$, and can be rewritten as $$p^{Z}_{t}(z,z')=\sum_{\gamma'\in\Gamma'} \gamma'
p^{X}_{t}((\gamma')^{-1}z,z')=\sum_{\gamma'\in\Gamma'}
p^{X}_{t}(z,\gamma' z')\gamma'.
\label{eq:3.5.2ksd}$$
For the case where $F$ is not a proper orbifold vector bundle, it will be more complicated. If $g\in G$, then $g^{-1}Sg$ is also a subgroup of $K$. Put $E_{g}^{\mathrm{pr}}$ be the maximal subspace of $E$ on which $g^{-1}Sg$ acts trivially via $\rho^{E}$. Then if $k\in K$, we have $$E^{\mathrm{pr}}_{gk}=\rho^{E}(k^{-1})E_{g}^{\mathrm{pr}}\subset E.
\label{eq:3.5.3tuesday}$$ Then all the pairs $(g, E^{\mathrm{pr}}_{g}), g\in G$ defines a subbundle of $F$ on $Z$, which is just the corresponding proper orbifold bundle $F^{\mathrm{pr}}$ of $F$. As in Proposition \[prop:3.4.2octs\], we have $$C^{\infty}(Z,F)=C^{\infty}(Z,F^{\mathrm{pr}}).
\label{eq:3.5.4toc}$$
If we write $(E,\rho^{E}|_{S})$ as a direct sum of the trivial $S$-representation $E^{\mathrm{pr}}_{1}$ and the nontrivial part $(E',\rho^{E'})$. Note that $$\sum_{s\in S}\rho^{E'}(s)=0 \in \mathrm{End}(E').
\label{eq:octsss}$$ Combining , and , we see that still holds as kernels of integral operators acting on $C^{\infty}(Z,F)$.
If $S=\Delta$, then $E^{\mathrm{pr}}_{1}$ is a $K$-subrepresentation of $(E,\rho^{E})$. Then $F^{\mathrm{pr}}=G\times_{K} E^{\mathrm{pr}}_{1}$.
Since $Z$ is compact, then for $t>0$, $\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})$ is trace class. We have $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})]=\int_{Z}\mathrm{Tr}^{F}[p^{Z}_{t}(z,z)]dz.
\label{eq:3.5.3ksd}$$
Combining , , and , , we get $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}\int_{\Gamma\backslash G}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma} \mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(\bar{g}^{-1}\gamma\bar{g})]d\bar{g}.
\label{eq:3.5.4ksd}$$
Take $[\gamma]\in [\Gamma]$. Set $$p_{t}^{X,[\gamma]}(g,g')=\sum_{\gamma\in[\gamma]}
p^{X}_{t}(g^{-1}\gamma g').
\label{eq:3.5.5ksd}$$ Then $p_{t}^{X,[\gamma]}(g,g)$ descends to a function on $\Gamma\backslash G$.
Set $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})^{[\gamma]}]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}\int_{\Gamma\backslash G} \mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p_{t}^{X,[\gamma]}(\bar{g},\bar{g})]d\bar{g}.
\label{eq:3.5.6ksd}$$
By , , we have $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})]=\sum_{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma]}\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})^{[\gamma]}].
\label{eq:3.5.7ksd}$$
By , , we get $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})^{[\gamma]}]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}\int_{\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash G} \mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p_{t}^{X}(\bar{g}^{-1}\gamma\bar{g})]d\bar{g}.
\label{eq:3.5.8ksd}$$ Recall that the measures $dz$, $dv$ on $Z(\gamma)$, $Z(\gamma)\backslash G$ are defined in . Then $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})^{[\gamma]}]=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma))}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}\int_{Z(\gamma)\backslash G} \mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p_{t}^{X}(v^{-1}\gamma v)]dv.
\label{eq:3.5.9ksd}$$ By , , we get
$$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})^{[\gamma]}]=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma))}{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma))}\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})].
\label{eq:3.5.10ksd}$$
Take $\gamma\in \Gamma$. Let $K(\gamma)$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $Z(\gamma)$ so that $X(\gamma)=Z(\gamma)/K(\gamma)$. Then $K(\gamma)$ acts on $Z(\gamma)$ on the right, which induces an action on $\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma)$ on the right. Set $$\Delta(\gamma)=\ker (K(\gamma)\rightarrow
\mathrm{Diffeo}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma))).
\label{eq:3.3.11aa}$$ Then $\Delta(\gamma)$ is a finite subgroup of $\Gamma\cap K(\gamma)$.
Set $$S(\gamma)=\ker (\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\rightarrow
\mathrm{Diffeo}(X(\gamma))).
\label{eq:3.3.12aa}$$ Then $\Delta(\gamma)\subset S(\gamma)$ and $S(\gamma)$ represents the isotropy group of the principal orbit type for the right action of $K(\gamma)$ on $\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma)$. As in , we have $$\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash
Z(\gamma))=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma)).
\label{eq:3.5.13ksd}$$
\[thm:3.5.2kkss\] For $t>0$, we have the following identity, $$\mathrm{Tr}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{Z}_{A})]=\sum_{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|} \mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})].
\label{eq:3.5.14ksd}$$
This is a direct consequence of , and .
As explained before, many interesting cases have the property $S=1$ or can be reduced to $S=1$. In these cases, the trace formula shows clearly the different contributions from $Z$ and from each components of $\Sigma Z$. In the sequel, we give a precise description of the contribution of $\Sigma Z$ when $S$ is not such trivial.
The orbifold resolution $\Sigma Z$ of $Z_{\mathrm{sing}}$ is described by . Recall that $|S'(\gamma')|$ is the multiplicity of the connected component $Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma')$ in $\Sigma Z$. Let $\pi_{\Gamma}:\Gamma\rightarrow \Gamma'$ denote the obvious projection. If $\gamma'\in \Gamma'$, put $$\{\gamma'\}=\{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma]\;:\; \pi_{\Gamma}(\gamma)\in
[\gamma']'\}.
\label{eq:3.5.16nov9}$$ In particular, we have $\{1\}=[S]_{\Gamma}$.
If $f$ is a function on $S$, put $$\langle f\rangle_{S}=\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{s\in S}f(s).
\label{eq:3.5.17tueoct}$$
\[prop:3.5.2news\] If $s\in S$, then $$\mathrm{Tr}^{[s]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]=\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(1)\rho^{E}(s)].
\label{eq:3.5.17oct9s}$$ Then $$\sum_{[\gamma]\in
[S]_{\Gamma}}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X)}{|S(\gamma)|}
\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]=\mathrm{Vol}(Z)\langle\mathrm{Tr}^{[\cdot]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\rangle_{S}.
\label{eq:3.5.16oct9}$$
Fix $\gamma_0\in \Gamma$ such that $\pi_{\Gamma}(\gamma_{0})\in
[\gamma']'$. Then $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{[\gamma]\in \{\gamma'\}}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}
\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\\
&=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma'))}{|S'(\gamma')|}
\langle\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma_{0}\cdot]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\rangle_{S}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:3.5.18octs9s}$$
It is clear that is just a special case of . But for a better understanding, we also include an easy proof to this special case, then we will prove the general case.
If $s\in S$, then $\mathrm{Ad}(s)$ acts trivially on ${\mathfrak{p}}$. Then we have the identification $$Z(s)=\exp({\mathfrak{p}})K(s).
\label{eq:3.5.18ae}$$ Therefore, we get the following identification together with their volume elements, $$Z(s)\backslash G \simeq K(s)\backslash K.
\label{eq:3.5.19rrt}$$ Then the identity follows from , and the fact that $S$ acts trivially both on $X$.
Now we prove . By , if $[\gamma]\in [S]_{\Gamma}$ we have $$\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X)}{|S(\gamma)|}=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash Z(\gamma))}{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma))}.
\label{eq:3.5.20rrtk}$$ Then by , $$\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X)}{|S(\gamma)|}=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash
G)}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}=[\Gamma:\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)]\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\backslash
G)}{\mathrm{Vol}(K)}.
\label{eq:3.5.20rrt}$$
Then follows from , , , and the fact that if $\gamma\in \Gamma$, $$\Gamma/\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma) \simeq [\gamma].
\label{eq:3.5.15oct9}$$
Now we prove the second part. Let $\gamma_{0}\in \Gamma$ be such that $\pi_{\Gamma}(\gamma_{0})\in [\gamma']'$. Then $$\cup_{[\gamma]\in\{\gamma'\}} [\gamma]=[\gamma_{0}]S\subset
\Gamma.
\label{eq:3.5.27tuoc}$$ Also note that the quantity $\langle\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma_{0}\cdot]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\rangle_{S}$ is independent of the choice of such $\gamma_{0}$, which is determined uniquely by $[\gamma']'$.
By , and , we get $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{[\gamma]\in \{\gamma'\}}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}
\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\\
&=\sum_{[\gamma]\in \{\gamma'\}}\int_{\Gamma\backslash G}
\sum_{\gamma\in[\gamma]}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(\bar{g}^{-1}\gamma\bar{g})]d\bar{g}\\
&=\int_{\Gamma\backslash G}
\sum_{\gamma\in[\gamma_{0}]S}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(\bar{g}^{-1}\gamma\bar{g})]d\bar{g}\\
&=\int_{\Gamma\backslash G}
\sum_{\gamma'\in[\gamma']'}\sum_{s\in
S}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(\bar{g}^{-1}\gamma's\bar{g})]d\bar{g}\\
&=\int_{Z=\Gamma'\backslash
X}\sum_{\gamma'\in[\gamma']'}\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{s\in
S}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(z^{-1}\gamma's z)]dz\\
&=\int_{Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash
X}\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{s\in
S}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[p^{X}_{t}(\bar{x}^{-1}\gamma_{0}s
\bar{x})]d\bar{x}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:3.5.28tuoc}$$
Note that $X$ can be identified with the total space of the orthogonal normal bundle of $X(\gamma')=X(\gamma_{0})=X(\gamma_{0}s)$. Moreover $Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')$ acts on $X(\gamma')$ isometrically, and $Z(\gamma_{0}s)$ acts on $X(\gamma')$ transitively. Then we get $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{[\gamma]\in \{\gamma'\}}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}
\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\\
&=\frac{1}{|S'(\gamma')|}\frac{1}{|S|}\\
&\quad\cdot\sum_{s\in
S}\int_{z\in
Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma')}\int_{f\in N_{X(\gamma')/X,z}}
\mathrm{Tr}^{F}[p^{X}_{t}(\exp_{z}(f), \gamma_{0}s
\exp_{z}(f))\gamma_{0}s]r(f)dfdz\\
&=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(Z_{\Gamma'}(\gamma')\backslash X(\gamma'))}{|S'(\gamma')|}
\langle\mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma_{0}\cdot]}[\exp(-t\mathcal{L}^{X}_{A})]\rangle_{S}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:3.5.29tuoc}$$ Note that we use the geometric formula for the orbital integrals in the last step of . The proof of our proposition is completed.
The operation $\langle\cdot\rangle_{S}$ in the right-hand sides of equations , indicates only the part $F^{\mathrm{pr}}$ contributes to the final results. Combining , with the results in Proposition \[prop:3.5.2news\] and [@liu2019hypoelliptic Theorem 6.4.1], we can recover for $Z$. If we use the same settings as in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Sections 7.1, 7.2] and we use instead the results in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.7.1], then we can recover the Kawasaki’s local index theorem [@MR527023] for $Z$.
Analytic torsions for compact locally symmetric spaces {#section3.6}
======================================================
In this section, we explain how to make use of Bismut’s formula and Selberg’s trace formula to study the analytic torsions of $Z$. We continue using the same settings as in Section \[section2\].
We show that by a vanishing result on the analytic torsion, only the case $\delta(G)=1$ remains interesting. Then if $G$ has noncompact center, we can get very explicit information for evaluating $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$ due to the Euclidean component in $X$. If $G$ has compact center, we need more tools, which will be carried out in Sections \[section4\] & \[section6paris\].
A vanishing result on the analytic torsions {#subsection4.1paris}
-------------------------------------------
Recall that $G$ is a connected linear real reductive Lie group. Recall that ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is the center of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Set $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\cap {\mathfrak{p}},\; {\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\cap{\mathfrak{k}}.
\label{eq:3.6.1oct19}$$ Then $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\oplus {\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}},\; Z_{G}=\exp({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}})(Z_{G}\cap
K).
\label{eq:3.6.2}$$
Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $K$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{t}}$, put $$\label{eq:defofb}
{\mathfrak{b}}=\{f\in{\mathfrak{p}}\,:\, [f,{\mathfrak{t}}]=0\}.$$ It is clear that $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset {\mathfrak{b}}.
\label{eq:3.6.2bis19}$$
Put ${\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{t}}$, then ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $H$ be analytic subgroup of $G$ associated with ${\mathfrak{h}}$, then it is also a Cartan subgroup of $G$. Moreover, $\dim{\mathfrak{t}}$ is just the complex rank of $K$, and $\dim {\mathfrak{h}}$ is the complex rank of $G$.
Using the above notations, the deficiency of $G$, or the fundamental rank of $G$ is defined as $$\label{eq:deltaG}
\delta(G)=\mathrm{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}G-\mathrm{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}K=\dim_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathfrak{b}}.$$ The number $m-\delta(G)$ is even.
The following result was proved in [@Shen_2016 Proposition 3.3].
If $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, then $$\delta(G)\leq \delta(Z(\gamma)^{0}).
\label{eq:3.6.5oct19}$$ The two sides of are equal if and only if $\gamma$ can be conjugated into $H$.
Recall that ${\mathfrak{u}}=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}$ is the compact form of $G$, and that $U\subset G_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ is the analytic subgroup with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{u}}$. Let $U{\mathfrak{u}}$, $U{\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}$ be the enveloping algebras of ${\mathfrak{u}}$, ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}$ respectively. Then $U{\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ can be identified with the left-invariant holomorphic differential operators on $G_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let $C^{\mathfrak{u}}\in U{\mathfrak{u}}$ be the Casimir operator of ${\mathfrak{u}}$ associated with $B$, then $$C^{\mathfrak{u}}=C^{\mathfrak{g}}\in U{\mathfrak{g}}\cap U{\mathfrak{u}}\subset U{\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}.
\label{eq:7.7.1hh}$$
In the sequel, we always assume that $U$ is compact, this is the case when $G$ has compact center.
\[prop:unitarytrick\] Assume that $U$ is compact. Then any irreducible finite dimensional (analytic) complex representation of $U$ extends uniquely to an irreducible finite dimensional complex representation of $G$ such that their induced representations of Lie algebras are compatible.
We now fix a unitary representation $(E,\rho^{E}, h^{E})$ of $U$, and we extend it to a representation of $G$, whose restriction to $K$ is still unitary.
Put $F=G\times_K E$ with the Hermitian metric $h^{F}$ induced by $h^{E}$. Let $\nabla^F$ be the Hermitian connection induced by the connection form $\omega^{\mathfrak{k}}$. If $G$ has compact center, then $F$ is a unimodular.
Furthermore, as explained in the last part of Subsection \[section3.4\], $F$ is equipped with a canonical flat connection $\nabla^{F,f}$ as follows, $$\nabla^{F,f}=\nabla^{F}+ \rho^E(\omega^{\mathfrak{p}}).
\label{eq:5.5.9bs}$$
Let $(\Omega_c^\cdot(X,F), d^{X,F})$ be the (compactly supported) de Rham complex twisted by $F$. Let $d^{X,F,*}$ be the adjoint operator of $d^{X,F}$ with respect to the $L_2$ metric on $\Omega_c^\cdot(X,F)$. The Dirac operator $\mathbf{D}^{X,F}$ of this de Rham complex is given by $$\label{eq5.90}
\mathbf{D}^{X,F}=d^{X,F}+d^{X,F,*}.$$
The Clifford algebras $c(TX)$, $\widehat{c}(TX)$ act on $\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)$. We still use $e_1$, $\cdots$, $e_m$ to denote an orthonormal basis of ${\mathfrak{p}}$ or $TX$, and let $e^1$, $\cdots$, $e^m$ be the corresponding dual basis of ${\mathfrak{p}}^{*}$ or $T^*X$.
Let $\nabla^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F,u}$ be the unitary connection on $\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F$ induced by $\nabla^{TX}$ and $\nabla^F$. Then the standard Dirac operator is given by $$D^{X,F}=\sum^m_{j=1} c(e_j)\nabla^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F,u}_{e_j}.
\label{eq:5.5.14bs}$$
By [@BMZ2015toeplitz eq.(8.42)], we have $$\mathbf{D}^{X,F}= D^{X,F}+ \sum^m_{j=1} \widehat{c}(e_j)\rho^E(e_j).
\label{eq:5.5.15bs}$$
In the same time, $C^{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ descends to an elliptic differential operator $C^{{\mathfrak{g}},X}$ acting on $C^\infty(X,\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F)$. Let $\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}}\in\Lambda^{3}({\mathfrak{g}}^{*})$ be such that if $a,b,c\in{\mathfrak{g}}$, $$\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}}(a,b,c)=B([a,b],c).
\label{eq:3.6.16dec19}$$ Then $\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is a $G$-invariant closed $3$-form on $G$. The bilinear form $B$ induces a corresponding bilinear form $B^{*}$ on $\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{g}}^{*})$. Let $C^{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ be the Casimir operator associated with $({\mathfrak{k}}, B|_{{\mathfrak{k}}})$, and let $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{k}}}$, $C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be the the actions of $C^{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ on ${\mathfrak{k}}$, ${\mathfrak{p}}$ via adjoint actions. By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eq.(2.6.11)], we have $$B^{*}(\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}},\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^{{\mathfrak{p}}}[C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{p}}}]+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{Tr}^{{\mathfrak{k}}}[C^{{\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{k}}}].
\label{eq:3.6.17dec19}$$
Set $$\mathcal{L}^{X,F}=\frac{1}{2}C^{{\mathfrak{g}},X}+\frac{1}{8} B^*(\kappa^{\mathfrak{g}},\kappa^{\mathfrak{g}}).
\label{eq:7.7.14sss}$$ By [@BMZ2015toeplitz Proposition 8.4], we have $$\label{eq:7.7.7}
\frac{\mathbf{D}^{X,F, 2}}{2}= \mathcal{L}^{X,F}-
\frac{1}{2}C^{{\mathfrak{g}},E}-\frac{1}{8} B^*(\kappa^{\mathfrak{g}},\kappa^{\mathfrak{g}}).$$
Let $\gamma\in G$ be a semisimple element. In the sequel, we may assume that $$\gamma=e^ak, a\in {\mathfrak{p}}, k\in K, \mathrm{Ad}(k)a=a.
\label{eq:s4formst}$$ We also use the same notation as in Subsection \[section3.3\].
Recall that $p=\dim{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, $q=\dim {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$. By and , as in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Section 8], we have $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big]\\
&=\frac{e^{-\frac{|a|^2}{2t}}}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}} \exp\big(\frac{t}{8}B^{*}(\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}},\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}})\big)\\
&\qquad\cdot \int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)} J_\gamma(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))\big]\\
&\qquad\qquad
\cdot\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[\rho^{E}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)+\frac{t}{2}C^{{\mathfrak{u}},E})] e^{-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2t}\frac{dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.8pl}$$
Now we take a cocompact discrete subgroup $\Gamma\subset G$. Then $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$ is a compact locally symmetric orbifold. We use the same notation as in Subsections \[section3.4\] & \[section3.5\]. Then we get a flat orbifold vector bundle $(F,\nabla^{F,f},h^{F})$ on $Z$. Furthermore, $\mathbf{D}^{X,F}$ descends to the corresponding Hodge-de Rham operator $\mathbf{D}^{Z,F}$ acting on $\Omega^{\cdot}(Z,F)$. Let $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$ denote the associated analytic torsion as in Definition \[def:2.2.5ss20\], i.e., $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F)=\mathcal{T}(g^{TZ}, \nabla^{F,f},h^{F}).
\label{eq:4.1.20paris2020}$$
As explained in Subsection \[subs:2.2\], for computing $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$, it is enough to evaluate $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}/2)], \; t>0.
\label{eq:4.0.23}$$ Then we apply the Selberg’s trace formula in Theorem \[thm:3.5.2kkss\]. We get $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}/2)]\\
&=\sum_{[\gamma]\in[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap
Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|} \mathrm{Tr}^{[\gamma]}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)].
\end{split}
\label{eq:4.0.24kkss}$$
As in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Remark 8.7], by [@Ma2017bourbaki Theorems 5.4 & 5.5, Remark 5.6], we have the following vanishing theorem on $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$.
\[thm:4.1.4paris20\] If $m$ is even, or if $m$ is odd and $\delta(G)\geq 3$, then $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F)=0.
\label{eq:3.6.14s}$$
By [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.9.1], [@Ma2017bourbaki Theorem 5.4], and use instead , we get that under the assumptions in this theorem, for $t>0$, $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}))]=0.
\label{eq:3.6.19oct19}$$ The proof of is identical to the proof of [@liu2019hypoelliptic Proposition 6.5.3].
Therefore, the only nontrivial case is that $\delta(G)=1$, so that $m$ is odd. If $\gamma\in G$ is of the form . Let ${\mathfrak{t}}(\gamma)\subset {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$ be a Cartan subalgebra. Put $${\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)=\{v\in {\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)\,:\, [v,{\mathfrak{t}}(\gamma)]=0\}.$$ In particular, $a\in{\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)$. Then ${\mathfrak{h}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{t}}(\gamma)$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$.
Recall that $H$ is a maximal compact Cartan subgroup of $G$. The following result is just an analogue of [@Shen_2016 Theorem 4.12] and [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.9.1].
\[prop:6.1.1ss\] If $\delta(G)=1$, if $\gamma$ is semisimple and can not be conjugated into $H$ by an element in $G$, then $$\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big]=0.
\label{eq:6.2.7pl}$$
Let ${\mathfrak{t}}$ be a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{k}}$ containing ${\mathfrak{t}}(\gamma)$. Then ${\mathfrak{b}}\subset {\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)$. If $a\notin {\mathfrak{b}}$, then $\dim
{\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)\geq 2$. Therefore, by [@Shen_2016 Eq.(4-44)], for $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}\in{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, we have $$\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k^{-1})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))\big]=0.
\label{eq:6.2.7cpl}$$ This implies . The proof is completed.
Set $${\mathfrak{g}}'={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathrm{ss}}.
\label{eq:4.1.26std}$$ Then ${\mathfrak{g}}'$ is an ideal of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $G'$ be the analytic subgroup of $G$ associated with ${\mathfrak{g}}'$, which has a compact center. The group $K$ is still a maximal subgroup of $G'$. Let $U'\subset
U$ be the compact form of $G'$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{u}}'$, then $${\mathfrak{u}}=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\oplus{\mathfrak{u}}'.
\label{eq:4.1.27bio}$$
Now we assume that $\delta(G)=1$ and that $G$ has noncompact center, so that ${\mathfrak{b}}={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ has dimension $1$. Then $\delta(G')=0$. Under the hypothesis that $U$ is compact, then up to a finite cover, we may write $$U\simeq \mathbb{S}^{1}\times U'.
\label{eq:4.1.27std}$$
We take $a_{1}\in{\mathfrak{b}}$ with $|a_{1}|=1$. If $(E,\rho^{E})$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $U$, then $\rho^{E}(a_{1})$ acts on $E$ by a real scalar operator. Let $\alpha_{E}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $$\rho^{E}(a_{1})=\alpha_{E}\mathrm{Id}_{E}.
\label{eq:4.1.28std}$$
Put $X'=G'/K$. Then $X'$ is an even-dimensional symmetric space (of noncompact type). We identify ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ with a real line ${\mathbb{R}}$, then $$G={\mathbb{R}}\times G',\; X={\mathbb{R}}\times X'.
\label{eq:3.6.18oct19}$$
In this case, the evaluation for analytic torsions can be made more explicit. If $\gamma\in G'$, let $X'(\gamma)$ denote the minimizing set of $d_{\gamma}(\cdot)$ in $X'$, so that $$X(\gamma)={\mathbb{R}}\times X'(\gamma).
\label{eq:ssok}$$
Let $[\cdot]^{\mathrm{max}}$ denote the coefficient of a differential form on $X'$ of the (oriented) Riemannian volume form. Similarly, for $k\in
T$, let $[\cdot]^{\mathrm{max}(k)}$ denote the coefficient of the Riemannian volume form in a differential form on $X'(k)$.
The following results are the analogue of [@Shen_2016 Proposition 4.14].
\[prop:3.6.5nov19\] Assume that $G$ has noncompact center with $\delta(G)=1$ and that $(E,\rho^{E})$ is irreducible. Then $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{[1]}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)]=-\frac{e^{-t\alpha^{2}_{E}/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}[e(TX',\nabla^{TX'})]^{\mathrm{max}}\dim E.
\label{eq:3.6.21novend}$$
If $\gamma=e^{a}k$ is such that $a\in{\mathfrak{b}}$, $k\in T$, then $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{[\gamma]}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)]\\
&=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
t}}e^{-\frac{|a|^{2}}{2t}-t\alpha^{2}_{E}/2}[e(TX^{\prime}(k),\nabla^{TX^{\prime}(k)})]^{\mathrm{max}(k)}\mathrm{Tr}^{E}[\rho^{E}(k)].
\end{split}
\label{eq:3.6.22novend}$$
If $\gamma$ can not be conjugated into $H$, then $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{[\gamma]}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)]=0.
\label{eq:3.6.23novend}$$
Let $C^{{\mathfrak{u}}'}$ denote the Casimir operator of ${\mathfrak{u}}'$ associated with $B|_{{\mathfrak{u}}'}$. Then we have $$C^{{\mathfrak{u}}} = -a_{1}^{2} + C^{{\mathfrak{u}}'}.
\label{eq:4.1.34std}$$ Since $(E,\rho^{E})$ is an irreducible representation, by and , we get $$C^{{\mathfrak{u}},E} = -\alpha_{E}^{2} + C^{{\mathfrak{u}}',E}.
\label{eq:4.1.35std}$$
Then by and [@BMZ2015toeplitz Theorem 8.5], an modification of the proof to [@Shen_2016 Proposition 4.14] proves the identities in our proposition. Note that is just a special case of .
If we assembly the results in Proposition \[prop:3.6.5nov19\], it is enough to study the corresponding analytic torsions. We will get back to this point in Corollary \[cor:7.3.6kkss\] for asymptotic analytic torsions.
Symmetric spaces of noncompact type with rank $1$ {#subs:4.2std}
-------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we focus on the case where $\delta(G)=1$ and $G$ has compact center (i.e. ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}=0$), so that $X$ is a symmetric space of noncompact type [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.18].
Note that the rank $\delta(X)$ of $X$ (cf. [@eberlein1996geometry Section 2.7]) is the same as $\delta(G)$, then $\delta(X)=1$. By the de Rham decomposition, we can write $$X=X_{1}\times X_{2},
\label{eq:4.0.33kk}$$ where $X_{1}$ is an irreducible symmetric space of noncompact type with $\delta(X_{1})=1$, and $X_{2}$ is a symmetric space of noncompact type with $\delta(X_{2})=0$.
As in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Remark 7.9.2], among the noncompact simple connected real linear groups such that $m$ is odd and $\dim {\mathfrak{b}}=1$, there are only $\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$, $\mathrm{SL}_{2}(\mathbb{H})$, and $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq$ odd $>1$. Also, we have $\mathfrak{sl}_{4}({\mathbb{R}})=\mathfrak{so}(3,3)$ and $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}(\mathbb{H})=\mathfrak{so}(5,1)$. Therefore, the above list can be reduced to $\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq$ odd $>1$. Therefore, $X_{1}$ is one of the following cases $$X_{1}=\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})/\mathrm{SO}(3)\;\mathrm{or}\;
\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)/\mathrm{SO}(p+q) \; \mathrm{with}\;
pq>1\;\mathrm{odd}\;.
\label{eq:4.2.5std20}$$
Since $\delta(G)=1$, we have the following decomposition of Lie algebras, $${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\oplus{\mathfrak{g}}_{2},
\label{eq:7.4.10kk20}$$ where $${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}=\mathfrak{sl}_{3}({\mathbb{R}}) \;\mathrm{or}\; \mathfrak{so}(p,q)$$ with $pq>1$ odd, and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2}$ is real reductive with $\delta({\mathfrak{g}}_{2})=0$.
By , up to finite (central) extension, we may assume that $(G,\theta,K)=(G_{1},\theta_{1},K_{1})\times(G_{2},\theta_{2},K_{2})$, where $(G_{2},\theta_{2},K_{2})$ is a connected linear reductive Lie group with compact center and Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2}$, and $G_{1}$ is just a finite covering group of $\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$ or $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq>1$ odd. In particular, $\delta(G_{1})=1$, $\delta(G_{2})=0$, and $$X_{j}=G_{j}/K_{j}, j=1,2.$$
Let $U_{1}$, $U_{2}$ be (connected linear) compact forms of $G_{1}$, $G_{2}$. Then we may take $U=U_{1}\times U_{2}$. Let $(E,\rho^{E})$ be an irreducible unitary representation of $U$, then $$(E,\rho^{E})=(E_{1},\rho^{E_{1}})\otimes (E_{2},\rho^{E_{2}}),$$ where $(E_{j},\rho^{E_{j}})$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $U_{j}$, $j=1,2$. Let $F$, $F_{1}$, $F_{2}$ be the homogeneous flat vector bundles on $X$, $X_{1}$, $X_{2}$ associated with these representations. Then we have $$F=F_{1}\boxtimes F_{2}:=\pi_{1}^{\ast}(F_{1})\otimes
\pi_{2}^{\ast}(F_{2}),
\label{eq:4.0.39}$$ where $\pi_{i}$ denote the projection $X\rightarrow X_{i}$, $i=1,2$ induced from .
Take $\gamma=(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})\in G=G_{1}\times G_{2}$. For $i=1,2$, let $Z_{G_{i}}(\gamma_{i})\subset G_{i}$ denote the centralizer of $\gamma_{i}$. Then $$Z(\gamma)=Z_{G_{1}}(\gamma_{1})\times Z_{G_{2}}(\gamma_{2}).$$ Furthermore, $\gamma$ is semisimple (resp. elliptic) if and only if both $\gamma_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}$ are semisimple (resp. elliptic). Set $m_{i}=\dim X_{i}$, then $m_{2}$ is even.
\[prop:4.2.2bio\] If $\gamma=(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})\in G$ is semisimple, for $t>0$, we have $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big]\\
&=
\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{1}]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X_{1})}-\frac{m_{1}}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X_{1},F_{1},2}/2)\big]\cdot\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{2}]}\big[\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X_{2},F_{2},2}/2)\big]
\end{split}
\label{eq:4.2.8std}$$ Then if $\gamma_{2}$ is nonelliptic, $$\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big]=0.
\label{eq:4.2.11bio}$$ If $\gamma_{2}$ is elliptic, then $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big]\\
&=
[e(TX_{2}(\gamma_{2}),\nabla^{TX_{2}(\gamma_{2})})]^{\mathrm{max}_{2}(\gamma_{2})} \mathrm{Tr}^{E_{2}}[\rho^{E_{2}}(\gamma_{2})]\\
&\qquad\cdot
\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{1}]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X_{1})}-\frac{m_{1}}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X_{1},F_{1},2}/2)\big],
\end{split}
\label{eq:4.2.12bio}$$ where $[\cdot]^{\mathrm{max}_{2}(\gamma_{2})}$ is taking the coefficient of the Riemannian volume form on $X_{2}(\gamma_{2})$.
Note that the orbital integrals here are multiplicative with respect to the products of the underlying Lie groups.
We write $$N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2}=(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X_{1})}-\frac{m_{1}}{2})+ (N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X_{2})}-\frac{m_{2}}{2}).
\label{eq:4.2.11std}$$ Note that, since $\delta(G_{1})=1$, then by [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.8.2], we always have $$\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{1}]}\big[\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X_{1},F_{1},2}/2)\big]=0.
\label{eq:4.2.12std}$$ Combining together and , we get .
The identities , follow from applying the results in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.8.2], [@liu2019hypoelliptic Theorem 6.4.1] to $\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{2}]}\big[\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X_{2},F_{2},2}/2)\big]$. This completes the proof of our proposition.
For studying $\mathcal{T}(Z,F)$, Proposition \[prop:4.2.2bio\] helps us to reduce the computations on $\mathrm{Tr_{s}}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{\ast}Z)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F,2}/2)]$ to the model cases listed in . But it is far from enough to get explicit evaluations. In Sections \[section4\] & \[section6paris\], we will carry out more tools, which allows us work out a proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\].
Cartan subalgebra and root system of $G$ when $\delta(G)=1$ {#section4}
===========================================================
We use the same notation as in previous sections. In Subsections \[section5.1ss20\] - \[section5.3pl\], we assume that $G$ has compact center with $\delta(G)=1$. But, as we will see in Remark \[rm:important\], the constructions and results in these subsections are still true (most of them are trivial) if $U$ is compact and if $G$ has noncompact center with $\delta(G)=1$.
Subsection \[section5.4\] is independent from other subsections, where we introduce a generalized Kirillov formula for compact Lie groups by specializing a result of Duflo, Heckman and Vergne [@DufloHeckmanVergne1984 Theorem (7)].
Recall that $T$ is a maximal torus of $K$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{t}}\subset {\mathfrak{k}}$, and that ${\mathfrak{b}}\subset
{\mathfrak{p}}$ is defined in . Since $\delta(G)=1$, then ${\mathfrak{b}}$ is $1$-dimensional. We now fix a vector $a_{1}\in {\mathfrak{b}}$, $|a_{1}|=1$. Recall that ${\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $h^{{\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}$ be the Hermitian product on ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}$ induced by the scalar product $-B(\cdot,\theta\cdot)$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$.
Reductive Lie algebra with fundamental rank $1$ {#section5.1ss20}
-----------------------------------------------
Since $G$ has compact center, then ${\mathfrak{b}}\not\subset {\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}$.
Let $Z({\mathfrak{b}})$ be the centralizer of ${\mathfrak{b}}$ in $G$, and let $Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}$ be its identity component with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{p}}({\mathfrak{b}})\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}({\mathfrak{b}})\subset{\mathfrak{g}}$. Let ${\mathfrak{m}}$ be the orthogonal subspace of ${\mathfrak{b}}$ in ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})$ (with respect to $B$) such that $${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{m}}.$$ Then ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is a Lie subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})$, which is invariant by $\theta$.
Put $${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{m}}\cap {\mathfrak{p}},\; {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{m}}\cap{\mathfrak{k}}.$$ Then $${\mathfrak{m}}={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}, {\mathfrak{p}}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},\;
{\mathfrak{k}}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}.
\label{eq:5.3.3paris19}$$
Let ${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$, ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$, ${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ be the orthogonal subspaces of ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})$, ${\mathfrak{p}}({\mathfrak{b}})$, ${\mathfrak{k}}({\mathfrak{b}})$ in ${\mathfrak{g}}$, ${\mathfrak{p}}$, ${\mathfrak{k}}$ respectively with respect to $B$. Then $${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.3.4paris19}$$ Moreover, $${\mathfrak{p}}={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}),\;
{\mathfrak{k}}={\mathfrak{k}}({\mathfrak{b}})\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.3.5paris19}$$
Let $M\subset Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}$ be the analytic subgroup associated with ${\mathfrak{m}}$. If we identify ${\mathfrak{b}}$ with ${\mathbb{R}}$, then $$Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}={\mathbb{R}}\times M.$$ Then $M$ is a Lie subgroup of $Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}$, i.e., it is closed in $Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}$. Let $K_{M}$ be the analytic subgroup of $M$ associated with the Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$. Since $M$ is reductive, $K_{M}$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $M$. Then the splittings in , , are invariant by the adjoint action of $K_{M}$.
Then ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{k}}$, of ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, and of ${\mathfrak{m}}$. Recall that ${\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. We fix $a_{1}\in{\mathfrak{b}}$ such that $B(a_{1},a_{1})=1$. The choice of $a_{1}$ fixes an orientation of ${\mathfrak{b}}$. Let ${\mathfrak{n}}\subset
{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ be the direct sum of the eigenspaces of $\mathrm{ad}(a_{1})$ with the positive eigenvalues. Set $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}=\theta {\mathfrak{n}}$. Then $${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})={\mathfrak{n}}\oplus\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}.$$ By [@Shen_2016 Subsection 6A], $\dim {\mathfrak{n}}=\dim{\mathfrak{p}}-\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}-1$. Then $\dim {\mathfrak{n}}$ is even under our assumption $\delta(G)=1$. Put $$l=\frac{1}{2}\dim{\mathfrak{n}}.$$
By [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.2], there exists $\beta\in{\mathfrak{b}}^{*}$ such that if $a\in{\mathfrak{b}}$, $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}$, then $$[a,f]=\beta(a)f,\; [a,\theta(f)]=-\beta(a)\theta(f).
\label{eq:5.1.9dec19}$$
The map $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}\mapsto f-\theta(f)\in{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ is an isomorphism of $K_{M}$-modules. Similarly, $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}\mapsto
f+\theta(f)\in{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ is also an isomorphism of $K_{M}$-modules. Since $\theta$ fixes $K_{M}$, ${\mathfrak{n}}\simeq \bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}$ as $K_{M}$-modules via $\theta$.
By [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.3], we have $$[{\mathfrak{n}}, \bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}]\subset {\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}}),\;
[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]=[\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}},\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}]=0.
\label{eq:5.1.10paris19}$$ Also $$B|_{{\mathfrak{n}}\times{\mathfrak{n}}}=0,\; B|_{\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}\times\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}}=0.
\label{eq:5.1.11paris19}$$ Then the bilinear form $B$ induces an isomorphism of ${\mathfrak{n}}^{*}$ and $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}$ as $K_{M}$-modules. Therefore, as $K_{M}$-modules, ${\mathfrak{n}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathfrak{n}}^{*}$.
As a consequence of , we get $$[{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})]\;,[{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})]\subset
{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}}),\; [{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})]\subset{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.1.12paris19}$$ Then $({\mathfrak{g}},{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}}))$ is a symmetric pair.
If $k\in K_{M}$, let $M(k)$ be the centralizer of $k$ in $M$, and let ${\mathfrak{m}}(k)$ be its Lie algebra. Let $M(k)^{0}$ be the identity component of $M(k)$. The Cartan involution $\theta$ acts on $M(k)$. The associated Cartan decomposition is $${\mathfrak{m}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k),
\label{eq:5.1.13paris19}$$ where ${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\cap {\mathfrak{m}}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)={\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\cap {\mathfrak{m}}(k)$.
Recall that $Z(k)$ be the centralizer of $k$ in $G$ and that $Z(k)^{0}$ is the identity component of $Z(k)$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{z}}(k)\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$. Then $$M(k)=M\cap Z(k),\; {\mathfrak{m}}(k)={\mathfrak{m}}\cap {\mathfrak{z}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.14ss20k}$$
Note that $Z(k)^{0}$ is still a reductive Lie group equipped with the Cartan involution induced by the action of $\theta$. By the assumption that $\delta(G)=1$, we have $$\delta(Z(k)^{0})=1.$$ In particular, $${\mathfrak{b}}\subset {\mathfrak{p}}(k).
\label{eq:ss201301}$$
Set $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})\cap {\mathfrak{z}}(k),\; {\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}({\mathfrak{b}})\cap
{\mathfrak{p}}(k),\; {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{k}}({\mathfrak{b}})\cap {\mathfrak{k}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.17ss20m}$$ Then $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus {\mathfrak{m}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.18ss20m}$$ We also have the following identities, $${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k),\; {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)={\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.19ss20m}$$
Let ${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ be the orthogonal spaces of ${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ in ${\mathfrak{p}}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{k}}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{z}}(k)$ with respect to $B$, so that $${\mathfrak{p}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus {\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k),\;
{\mathfrak{k}}(k)={\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k),\;
{\mathfrak{z}}(k)={\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus {\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k).$$ Then $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k) \oplus
{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)= {\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\cap{\mathfrak{z}}(k).$$
Put $${\mathfrak{n}}(k)={\mathfrak{z}}(k)\cap {\mathfrak{n}}, \;\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(k)={\mathfrak{z}}(k)\cap\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}.
\label{eq:5.1.14ssbis}$$ Then $${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)={\mathfrak{n}}(k)\oplus \bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.21ss20m}$$
By , , we get $${\mathfrak{z}}(k)={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)\oplus
{\mathfrak{n}}(k)\oplus\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(k).$$ Since $\delta({\mathfrak{m}}(k))=0$, $\dim {\mathfrak{n}}(k)$ is even. We set $$l(k)=\frac{1}{2}\dim {\mathfrak{n}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.24ss20m}$$
Let $K_{M}(k)$ denote the centralizer of $k$ in $K_{M}$. The map $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}(k)\mapsto f-\theta(f)\in{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)$ is an isomorphism of $K_{M}(k)$-modules, similar for ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)$. Since $\theta$ fixes $K_{M}(k)$, ${\mathfrak{n}}(k)\simeq \bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(k)$ as $K_{M}(k)$-modules via $\theta$.
A compact Hermitian symmetric space $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ {#subsection5.2ss}
--------------------------------------------------------
Recall that ${\mathfrak{u}}=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}$ is the compact form of ${\mathfrak{g}}$.
Let ${\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})\subset {\mathfrak{u}}$, ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\subset {\mathfrak{u}}$ be the compact forms of ${\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})$, ${\mathfrak{m}}$. Then $${\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{b}}\oplus {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},\;
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}.
\label{eq:5.1.17nov19ss}$$
Since $M$ has compact center, let $U_{M}$ be the analytic subgroup of $U$ associated with ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$. Then $U_{M}$ is the compact form of $M$. Let $U({\mathfrak{b}})\subset U$, $A_{0}\subset U$ be the connected subgroups of $U$ associated with Lie algebras ${\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})$, $\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{b}}$. Then $A_{0}$ is in the center of $U({\mathfrak{b}})$. By [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.6], $A_{0}$ is closed in $U$ and is diffeomorphic to a circle $\mathbb{S}^{1}$. Moreover, we have $$U({\mathfrak{b}})=A_{0}U_{M}.
\label{eq:5.1.18dec19}$$
The bilinear form $-B$ induces an $\mathrm{Ad}(U)$-invariant metric on ${\mathfrak{u}}$. Let ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\subset{\mathfrak{u}}$ be the orthogonal subspace of ${\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})$. Then $${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.2.3dec19}$$ By , we get $$[{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})]\;,[{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})]\subset
{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),\; [{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})]\subset{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.2.4dec19}$$ Then $({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}))$ is a symmetric pair.
Put $a_{0}=a_{1}/\beta(a_{1})\in{\mathfrak{b}}$. Set $$J=\sqrt{-1}\mathrm{ad}(a_{0})|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}\in\mathrm{End}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})).
\label{eq:5.2.5dec19}$$ By , $J$ is an $U({\mathfrak{b}})$-invariant complex structure on ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ which preserves $B|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}$. The spaces ${\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}={\mathfrak{n}}\otimes_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{C}}$, $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}=\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}\otimes_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{C}}$ are exactly the eigenspaces of $J$ associated with eigenvalues $\sqrt{-1}$, $-\sqrt{-1}$.
The following proposition is just the summary of the results in [@Shen_2016 Section 6B].
\[prop:5.2.1dec19\] Set $$Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}=U/U({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.2.6dec19}$$ Then $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ is a compact symmetric space, and $J$ induces an integrable complex structure on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ such that $$T^{(1,0)}Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}=U\times_{U({\mathfrak{b}})}{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},\;
T^{(0,1)}Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}=U\times_{U({\mathfrak{b}})}\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}.
\label{eq:5.2.7dec19}$$ The form $-B(\cdot, J\cdot)$ induces a Kähler form $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}$ on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$.
By [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.20], if $G$ has compact center, then as symmetric spaces, the Kähler manifold $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ is isomorphic either to $\mathrm{SU}(3)/\mathrm{U}(2)$ or to $\mathrm{SO}(p+q)/\mathrm{SO}(p+q-2)\times \mathrm{SO}(2)$ with $pq>1$ odd. This way, the computations on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ can be made explicitly.
Let $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}}$ be the canonical left-invariant $1$-form on $U$ with values in ${\mathfrak{u}}$. Let $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ and $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ be the ${\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})$ and ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ components of $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}}$, so that $$\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}}=\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}+\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}.
\label{eq:5.2.8dec19}$$ Moreover, $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ defines a connection form on the principal $U({\mathfrak{b}})$-bundle $U\rightarrow Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$. Let $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ be the curvature form, then $$\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}=-\frac{1}{2}[\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})},\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}].
\label{eq:5.2.9dec19}$$
Note that the real tangent bundle of $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ is given $$TY_{{\mathfrak{b}}}=U\times_{U({\mathfrak{b}})}{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:5.2.7decbis}$$ Then $-B|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ induces a Riemannian metric $g^{TY_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}$ on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$. The corresponding Levi-Civita connection is induced by $\omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$.
Recall that the first splitting in is orthogonal with respect to $-B$. Let $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ be the ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$-component of $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$. By [@Shen_2016 eq.(6-48)], $$\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}=\beta(a_{1})\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}\otimes\sqrt{-1}a_{1}+\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}.
\label{eq:5.2.11dec19}$$ Moreover, by [@Shen_2016 Proposition 6.9], we have $$B(\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}, \Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})})=0,\;
B(\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}},\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})=\beta(a_{1})^{2}\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}.
\label{eq:5.2.12dec19}$$
Now we fix $k\in K_{M}$. Let $U(k)$ be the centralizer of $k$ in $U$, and let $U(k)^{0}$ be its identity component. If $k$ is not of finite order, then $U(k)=U(k)^{0}$. Let ${\mathfrak{u}}(k)$ be the Lie algebra of $U(k)^{0}$. Then ${\mathfrak{u}}(k)$ is the compact form of ${\mathfrak{z}}(k)$, and $U(k)^{0}$ is the compact form of $Z(k)^{0}$.
We will use the same notation as in Subsection \[section5.1ss20\]. Then the compact form of ${\mathfrak{m}}(k)$ is given by $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k).
\label{eq:5.1.13ssss20s}$$ Let ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ be the compact form of ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$. Then $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k).
\label{eq:5.2.14ss20s}$$ Let $U_{\mathfrak{b}}(k)$ be the analytic subgroup associated with ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$. Then $$U_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=U({\mathfrak{b}})\cap U(k)^{0}.$$
Set $$Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=U(k)^{0}/ U_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k).$$ As in Proposition \[prop:5.2.1dec19\], $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ is a connected complex manifold equipped with a Kähler form $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}$.
Let ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ be the orthogonal space of ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ in ${\mathfrak{u}}(k)$ with respect to $B$. Then $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)\oplus
{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k).$$ Then the real tangent bundle of $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$ is given by $$TY_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=U(k)^{0}\times_{U_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k).
\label{eq:5.2.10ss20}$$ Moreover, $$T^{(1,0)}Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=U(k)^{0}\times_{U_{\mathfrak{b}}(k)}{\mathfrak{n}}(k)_{{\mathbb{C}}},\;
T^{(0,1)}Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)=U(k)^{0}\times_{U_{\mathfrak{b}}(k)}\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(k)_{{\mathbb{C}}}.
\label{eq:5.2.11ss20}$$
Since $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}$ is invariant under the left action of $U(k)^{0}$ on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$, we also can view $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}$ as an element in $\Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)^{*})$.
Let $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}$ be the curvature form as in for the pair $(U(k)^{0}, U_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k))$, which can be viewed as an element in $\Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}^{\perp}(k)^{*})\otimes
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)$. Using the splitting , let $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)}$ be the ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)$-component of $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}$. Then as in and , we have $$\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}=\beta(a_{1})\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}\otimes\sqrt{-1}a_{1}+\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)},
\label{eq:5.2.20dec19}$$ and $$B(\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)}, \Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(k)})=0,\;
B(\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)},\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(k)})=\beta(a_{1})^{2}\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(b),2}.
\label{eq:5.2.21dec19}$$
Positive root system and character formula {#section5.3pl}
------------------------------------------
Recall that ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{k}}$, of ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, and of ${\mathfrak{m}}$. Recall that ${\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $R({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $R({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $R(({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}})_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ be the corresponding root systems. Then $R({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\hookrightarrow
R({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$. Moreover, if we view ${\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{*}$ as the subspace of ${\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{*}$ which consists of the ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear map vanishing on ${\mathfrak{b}}$, then $R({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})=R({\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{b}})_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Let $H\subset G$ be the analytic subgroup associated with ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Then $$H=T\exp({\mathfrak{b}}).
\label{eq:ssfrancfurt}$$ The group $H$ is a maximally compact Cartan subgroup of $G$.
Put $${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}=\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{t}}\subset {\mathfrak{u}}.
\label{eq:5.3.1th19}$$ Then ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{u}}$. Let $T_{U}\subset U$ be the corresponding maximal torus. Then $A_{0}$ is a circle in $T_{U}$. Then ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, and the corresponding maximal torus is $T$.
We have ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}}={\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathbb{C}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$ be the associated root system. Then $$R({\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathbb{C}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})=R({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}).
\label{eq:5.3.1dec19}$$ Similarly, we have $$R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},
{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})=R({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})=R({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}).
\label{eq:5.3.2dec19}$$
For a root $\alpha\in R({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, if $\alpha(a_{1})=0$, then $\alpha\in R({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{\mathbb{C}})$. Fix a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, we get a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ consisting of element $\alpha$ such that $\alpha(a_{1})>0$ and the elements in $R^{+}({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Put $W_{{\mathfrak{g}}}=W({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})=W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$ the associated Weyl group. If $\omega\in W_{\mathfrak{g}}$, let $l(\omega)$ denote the length of $\omega$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$. Set $$\varepsilon(\omega)=(-1)^{l(\omega)}.$$ Let $W(U,T_{U})$ be the analytic Weyl group, then $W_{{\mathfrak{g}}}=W(U,T_{U})$.
Put $$W_{u}=\{\omega\in W_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\;:\; \omega^{-1}\cdot \alpha >0,
\mathrm{for\;all\;} \alpha\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}, {\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\}.
\label{eq:5.3.6ss20}$$
Let $R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ be the real root system for the pair $(U,T_{U})$ [@TTrepresentation1985 Chapter V]. Then if $\alpha^{0}\in
R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, after tensoring with ${\mathbb{C}}$, we view it as an element in ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}}^{*}$, then $2\pi i\alpha^{0}\in
R({\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathbb{C}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$. If $\alpha\in
R({\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathbb{C}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$, then $\alpha^{0}=\frac{\alpha}{2\pi i}|_{{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}}\in R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Similarly, let $R({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ denote the real root systems for the pairs $({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, $({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. When we embed ${\mathfrak{t}}^*$ into ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{*}$ by the splitting in , then $$R({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})=R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}}).
\label{eq:5.3.7dec19s}$$ The relations of them to the complex root systems are the same as above.
The positive root systems $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})=R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ are induced by $R^{+}({\mathfrak{g}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{h}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $R^{+}({\mathfrak{m}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$. More precisely, $\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ if $\alpha^{0}(\sqrt{-1}a_{1})>0$ or if $\alpha^{0}(\sqrt{-1}a_{1})=0$ and $\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$.
Put $$\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})}\alpha^{0}\in{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{*},\;
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\alpha^{0}\in{\mathfrak{t}}^{*}.$$ Then $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|_{{\mathfrak{t}}}=\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathfrak{m}}}$.
Let $P_{++}(U)\subset {\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{*}$ be the set of dominant weights of $(U,T_{U})$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. If $\lambda\in
P_{++}(U)$, let $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $U$ with the highest weight $\lambda$, which by the unitary trick extends to an irreducible representation of $G$.
By [@MR0498999 Lemmas 1.1.2.15 & 2.4.2.1], if $\omega\in W_{u}$, then $\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$ is a dominant weight for $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Let $V_{\lambda,\omega}$ denote the representation of $U({\mathfrak{b}})$ with the highest weight $\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$.
Recall that $U({\mathfrak{b}})$ acts on ${\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let $H^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},E_{\lambda})$ be the Lie algebra cohomology of ${\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ with coefficients in $E_{\lambda}$ (cf. [@Kostant1961coh]) By [@MR0498999 Theorem 2.5.1.3], for $i=0,\cdots, 2l$, we have the identification of $U({\mathfrak{b}})$-modules, $$H^{i}({\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},E_{\lambda})\simeq \oplus_{\substack{\omega\in W_{u}\\ l(\omega)=i} }
V_{\lambda,\omega}.
\label{eq:5.3.11pap}$$
By and the Poincaré duality, we get the following identifications as $U({\mathfrak{b}})$-modules, $$\oplus_{i=0}^{2l}(-1)^{i}\Lambda^{i}{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{*}\otimes
E_{\lambda}=\oplus_{\omega\in
W_{u}}\varepsilon(\omega)V_{\lambda,\omega}.
\label{eq:5.3.10dec19ss}$$ Note that if we apply the unitary trick, the above identification also holds as $Z({\mathfrak{b}})^{0}$-modules.
\[def:5.3.1kk\] Let $P_{0}:{\mathfrak{t}}^{*}_{U}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ denote the orthogonal projection with respect to $B^{*}|_{{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{*}}$. For $\omega\in W_{u}$, $\lambda\in
P_{++}(U)$, put $$\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)=P_{0}\big(\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}\big)\in {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}.
\label{eq:5.3.11final}$$
Note that $$P_{0}\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}=\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}.
\label{eq:5.3.12decfinal19}$$ Then $$\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)=P_{0}\big(\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})\big)-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{\mathfrak{m}}}.
\label{eq:5.3.13finalkk}$$
\[prop:5.3.2dec19\] If $\lambda\in
P_{++}(U)$, for $\omega\in W_{u}$, $\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)$ is a dominant weight of $(U_{M},
T)$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Moreover, the restriction of the $U({\mathfrak{b}})$-representation $V_{\lambda,\omega}$ to the subgroup $U_{M}$ is irreducible, which has the highest weight $\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)$.
Since $\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$ is analytically integrable, then $\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)$ is also analytically integrable as a weight associated with $(U_{M},T)$. By and the corresponding identification of positive root systems, we know that $\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)$ is dominant with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$.
Recall that $A_{0}\simeq \mathbb{S}^{1}$ is defined in Subsection \[subsection5.2ss\]. The group $U({\mathfrak{b}})$ has a finite extension $A_{0}\times U_{M}$, then we view $V_{\lambda,\omega}$ as an irreducible unitary representation of $A_{0}\times U_{M}$, whose restriction to $U_{M}$ is clearly irreducible with highest weight $\eta_{\omega}(\lambda)$. This completes the proof of our proposition.
\[rm:important\] In general, $U$ is just the analytic subgroup of $G_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{u}}$. If $U$ is compact but $G$ has noncompact center, i.e., ${\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}={\mathfrak{b}}$, then ${\mathfrak{n}}=\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}=0$, so that $l=0$. Recall that in this case, $G'$, $U'$ are defined in Subsection \[subsection4.1paris\]. Then we have $$M=G', U_{M}=U'.
\label{eq:5.3.14conf}$$ The compact symmetric space $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$ now reduces to one point.
Moreover, in , the set $W_{u}=\{1\}$, so that $V_{\lambda,\omega}$ becomes just $E_{\lambda}$ itself. The identities , are trivially true, so is Proposition \[prop:5.3.2dec19\].
Kirillov character formula for compact Lie groups {#section5.4}
-------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we recall the Kirillov character formula for compact Lie groups. We only use the group $U_{M}$ as an explanatory example. We fix the maximal torus $T$ and the positive (real) root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$.
Let $\lambda\in{\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ be a dominant (analytically integrable) weight of $U_{M}$. Let $(V_{\lambda},\rho^{V_\lambda})$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $U_{M}$ with the highest weight $\lambda$.
Put $$\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}=\mathrm{Ad}^{*}(U_{M})(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\subset {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*}.
\label{eq:5.4.1dec19s}$$ Then $\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$ is an even-dimensional closed manifold.
Since $\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ is regular, then we have the following identifications of $U_{M}$-manifolds, $$\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}\simeq U_{M}/T.
\label{eq:5.4.2dec19s}$$
If $a\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, if $f\in\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$, put $$a_{L, f}=-\mathrm{ad}^{*}(a)f\in T_{f} \mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}.
\label{eq:5.4.3dec19s}$$ Then $a_{L}$ is a tangent vector field on $\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$. Such vector fields span the whole tangent space at each point.
If $a,b\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, $f\in \mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$, put $$\omega_{L}(a_{L},b_{L})_{f}=-\langle f, [a,b]\rangle.
\label{eq:5.4.4dec19s}$$
Then $\omega_{L}$ is a $U_{M}$-invariant symplectic form on $\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$. Put $r^{+}=\frac{1}{2}\dim
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}$. In fact, if we can define an almost complex structure on $T\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$ such that the holomorphic tangent bundle is given by the positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Then $(\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}},\omega_{L})$ become a closed Kähler manifold, and $r^{+}$ is just its complex dimension.
The Liouville measure on $\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$ is given as follows, $$d\mu_{\lambda}=\frac{(\omega_{L})^{r^{+}}}{(r^+)!}.
\label{eq:5.4.5dec19s}$$ It is invariant by the left action of $U_{M}$.
By the Kirillov formula, if $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, we have $$\widehat{A}^{-1}(\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(e^{y})]=\int_{f\in\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}} e^{2\pi i\langle f, y\rangle} d\mu_{\lambda}.
\label{eq:5.4.6dec19s}$$
If $k\in T$, put $Z=U_{M}(k)^{0}$, then $T\subset Z$. Then $T$ is also a maximal torus of $Z$. Let ${\mathfrak{z}}\subset{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ be the Lie algebra of $Z$.
In the sequel, we will give a generalized version of for describing the function $\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(ke^{y})]$ with $y\in{\mathfrak{z}}$.
Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be the orthogonal space of ${\mathfrak{z}}$ in ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ with respect to $B$, so that $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{z}}\oplus{\mathfrak{q}}.
\label{eq:5.4.7ss20kk}$$ Let $R({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ be the real root system associated with the pair $({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Since the adjoint action of $T$ preserves the splitting in . Then $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ splits into two disjoint parts $$R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cup R({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}}),$$ where $R({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ is just the set of real roots for the adjoint action of ${\mathfrak{t}}$ on ${\mathfrak{q}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$.
The positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ induces a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Set $$R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cap R({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}}).$$ Then we have the disjoint union as follows, $$R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cup R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}}).$$
Put $$\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})}
\alpha^{0},\; \rho_{{\mathfrak{q}}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})}
\alpha^{0}.$$ Then $$\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}=\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{q}}}\in{\mathfrak{t}}^{*}.$$
Let $\mathcal{C}\subset {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ denote the Weyl chamber corresponding to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, and let $\mathcal{C}_{0}\subset {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ denote the Weyl chamber corresponding to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Then $\mathcal{C}\subset
\mathcal{C}_{0}$.
Let $W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ be the Weyl groups associated with the pair $({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, $({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ respectively. Then $W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ is canonically a subgroup of $W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Put $$W^{1}(k)=\{\omega\in W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\;|\;
\omega(\mathcal{C})\subset \mathcal{C}_{0}\}.
\label{eq:5.4.13ss20}$$ Note that the set $W^{1}(k)$ is similar to the set $W_{u}$ defined in .
The inclusion $W^{1}(k)\hookrightarrow W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ induces a bijection between $W^{1}(k)$ and the quotient $W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\backslash W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{\mathbb{C}})$.
This lemma follows from that $W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ acts simply transitively on the Weyl chambers associated with $({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$.
Let $\lambda\in {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ be the dominant weight of $U_{M}$ as before. Then $\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\in \mathcal{C}$. Set $$\mathcal{O}=\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}\subset{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*}.$$ Let $\mathcal{O}^{k}$ denote the fixed point set of the holomorphic action of $k$ on $\mathcal{O}$. We embeds ${\mathfrak{z}}^{*}$ in ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*}$ by the splitting . Then $$\mathcal{O}^{k}=\mathcal{O}\cap {\mathfrak{z}}^{*}.$$
The following lemma can be found in [@DufloHeckmanVergne1984 Lemma (7)], [@BOUAZIZ19871 Lemmas 6.1.1, 7.2.2].
As subsets of ${\mathfrak{z}}^{*}$, we have the following identification, $$\mathcal{O}^{k}=\cup_{\sigma\in
W^{1}(k)}\mathrm{Ad}^{*}(Z)(\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}))\subset {\mathfrak{z}}^{*},$$ where the union is disjoint.
For each $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, put $$\mathcal{O}^{k}_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})}=\mathrm{Ad}^{*}(Z)(\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}))\subset {\mathfrak{z}}^{*}.
\label{eq:5.4.17qq20}$$ Let $d\mu^{k}_{\sigma}$ denote the Liouville measure on $\mathcal{O}^{k}_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})}$ as defined in .
If $\delta\in {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ is (real) analytically integrable, let $\xi_{\delta}$ denote the character of $T$ with differential $2\pi
i\delta$. Note that for $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, $\sigma\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ is analytically integrable even $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ may not be analytically integrable.
\[def:5.4.3ss20\] For $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, set $$\varphi_{k}(\sigma,\lambda)=\varepsilon(\sigma)\frac{\xi_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}(k)}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})}(\xi_{\alpha^{0}}(k)-1)}.
\label{eq:5.4.18kk20}$$
Note that if $y\in{\mathfrak{z}}$, the following analytic function $$\frac{\det (1-e^{\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}{\det (1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}$$ has a square root which is analytic in $y\in{\mathfrak{z}}$ and equals to $1$ at $y=0$. We denote this square root by $$\big[\frac{\det (1-e^{\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
The following theorem is a special case of a generalized Kirillov formula obtained by Duflo, Heckman and Vergne [@DufloHeckmanVergne1984 Theorem (7)]. We will also include a proof for the sake of completeness.
\[thm:5.4.4ss20\] For $y\in{\mathfrak{z}}$, we have the following identity of analytic functions, $$\begin{split}
&\widehat{A}^{-1}(\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{z}}})\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(ke^{y})]\\
&=\sum_{\sigma\in W^{1}(k)}
\varphi_{k}(\sigma,\lambda)\int_{f\in\mathcal{O}^{k}
_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})}}e^{2\pi i \langle f,y\rangle}
d\mu^{k}_{\sigma}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:haha20imp}$$ If $k=1$, is reduced to .
Let ${\mathfrak{t}}'$ denote the set of regular element in ${\mathfrak{t}}$ associated with the root $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, which is an open dense subset of ${\mathfrak{t}}$. Since both sides of are invariant by adjoint action of $Z$, then we only need to prove for $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}'$.
We firstly compute the left-hand side of .
For $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}'$, then $$\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\langle
\alpha^{0},y\rangle \neq 0.$$ We have $$\widehat{A}^{-1}(\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{z}}})=\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\frac{e^{\pi i \langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}}{\langle 2\pi
i\alpha^{0},y\rangle}.
\label{eq:5.4.23qq20}$$
Let $y_{0}\in{\mathfrak{t}}$ be such that $k=\exp(y_{0})$. Then $$\begin{split}
&\big[\frac{\det (1-e^{\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&=\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\frac{e^{\pi i \langle
\alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}}{e^{\pi i \langle
\alpha^{0},y_{0}\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y_{0}\rangle}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.24qq20}$$
By the Weyl character formula for $(U_{M},T)$, we get $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(ke^{y})]\\
&=\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(e^{y+y_{0}})]\\
&=\frac{\sum_{\omega\in
W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}\varepsilon(\omega)e^{2\pi i \langle
\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y+y_{0}\rangle}}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})} \big(e^{\pi i \langle
\alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}\big)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.25qq20}$$
Note that $$\begin{split}
\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\frac{e^{\pi i \langle
\alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y+y_{0}\rangle}}{e^{\pi i \langle
\alpha^{0},y\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}}=e^{2\pi i\langle
\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}},y_{0}\rangle}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.26qq20}$$
Note that since $2\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}$ is analytically integrable, then $$\xi_{2\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}}(k)=1.$$ This implies that $$e^{-2\pi i\langle \rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}},y_{0}\rangle}=e^{2\pi i\langle
\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}},y_{0}\rangle}.
\label{eq:5.4.27qq20ss}$$
Combining - , we get the left-hand side of is equal the following function, $$\frac{e^{2\pi i\langle \rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}},y_{0}\rangle}}{ \Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})} \langle 2\pi
i\alpha^{0},y\rangle}\frac{\sum_{\omega\in
W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}\varepsilon(\omega)e^{2\pi i \langle
\omega(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y+y_{0}\rangle}}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})} \big(e^{\pi i \langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}\big)}.
\label{eq:5.4.27qq20}$$
Now we show that the right-hand side of is also equal to .
Note that for $\omega\in W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $\omega\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ is analytically integrable. We claim that if $\omega\in W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, then $$\xi_{\omega\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}(k)=e^{2\pi i\langle
\omega\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}},y_{0}\rangle }=1.
\label{eq:5.4.30ss20k}$$
We now prove . Let ${\mathfrak{c}}$ be the center of ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, and put $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},\mathrm{ss}}=[{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}].$$ As in , we have $${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{c}}\oplus {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},\mathrm{ss}}.$$
Let $C^{0}$ denote the identity component of the center of $U_{M}$, and let $U_{M,\mathrm{ss}}$ be the analytic subgroup of $U_{M}$ associated with ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},\mathrm{ss}}$. Then $$U_{M}=C^{0}U_{M,\mathrm{ss}}.$$
By the Weyl’s theorem [@knapp1986representation Theorem 4.26], the universal covering group of $U_{M,\mathrm{ss}}$ is compact, which we denote by $\widetilde{U}_{M,\mathrm{ss}}$. Put $$\widetilde{U}_{M}=C^{0}\times \widetilde{U}_{M,\mathrm{ss}}.$$ Then $\widetilde{U}_{M}$ is canonically a finite covering of $U_{M}$. Let $\widetilde{T}$ be the maximal torus of $\widetilde{U}_{M}$ associated with the Cartan subalgebra ${\mathfrak{t}}$.
Let $\widetilde{k}=\exp(y_{0})\in \widetilde{T}$ be a lift of $k\in T$. Let $\widetilde{Z}$ be the analytic subgroup of $\widetilde{U}_{M}$ associated with ${\mathfrak{z}}$.
Note that $\mathrm{Ad}(\widetilde{k})|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}=\mathrm{Ad}(k)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$, then $\widetilde{Z}$ is a finite cover of $Z$. Let $N_{\widetilde{Z}}(\widetilde{T})$ be the normalizer of $\widetilde{T}$ in $\widetilde{Z}$, then $$W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\simeq
N_{\widetilde{Z}}(\widetilde{T})/\widetilde{T}.
\label{eq:5.4.35ss20k}$$
The weight $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ is analytically integrable with respect to $\widetilde{T}$. Then by , if $\omega\in W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, $$\xi_{\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}(\widetilde{k})=\xi_{\omega\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}(\widetilde{k}).
\label{eq:5.4.36ss20k}$$ The equation follows exactly from .
As a consequence of , we get that for $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, if $\omega\in W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$, then $$e^{2\pi i \langle
\omega\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y_{0}\rangle}=e^{2\pi i \langle
\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y_{0}\rangle}.
\label{eq:5.4.37qq20}$$
For $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, since $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\in \mathcal{C}_{0}$ and $y$ is regular, we have $$\begin{split}
&\int_{f\in\mathcal{O}^{k}_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})}}e^{2\pi i \langle f,y\rangle}d\mu^{k}_{\sigma} \\
&=\frac{1}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})} \langle 2\pi
i\alpha^{0},y\rangle}\sum_{\omega\in W({\mathfrak{z}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}
\varepsilon(\omega)e^{2\pi i \langle \omega\sigma(\lambda+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y\rangle}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.38qq20}$$
We rewrite $\varphi_{k}(\sigma,\lambda)$ as follows, $$\varepsilon(\sigma)\frac{e^{2\pi i\langle \rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}},y_{0}\rangle}}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{q}},{\mathfrak{t}})} \big(e^{\pi i \langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}-e^{-\pi i
\langle \alpha^{0},y\rangle}\big)}e^{2\pi i \langle
\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),y_{0}\rangle}.
\label{eq:5.4.39qq20}$$
Combining together - , a direct computation shows that the right-hand side of is given exactly by . This completes the proof of our theorem.
\[rm:5.4.5s\] Note that for $\sigma\in W^{1}(k)$, the regular positive weight $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})$ is analytically integrable with respect to $(\widetilde{Z},\widetilde{T})$. If $\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}$ is also analytically integrable with respect to $\widetilde{T}$, then $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}$ is a dominant weight for $(\widetilde{Z},\widetilde{T})$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. In this case, let $E^{k}_{\sigma}=E_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}}$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $\widetilde{Z}$ with highest weight $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}$. Then by , , we get that for $y\in{\mathfrak{z}}$, $$\begin{split}
&\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{q}}}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{\lambda}}[\rho^{V_{\lambda}}(ke^{y})]\\
&=\sum_{\sigma\in W^{1}(k)}
\varphi_{k}(\sigma,\lambda)\mathrm{Tr}^{E^{k}_{\sigma}}[\rho^{E^{k}_{\sigma}}(e^{y})].
\end{split}
\label{eq:haha20imp12}$$
Let $\mathrm{Vol_L}(\mathcal{O}^{k}_{\sigma(\lambda+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})})$ denote its symplectic volume with respect to the Liouville measure. Then $$\mathrm{Vol_{L}}(\mathcal{O}^{k}_{\sigma(\lambda+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})})=\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{z}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\frac{\langle \alpha^{0}, \sigma(\lambda+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\rangle}{\langle\alpha^{0},\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}\rangle}=\dim E^{k}_{\sigma}.
\label{eq:5.4.40qq20}$$ Note that the first equality of still holds even $\rho_{{\mathfrak{z}}}$ is not analytically integrable with respect to $\widetilde{T}$.
A geometric localization formula for orbital integrals {#section6paris}
======================================================
Recall that $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ is the complexification of $G$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\mathbb{C}}$, and that $G$, $U$ are the analytic subgroups of $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, ${\mathfrak{u}}$ respectively. In this section, we always assume that $U$ is compact, we do not require that $G$ has compact center. We need not to assume $\delta(G)=1$ either.
Under the settings in Subsection \[subsection4.1paris\], for $t>0$ and semisimple $\gamma\in G$, we set $$\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F,t)=\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2)\big].
\label{eq:6.0.1kk}$$ The indice $X$, $F$ in this notation indicate precisely the symmetric space and the flat vector bundle which are concerned for defining the orbital integrals.
If $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, then there exists a unique elliptic element $\gamma_{e}$ and a unique hyperbolic element $\gamma_{h}$ in $G$, such that $\gamma=\gamma_{e}\gamma_{h}=\gamma_{h}\gamma_{e}$. Here, we will show that $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F,t)$ becomes a sum of the orbital integrals associated with $\gamma_{h}$, but defined for the centralizer of $\gamma_{e}$ instead of $G$. This suggests that the elliptic part of $\gamma$ should lead to a localization for the geometric orbital integrals.
We still fix a maximal torus $T$ of $K$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{t}}$. For simplicity, if $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, we may and we will assume that $$\gamma=e^ak, k\in T, a\in {\mathfrak{p}}, \mathrm{Ad}(k^{-1})a=a.
\label{eq:6.2.1ss20}$$ In this case, $$\gamma_{e}=k\in T,\;\gamma_{h}=e^{a}.$$
Recall that $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$ is the identity component of the centralizer of $\gamma_{e}$ in $G$. Then $$\gamma_{h}\in Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}.$$ The Cartan involution $\theta$ preserves $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$ such that $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$ is a connected linear reductive Lie group. Then we have the following diffeomorphism $$Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}=K(\gamma_{e})^{0}\exp({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})).$$
It is clear that $\delta(Z(\gamma_{e})^{0})=\delta(G)$. Moreover, $H$ is still a maximally compact Cartan subgroup of $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$.
Recall that $T_{U}$ is a maximal torus of $U$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}={\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{b}}\oplus {\mathfrak{t}}\subset{\mathfrak{u}}$. Let $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ be a positive root system for $R({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$, which is not necessarily the same as in Subsection \[section5.3pl\] when $\delta(G)=1$.
Since $U$ is the compact form of $G$, then $U(\gamma_{e})^{0}$ is the compact form for $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$. Moreover, $T_{U}$ is also a maximal torus of $U(\gamma_{e})^{0}$. Let $R({\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ be the corresponding real root system with the positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})=R({\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})\cap
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Let $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$, $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}$ be the corresponding half sums of positive roots.
Let $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ be a connected finite covering group of $U(\gamma_{e})^{0}$ such that $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$, $\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}$ are analytically integrable with respect to the maximal torus $\widetilde{T}_{U}$ of $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ associated with ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}$. It always exists by a similar construction as in the proof to Theorem \[thm:5.4.4ss20\].
Let $\widetilde{K}(\gamma_{e})$ be the analytic subgroup of $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ associated with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma_{e})$. By [@knapp2002liegroupe Proposition 7.12], $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ has a unique complexification $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ which is a connected linear reductive Lie group. Let $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$ be the analytic subgroup of $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ associated with ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})\subset {\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})_{{\mathbb{C}}}={\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. Then we have the following Cartan decomposition $$\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})=
\widetilde{K}(\gamma_{e})\exp({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})).$$ We still denote by $\theta$ the corresponding Cartan involution on $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$.
The Lie group $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$ is a finite covering group of $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$. Moreover, we have the identification of symmetric spaces $$X(\gamma_{e})\simeq \widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})/\widetilde{K}(\gamma_{e}).$$ Note that even under an additional assumption that $G$ has compact center, $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$ may still have noncompact center.
Let $\lambda$ be a dominant weight for $(U, T_{U})$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Let $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $U$ with highest weight $\lambda$. As before, let $(F_{\lambda},\nabla^{F_{\lambda},f},
h^{F_{\lambda}})$ be the corresponding homogeneous flat vector bundle on $X$ with flat connection $\nabla^{F_{\lambda},f}$. Let $\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{\lambda},2}$ denote the associated de Rham-Hodge Laplacian.
Let $W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})\subset W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$ be the set defined as in but with respect to the group $U$ and to $\gamma_{e}=k\in T\subset T_{U}$. As in Definition \[def:5.4.3ss20\], for $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})$, set $$\varphi^{U}_{\gamma_{e}}(\sigma,\lambda)=\varepsilon(\sigma)\frac{\xi_{\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}}(\gamma_{e})}{\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})}(\xi_{\alpha^{0}}(\gamma_{e})-1)}.
\label{eq:6.2.7kk20}$$
As explained in Remark \[rm:5.4.5s\], if $\sigma\in
W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})$, then $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}$ is a dominant weight of $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e}),{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Let $E_{\sigma,\lambda}$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $\widetilde{U}(\gamma_{e})$ with highest weight $\sigma(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}$.
We extend $E_{\sigma,\lambda}$ to an irreducible representation of $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$ by the unitary trick. Then $F_{\sigma,\lambda}=\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})\times_{\widetilde{K}(\gamma_{e})} E_{\sigma,\lambda}$ is a homogeneous vector bundle on $X(\gamma_{e})$ with an invariant flat connection $\nabla^{F_{\sigma,\lambda},f}$ as explained in Subsection \[section3.6\]. Let $\mathbf{D}^{X(\gamma_{e}),F_{\sigma,\lambda},2}$ denote the associated de Rham-Hodge Laplacian acting on $\Omega^{\cdot}(X(\gamma_{e}), F_{\sigma,\lambda})$.
We also view $\gamma_{h}=e^{a}$ as a hyperbolic element in $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$. For $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})$, as in , we set $$\mathcal{E}_{X(\gamma_{e}),\gamma_{h}}(F_{\sigma,\lambda},t)=\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma_{h}]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X(\gamma_{e}))}-\frac{p'}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X(\gamma_{e}),F_{\sigma,\lambda},2}/2)\big].$$ Note that we use $B|_{{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})}$ on ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})$ to define this orbital integral for $\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$.
Set $$c(\gamma)=\bigg|\frac{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}} \bigg|^{1/2}>0.
\label{eq:6.2.9kk20}$$ In particular, $c(\gamma_{e})=1$.
The following theorem is essentially a consequence of the generalized Kirillov formula in Theorem \[thm:5.4.4ss20\].
\[thm:6.2.1ss\] Let $\gamma\in G$ be given as in . For $t>0$, we have the following identity, $$\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{\lambda},t)=c(\gamma)\sum_{\sigma\in
W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})}\varphi^{U}_{\gamma_{e}}(\sigma,\lambda) \mathcal{E}_{X(\gamma_{e}),\gamma_{h}}(F_{\sigma,\lambda},t).
\label{eq:aoyess20}$$ We call a localization formula for the geometric orbital integral.
Set $p'=\dim {\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})=\dim X(\gamma_{e})$. At first, if $m$ is even, then $p'$ is even. Then the both sides of are $0$ by [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.9.1].
If $m$ is odd, then $p'$ is odd, and $\delta(G)=\delta(Z(\gamma_{e})^{0})$ is odd. If $\delta(G)\geq 3$, then the both sides of are $0$ by [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Theorem 7.9.1].
Now we consider the case where $\delta(G)=\delta(Z(\gamma_{e})^{0})=1$. If $\gamma$ can not be conjugated into $H$ by an element in $G$, then $\gamma_{h}$ can not be conjugated into $H$ by an element in $Z(\gamma_{e})^{0}$. Then the both sides of are $0$ by Proposition \[prop:6.1.1ss\].
Now we assume that $\delta(G)=1$ and $a\in{\mathfrak{b}}$. Note that ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$ is the centralizer of $\gamma_{h}$ in ${\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})$. We will prove using
For $y\in {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, let $J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)$ be the function defined in for $\gamma_{h}=e^{a}\in
\widetilde{Z}(\gamma_{e})$, $$\begin{split}
J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)=\frac{1}{|\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{h}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_0 \cap {\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})}|^{1/2}}
\frac{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)})}{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)})}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.11jan20}$$
Let $\kappa^{{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})}\in\Lambda^{3}{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})^{*}$ be the analogue of $\kappa^{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ as in , i.e., if $u,v,w\in{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})$, $$\kappa^{{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})}(u,v,w)=B([u,v],w).
\label{eq:6.2.12dec20bis}$$ Let $\kappa^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}\in\Lambda^{3}{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})^{*}$ be defined in a similar way. Then $$B^{*}(\kappa^{{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})},\kappa^{{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma_{e})})=B^{*}(\kappa^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})},\kappa^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}).
\label{eq:6.2.13jan20}$$
The Casimir operator $C^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e}),E_{\sigma,\lambda}}$ acts on $E_{\sigma,\lambda}$ by the scalar given $$-4\pi^{2}
(|\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}-|\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}|^{2}).
\label{eq:6.2.14ss20}$$ Then by [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Proposition 7.5.1], $$2\pi^{2}|\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}|^{2}=-\frac{1}{8}B^{*}(\kappa^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})},\kappa^{{\mathfrak{u}}(\gamma_{e})}).
\label{eq:6.2.15s20}$$
By , , , for $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(\gamma_{e})$, we get $$\begin{split}
&\mathcal{E}_{X(\gamma_{e}),\gamma_{h}}(F_{\sigma,\lambda},t)=\frac{e^{-\frac{|a|^2}{2t}}}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}}
\exp\big(-2\pi^{2} t|\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)\\
&\qquad\qquad\cdot \int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)}
J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}-\frac{p'}{2})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\big]\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\cdot\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{\sigma,\lambda}}[\exp(-i\rho^{E_{\sigma,\lambda}}(y))] e^{-|y|^2/2t}\frac{dy}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.16ss20}$$
Note that $\dim {\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})$ is even. We claim that if $y\in{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, then $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(k^{-1})\big]\\
&=\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}-\frac{p'}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\det(1-e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k^{-1}))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.18ss20}$$ Indeed, we can verify for $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$. Since both sides of are invariant by adjoint action of $K(\gamma_{e})^{0}$, then holds in full generality.
Also $K(\gamma)^{0}$ preserves the splitting $${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)\oplus
({\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}).
\label{eq:6.2.19kk20}$$ The action $\mathrm{ad}(a)$ gives an isomorphism between ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}$ and ${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}$ as $K(\gamma)$-vector spaces.
Note that $${\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}=({\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0})\oplus ({\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}).
\label{eq:6.2.20kk20}$$ Then $$\begin{split}
&\det(1-e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}\\
&=\det(1-e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}_{0}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}[\det(1-e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})\cap {\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.21kk20}$$ Here the square root is taken to be positive at $y=0$.
By , , for $y\in{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $$\begin{split}
J_{\gamma}(y)=&J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)\frac{1}{|\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_0\cap
{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}|^{1/2}}\\
&\cdot\bigg[ \frac{1}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \frac{\det
(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}}{\det (1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}_{0}(\gamma)}} \bigg]^{1/2}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.22kk20}$$
Combining , and , we get $$\begin{split}
&J_{\gamma}(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e})\big]\\
=&c(\gamma)J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}-\frac{p'}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\\
&\cdot\bigg[\frac{\det
(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}} \bigg]^{1/2}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.23kk20}$$
Note that for $y\in{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $$\begin{split}
&\bigg[\frac{\det(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}} \bigg]^{1/2}\\
&=\bigg[\frac{\det(1-\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}} \bigg]^{1/2}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.24kk20}$$
By , , , and , we get $$\begin{split}
&\mathcal{E}_{X,\lambda}(F_{\lambda},t)=c(\gamma)\frac{e^{-\frac{|a|^2}{2t}}}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}}
\exp\big(-2\pi^{2} t|\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)\\
&\cdot \int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)}
J^{\sim}_{\gamma_{h}}(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma_{e})^*)}-\frac{p'}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\\
&\bigg[\frac{\det(1-e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma_{e}))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}(\gamma_{e})}} \bigg]^{1/2}\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{\lambda}}[\rho^{E_{\lambda}}(\gamma_{e})e^{-i\rho^{E_{\lambda}}(y)}] e^{-|y|^2/2t}\frac{dy}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.2.25ss20}$$ Then follows from the , and . This completes the proof of our theorem.
1. If $\gamma$ is hyperbolic, then is trivial.
2. A similar consideration can be made for $\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{\lambda},2})\big]$, where will become an analogue of the index theorem for orbifolds as in . The related computation can be found in [@bismut2019geometric Subsection 10.4].
Full asymptotics of elliptic orbital integrals {#section7paris}
==============================================
In this section, we always assume that $\delta(G)=1$ and that $U$ is compact. We also use the notation and settings as in Subsections \[section5.1ss20\], \[subsection5.2ss\] and \[section5.3pl\].
In this section, we are concerned with a sequence of flat vector bundles $\{F_{d}\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ on $X$ defined by a nondegenerate dominant weight $\lambda$. For elliptic $\gamma$, we will compute explicitly $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ and its Mellin transform in terms of the root data.
Note that when $\gamma=1$, $\mathcal{E}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ is already computed by Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980] using the Plancherel formula for identity orbital integral. We here give a different approach via Bismut’s formula as in , which inspires an analogue computation for general elliptic orbital integrals.
A family of representations of $G$ {#section4.3}
----------------------------------
Recall that $T$ is a maximal torus of $K$, and $T_{U}$ is a maximal torus of $U$. Let $W(U,T_{U})$ denote the (analytic) Weyl group of $(U,T_{U})$, so that $W(U,T_{U})=W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$.
The positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ is given in Subsection \[section5.3pl\]. Recall that $P_{++}(U)$ is the set of dominant weights of $(U,T_U)$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. By [@BMZ2015toeplitz Definition 1.13 & Proposition 8.12], we take a definition of nondegeneracy of $\lambda$ as follows.
\[def:nondegdef\] A dominant weight $\lambda\in P_{++}(U)$ is said to be nondegenerate with respect to the Cartan involution $\theta$ if $$W(U,T_{U})\cdot\lambda\cap {\mathfrak{t}}^*=\emptyset.$$ It is equivalent to $$\mathrm{Ad}^{*}(U)\lambda\cap {\mathfrak{k}}^*=\emptyset.$$ Note that if such dominant weight exists, we must have $\delta(G)>0$.
Let $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $U$ with highest weight $\lambda$. By the unitary trick, it extends to an irreducible representation of $G$, which we still denote by $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$. Then $\lambda$ being nondegenerate is equivalent to say that $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}})$ is not isomorphic to $(E_{\lambda},\rho^{E_{\lambda}}\circ \theta)$ as $G$-representation (as in [@MR3128980]).
Recall that $a_{1}\in {\mathfrak{b}}$ is such that $B(a_{1},a_{1})=1$.
\[def:6.2.2jan\] If $\lambda\in{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}^{*}$, for $\omega\in W(U,T_{U})$, put $$\begin{split}
& a_{\lambda,\omega}=\langle \omega\cdot \lambda, {\sqrt{-1}}a_{1}\rangle\in{\mathbb{R}},\\
& b_{\lambda,\omega}=a_{\lambda,\omega}+a_{\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}},\omega}=\langle
\omega\cdot(\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}), {\sqrt{-1}}a_{1}\rangle\in{\mathbb{R}}\end{split}
\label{eq:4.2.5oct}$$ In particular, we simply put $a_{\lambda}=a_{\lambda,1}$, $b_{\lambda}=b_{\lambda,1}$.
\[lm:3.3.2asymb\] If $\lambda\in P_{++}(U)$ is nondegenerate, then for $\omega\in
W(U,T_{U})$, $a_{\lambda,\omega}\neq 0$.
Now we fix two dominant weights $\lambda,\lambda_{0}\in P_{++}(U)$. Let $\{(E_{d},\rho^{E_{d}})\}|_{d\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence of representations of $G$ given by the irreducible unitary representations of $U$ with the highest weights $d\lambda+\lambda_{0}$, $d\in\mathbb{N}$.
Put $F_{d}=G\times_{K} E_{d}$. Let $\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}$ denote the associated de Rham-Hodge Laplacian. For $t>0$, let $\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}/2)$ denote the heat operator associated with $\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}/2$.
For $t>0$, $d\in\mathbb{N}$, if $\gamma\in G$ is semisimple, as in , set $${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)=\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-\frac{t}{2}\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2})\big].
\label{eq:6.3.1pl}$$ It is clear that ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ only depends on the conjugacy class $[\gamma]$ in $G$. If $\gamma=1$, we also write $${\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_d,t)={\mathcal{E}}_{X,1}(F_d,t).
\label{eq:6.3.2pl}$$
Estimates for $t$ small
-----------------------
By , , , if $\gamma=k\in K$, we have $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{[\gamma]}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}/2)\big]\\
=&\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}} \exp\big(-2\pi^{2}
t|d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)\\
&\int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)} J_\gamma(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))\big]\\
&
\cdot\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\rho^{E_{d}}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))] e^{-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2t}\frac{dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.1.5pl20}$$
\[prop:6.3.1est\] For $d\in \mathbb{N}$, an elliptic $\gamma\in G$ , there exists a constant $C_{d,\gamma}>0$ such that for $t\in ]0,1]$ $$\begin{split}
&|\sqrt{t}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)|\leq C_{d,\gamma},\\
&|(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}){\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)|\leq
C_{d,\gamma}\sqrt{t}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.3.3pl}$$
As $t\rightarrow 0$, ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(E_{d},t)$ has the asymptotic expansion in the form of $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\sum_{j=0}^{+\infty} a^\gamma_j(d) t^j.
\label{eq:6.3.4pl}$$ Where $a^\gamma_j(d)$ are functions in $d$.
If $\gamma$ is elliptic, up to a conjugation, we assume that $\gamma=k\in T$. Thus $H$ is also a Cartan subgroup of $Z(\gamma)^{0}$, then ${\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{b}}$. Let ${\mathfrak{b}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$ be the orthogonal complementary space of ${\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)$ in ${\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)$, whose dimension is $p-1$.
If $\lambda_{0}=0$, we can use the conclusions in [@liu2019hypoelliptic Theorem 7.4.1], which give the estimates in .
We now include a direct proof to in general case. By , we have $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)&=\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}} \exp\big(-2\pi^{2}
t|d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)\\
&\cdot\int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(k)}
J_k(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))\big]\\
&
\qquad\quad\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\rho^{E_{d}}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))] e^{-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2}\frac{dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0}{(2\pi )^{q/2}},
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.2.5ss20jan}$$ where the integral is rescaled by $\sqrt{t}$.
In this proof, we denote by $C$ or $c$ a positive constant independent of the variables $t$ and $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}$. We use the symbol $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{ind}}$ to denote the big-O convention which does not depend on $t$ and $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}$.
The same computations as in [@liu2019hypoelliptic Eqs. (7.4.8) - (7.4.10)] shows that for $Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}\in
{\mathfrak{k}}(k)$, $$\begin{split}
&J_{k}(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)=\frac{1}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^\perp(k)}}+\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{ind}}(\sqrt{t}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|e^{C \sqrt{t}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|}),\\
&\frac{1}{t^{(p-1)/2}}\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}[\big(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2}\big)\rho^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))]\\
&=-\det(i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))|_{{\mathfrak{b}}^\perp(k)}\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^\perp(k)}+\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{ind}}(\sqrt{t}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|e^{C \sqrt{t}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.4.19ugcs}$$
It is clear that $$|\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\rho^{E_{d}}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(\sqrt{t}Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))]|\leq C\exp(C\sqrt{t}|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|).
\label{eq:6.3.7pl}$$
Combining and , we see that there exists a number $N\in\mathbb{N}$ big enough, if $t\in ]0,1]$ $$|\sqrt{t}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)|\leq C'_{d,k}\int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(k)}
(1+|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|)^{N}\exp(C|Y^{{\mathfrak{k}}}_{0}|-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2)dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0.
\label{eq:6.3.8pl}$$
The second estimate in can be proved using the same arguments as in [@liu2019hypoelliptic eqs. (7.4.24) - (7.4.29)].
The asymptotic expansion in is just a consequence of and . This completes the proof of our proposition.
Identity orbital integrals for Hodge Laplacians {#section7.3}
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we compute ${\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)$ using Bismut’s formula . In next subsection, we connect our computational results to the ones obtained by Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980]. We will give in detail the main points in the computation, which are also applicable for computing ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$ with any elliptic $\gamma$.
Let $\mathrm{Vol}(K/T)$, $\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}/T)$ be the Riemannian volumes of $K/T$, $U_{M}/T$ with respect to the restriction of $-B$ to ${\mathfrak{k}}$, ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ respectively. We have explicit formulae for them in terms of root data, for example, $$\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M},T)=\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\frac{1}{2\pi\langle
\alpha^{0},\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle}.$$
Set $$c_{G}=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{m-1}{2}+1}{\mathrm{Vol}}(K/T)|W(U_{M},T)|}{\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}/T)|W(K,T)|}.
\label{eq:eq:6.4.47ss20}$$
Recall that $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}\in \Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})^{*})$ is defined in Proposition \[prop:5.2.1dec19\] and that $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\in
\Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})^{*})\otimes {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ is defined in .
Note that $\dim {\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})=4l$. If $\nu\in\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})^{*})$, let $[\nu]^{\mathrm{max}}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $$\nu - [\nu]^{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2l}}{(2l)!}
\label{eq:6.4.32dec19}$$ is of degree strictly smaller than $4l$.
We use the notation in Subsection \[section5.3pl\]. In particular, the positive root systems $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ and $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ are fixed in Subsection \[section5.3pl\]. The set $W_u\subset W(U,T_{U})$ is given by . As in Proposition \[prop:5.3.2dec19\], for $\omega\in W_{u}$ $V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $U_{M}$ with highest weight $\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ given by .
For $j=0,1,\cdots, l$, $\omega\in
W_{u}$, set $$\begin{split}
Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d)=&\frac{(-1)^{j}\beta(a_{1})^{2j}}{j!(2l-2j)! (8\pi^{2})^{j}}\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega} \\
&\cdot\big[\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2j}\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle^{2l-2j}\big]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.46ss20}$$ Since $\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}$ is a polynomial in $d$ by the Weyl dimension formula, then $Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d)$ is a polynomial in $d$ of degree $\leq \frac{\dim({\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}})}{2} - 2j$.
In particular, if $l\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{split}
&Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{0,\omega}(d)=\frac{1}{(2l)! }\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}\big[\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle^{2l}\big]^{\mathrm{max}},\\
&Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{l,\omega}(d)=\frac{(-1)^{l}\beta(a_{1})^{2l}(2l-1)!!}{(4\pi^{2})^{l}}\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.46ss20copies}$$
Recall that for $\omega\in W_{u}$, $a_{\lambda,\omega}$, $b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}$ are defined in Definition \[def:6.2.2jan\].
\[thm:7.3.2ss20\] For $\omega\in W_{u}$ $$|\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}|^{2}-|d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}=-(d a_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^{2}.
\label{eq:6.4.8ssss20}$$ For $t>0$, we have the following identity $${\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)=\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\sum_{j=0}^{l}
t^{-j}\sum_{\omega\in
W_{u}} \varepsilon(\omega)
e^{-2\pi^{2}t(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^{2}}Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d).
\label{eq:6.4.48ss20}$$
The formula is compatible with the estimate . For example, if we take the asymptotic expansion of the right-hand side of as $t\rightarrow 0$, the coefficient of $t^{-l-1/2}$ is given by $$\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\sum_{\omega\in
W_{u}} \varepsilon(\omega) Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{l,\omega}(d).
\label{eq:7.3.7ss20}$$ Then by , if $l\geq 1$, we get $$\sum_{\omega\in W_{u}}\varepsilon(\omega)\dim
V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}=\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[1]\dim E_{\lambda}=0.
\label{eq:7.3.8ss20k}$$ By and , the quantity in is $0$ (provided $l\geq 1$).
Before proving Theorem \[thm:7.3.2ss20\], we need some preparation work.
Note that $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ contains $R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ as a sub root system. Since the adjoint action of ${\mathfrak{t}}$ preserves the splitting ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, then we can write $$R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cup R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}}),
\label{eq:6.4.9final}$$ where the two subsets are disjoint and $R({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ is the set of roots associated with the adjoint action of ${\mathfrak{t}}$ on ${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$.
We have fixed a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ in Subsection \[section5.3pl\], which induces a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})\subset
R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. We also put $$R^{+}({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cap
R({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}}).$$ Then $$R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})=R^{+}({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})\cup R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}}),
\label{eq:6.4.10final}$$
\[def:6.4.1ss20\] For $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, put $$\begin{split}
&\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\langle 2\pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle.\\
&\pi_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\langle 2\pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle.\\
&\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\langle 2\pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle.\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.11final}$$
For $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, put $$\begin{split}
&\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\big(\exp(\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0},
y\rangle)-\exp(-\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle)\big).\\
&\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\big(\exp(\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0},
y\rangle)-\exp(-\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle)\big).\\
&\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\prod_{\alpha^{0}\in
R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})}\big(\exp(\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0},
y\rangle)-\exp(-\langle \pi{\sqrt{-1}}\alpha^{0}, y\rangle)\big).\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.12final}$$
We can always extend analytically the above functions to $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$.
It is clear that if $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$, $$\begin{split}
&\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\pi_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y), \\
&\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)=\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.13final}$$
Recall that ${\mathfrak{t}}_{U}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{u}}$. Then using $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ defined in Subsection \[section5.3pl\], we can define the associated functions $\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}/{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}}(y)$, $\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}/{\mathfrak{t}}_{U}}(y)$ for $y\in {\mathfrak{t}}_{U}$ as in Definition \[def:6.4.1ss20\]. Let $R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ be a positive root system of $R({\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{t}})$ such that it induces the same $R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Then we define the functions $\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$, $\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$ as in Definition \[def:6.4.1ss20\].
Recall that if $Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0\in {\mathfrak{k}}$, we have $$\label{eq:J1function}
J_1(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)=\frac{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)|_{\mathfrak{p}})}{\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)|_{\mathfrak{k}})}.$$ Put $$\begin{split}
F(d,t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{m/2}}\int_{\mathfrak{k}}J_1(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))\big]&\\
\cdot\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0))]
e^{-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2t}\frac{dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0}{(2\pi t)^{n/2}}.&
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.3.3bonns}$$ Then by , we have $${\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)=\exp\big(-2\pi^{2} t
|d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)F(d,t).
\label{eq:6.4.8decjan19}$$
By Weyl integration formula, we have $$\begin{split}
F(d,t)=&\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(K/T)}{(2\pi t)^{(m+n)/2}|W(K,T)|}\\
&\cdot\int_{\mathfrak{t}}|\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)|^2 J_1(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))\big]\\
&\qquad\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(y))]
e^{-|y|^2/2t}dy.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.14dec19kk}$$
\[lm:6.4.2dec\] If $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, $$\label{eq:4.3.8asy}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\\
&=(-1)^{\frac{\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}{2}+1}\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^2 \cdot\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}].
\end{split}$$ Moreover, we have the following identity $$\frac{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}}J_{1}(y)\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}=(-1)^{l}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}.
\label{eq:6.4.18dec19f}$$
Recall that as $K_{M}$-modules, we have $${\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\simeq {\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})\simeq {\mathfrak{n}}\simeq \bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}.
\label{eq:6.4.24dec19s}$$
By and , we get the following identification of $K_M$-modules, $${\mathfrak{p}}\simeq {\mathfrak{b}}\oplus{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus {\mathfrak{n}}.
\label{eq:6.4.19dec19f}$$ Then if $y\in {\mathfrak{t}}$, $$\label{eq:6.4.20sasy}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\\
&=\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{b}}^{*}\oplus
{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*})}[N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{b}}^{*}\oplus
{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*})}e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}]\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}].
\end{split}$$
Note that $$\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{b}}^{*}\oplus
{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*})=\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*})+
{\mathfrak{b}}^{*}\wedge\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*}).
\label{eq:6.4.21dec19s}$$ Then by , we get $$\label{eq:6.4.22sasy}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\big]\\
&=-\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}(
{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}]\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}]\\
&=-\det(1-
e^{i\mathrm{ad}(y)})|_{{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}].
\end{split}$$ Then follows from the equality $$\det(1-
e^{i\mathrm{ad}(y)})|_{{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}=(-1)^{(\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}})/2}\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^2.
\label{eq:6.4.23dec19s}$$
The proof to is similar to the proof to [@Shen_2016 Eq.(7-22)]. We include the details as follows. By and , using [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eq.(7.5.24)], if $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, we have $$\begin{split}
&\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}})=\frac{\pi_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{n}}}),\\
&\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{k}}})=\frac{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{n}}})=\frac{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.24kk19dss}$$ Similar for $\widehat{A}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})$. Moreover, we can verify directly that if $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, $$\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}=(-1)^{l}\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}.
\label{eq:6.4.26ss20ks}$$
By and , if $y\in {\mathfrak{t}}$, $$\label{eq:4.3.7asy}
J_1(y)=\frac{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}\frac{\pi_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}.$$ Then by , , and , for $y\in
{\mathfrak{t}}$, we get $$\frac{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}}J_{1}(y)\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}=(-1)^{l}\frac{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}.
\label{eq:6.4.25sdec19f}$$ Then follows. This completes the proof of our lemma.
The equality follows from Definitions \[def:5.3.1kk\] & \[def:6.2.2jan\], and from . We now prove .
If $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$ is such that $\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)\neq 0$, $$\label{eq:4.3.6asy}
\frac{|\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)|^2}{|\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)|^2}=\frac{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^2}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^2}.$$
Recall that $m=\dim {\mathfrak{p}}$. Then $$\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}+2l=m-1.
\label{eq:6.4.31ss20kk}$$ By , , and using the results in Lemma \[lm:6.4.2dec\], we get $$\label{eq:4.3.9asyaab}
\begin{split}
F(d,t)=&\frac{(-1)^{\frac{m-1}{2}+1}{\mathrm{Vol}}(K/T)}{(2\pi
t)^{(m+n)/2}|W(K,T)|}\\
&\cdot\int_{y\in
{\mathfrak{t}}}|\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)|^{2}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}(y))]e^{-|y|^2/2t}dy.
\end{split}$$
Note that the function in $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$ $$\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\otimes \exp(-i\rho^{E_{d}}(y))]
\label{eq:6.4.29dec19s}$$ can be extended directly to an $U_{M}$-invariant function in $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$. Since ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, we can apply the Weyl integration formula again for the pair $({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, then we rewrite as $$\label{eq:4.3.9asyb}
\begin{split}
F(d,t)=&\frac{(-1)^{\frac{m-1}{2}+1}{\mathrm{Vol}}(K/T)|W(U_{M},T)|}{(2\pi t)^{(m+n)/2}\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}/T)|W(K,T)|}\\
&\int_{y\in
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}
\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[e^{-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(y)}]e^{-\frac{|y|^2}{2t}}dy.
\end{split}$$
If $y\in {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, then $$B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi})\in\Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})^{*}).
\label{eq:6.4.31dec19}$$ If $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, by [@Shen_2016 Eq.(7-27)], we have $$\frac{\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}}{(2\pi
t)^{2l}}=[\exp\big(\frac{1}{t}B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi})\big)]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\label{eq:6.4.32decss19s}$$ Note that $$m+n=\dim{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}+4l+1.
\label{eq:6.4.33decss19s}$$
The quantity $c_{G}$ is defined in . Combining - , we get $$\label{eq:6.4.34sasyb}
\begin{split}
F(d,t)=&\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\bigg[\int_{y\in
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}(y))]\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\exp\big(\frac{1}{t}B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi})\big)e^{-|y|^2/2t}\frac{dy}{(2\pi t)^{\dim {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/2}}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}$$
If $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, then $$-|y|^{2}=B(y,y).
\label{eq:6.4.35dec19}$$ By , if $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, then $$B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi})-\frac{|y|^{2}}{2}=\frac{1}{2}B(y+\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi},y+\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi})-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}}{8\pi^{2}}\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}.
\label{eq:6.4.36dec19s}$$
Let $\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ be the standard negative Laplace operator on the Euclidean space $({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}, -B|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\times{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})$. Then we can rewrite as follows, $$\label{eq:6.4.37ssasyb}
\begin{split}
&F(d,t)\\
=&\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\\
&\cdot\exp\big(\frac{t}{2}\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\big)\big\{\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}) \mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}(y))]\big\}|_{y=-\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi}} \bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}$$
Recall that if $\omega\in W_{u}$, $\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})\in {\mathfrak{t}}^{*}$ is defined in . As in Proposition \[prop:5.3.2dec19\], $V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $U_{M}$ with highest weight $\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$. By , if $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$, then $$\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[\exp(-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(y))]=\sum_{\omega\in
W_{u}}\varepsilon(\omega)\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}\big[\exp\big(-i\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(y)\big)\big].
\label{eq:6.4.39sssks}$$
As explained in [@bismut2011hypoelliptic Eqs.(7.5.22) - (7.5.26)], the function $$y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\mapsto
\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})
\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}\big[\exp\big(-i\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(y)\big)\big]\in{\mathbb{C}}\label{eq:6.4.40dec19}$$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$ associated with the eigenvalue $4\pi^{2}|\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}|^{2}$. This also can be seen directly from the Kirillov formula as in .
By , , for $\omega\in W_{u}$, we get $$\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}=P_{0}(\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})).
\label{eq:5.4.7jan20}$$
Recall that $\mathrm{Vol_{L}}(\mathcal{O}_{\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}})$ is the volume of $\mathcal{O}_{\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}$ with respect to the Liouville measure. By the Kirillov formula, we have $$\mathrm{Vol_{L}}(\mathcal{O}_{\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}})=\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}.
\label{eq:6.4.43ss20}$$
We claim the following identity, $$\begin{split}
&\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\\
&\qquad\cdot\big\{\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}\big[\exp\big(-i\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(y)\big)\big]\big\}|_{y=-\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi}} \bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}\\
=& \dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}}{8\pi^{2}t}-\langle
\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}},
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle) \bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:6.4.44ss20}$$
Indeed, by , we have the following identity as elements in $\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})^{*})$, $$\begin{split}
&\big\{\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}\big[\exp\big(-i\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(y)\big)\big]\big\}|_{y=-\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}{2\pi}}\\
&=\int_{f\in\mathcal{O}_{\lambda+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}}} e^{
-\langle f, \Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle} d\mu_{\lambda}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.3.48ss20}$$
Recall that the curvature form $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$ is invariant by the action of $U_{M}$ on $Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}$. Since $a_{1}$ and $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}$ are invariant by $U_{M}$-action, so is $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}$. Therefore, for $f\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}^{*}$, $u\in
U_{M}$, then $$\begin{split}
&\big[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\exp(-\langle \mathrm{Ad}^{*}(u)f,
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle)\big]^{\mathrm{max}}\\
&=\det
\mathrm{Ad}(u)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})} \big[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\exp(-\langle f,
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle)\big]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.3.49ss20}$$ Since $U_{M}$ acts on ${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})$ isometrically with respect to $-B$, then $$\det \mathrm{Ad}(u)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})} =1.
\label{eq:7.3.50ss20}$$ Then follows from and from - .
The right-hand side of is a polynomial in $d$ and in $t^{-1}$. Recall that $\dim
{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})=4l$. Then we can rewrite the right-hand side of as follows, $$\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}
\sum_{j=0}^{l}\frac{1}{t^{j}}\frac{(-1)^{j}\beta(a_{1})^{2j}}{j!(2l-2j)! (8\pi^{2})^{j}}\big[\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2j}\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle^{2l-2j}\big]^{\mathrm{max}}
\label{eq:6.4.45ss20}$$
Then follows from ,. This completes the proof.
The Mellin transform of ${\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)$ (if applicable) is defined by the following formula as a function in $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$, $$\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s)=-\frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{+\infty}
{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)t^{s-1}dt.
\label{eq:7.3.53conf}$$
\[thm:7.3.3ss\] Suppose that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate with respect to $\theta$. For $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$ large enough and for $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with $\Re(s)\gg 0$ , $\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s)$ is well-defined and holomorphic, which admits a meromorphic extension to $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$.
Moreover, we have the following identity, $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s)=&-\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{j=0}^{l}\frac{\Gamma(s-j-\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\\
&\qquad\qquad\cdot\big[\sum_{\omega\in W_u}\varepsilon(\omega)Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d)(2\pi^2(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^2)^{j+\frac{1}{2}-s}\big].
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.3.53kk20}$$ Then $\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s)$ is holomorphic at $s=0$.
Set $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=\frac{\partial}{\partial
s}|_{s=0}\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s),$$ then we have $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=&-\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{j=0}^{l}\frac{(-4)^{j+1}(j+1)!}{(2j+2)!}\\
&\cdot\big[\sum_{\omega\in W_u}\varepsilon(\omega)Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d)(2\pi^2(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^2)^{j+\frac{1}{2}}\big].
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.3.49kk20}$$ The quantity ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$ is a polynomial in $d$ for $d$ large enough, whose coefficients depend only on the root data and $\lambda$, $\lambda_{0}$.
Since $\lambda$ is nondegenerate, by Lemma \[lm:3.3.2asymb\], $a_{\lambda,\omega}\neq 0$, $\omega\in W_{u}$. Then there exists $d_{0}\in
{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for $d\geq d_{0}$, $(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^{2}>0$. By and Theorem \[thm:7.3.2ss20\], we get . This proves the first part of this theorem.
The equation is a direct consequence of by taking its derivative at $0$. Note that $[(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^2]^{1/2}=|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|$. For $d\gg d_{0}$, $|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|=\mathrm{sign}(a_{\lambda,\omega})(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})$. Then we see that ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$ is a polynomial in $d$ for $d$ large enough. This completes the proof of our theorem.
As explained in Remark \[rm:important\], when $G$ has noncompact center with $\delta(G)=1$ (but $U$ is still assumed to be compact), most of the above computations can be reduce into very simple ones. Recall that $a_{\lambda}, b_{\lambda_{0}}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ are defined in Definition \[def:6.2.2jan\]. When $\lambda$ is nondegenerate, $a_{\lambda}\neq 0$.
\[cor:7.3.6kkss\] Assume that $U$ is compact and that $G$ has noncompact center with $\delta(G)=1$, and assume that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate. Then for $t>0$, $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$, $$\begin{split}
&{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},t)=\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi
t}}e^{-2\pi^{2}t(da_{\lambda}+b_{\lambda_{0}})^{2}}\dim
E_{d},\\
&
\mathcal{MI}_{X}(F_{d},s)=-\frac{c_{G}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\Gamma(s-\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\big(2\pi^{2}(da_{\lambda}+b_{\lambda_{0}})^{2}\big)^{1/2-s}\dim
E_{d}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.3.57std}$$ Furthermore, $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=2\pi
c_{G}|da_{\lambda}+b_{\lambda_{0}}|\dim E_{d}.
\label{eq:7.3.58std}$$
By the hypothesis, we get that $l=0$, $W_{u}=\{1\}$ and $Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{0,1}(d)=\dim E_{d}$. Then , are just special cases of , and .
However, we can prove them more directly using a result of Proposition \[prop:3.6.5nov19\]. It is enough to prove the first identity in . Note that by , we have $$X'=M/K,
\label{eq:7.3.59std}$$ with $\delta(X')=0$.
By [@MR3128980 Proposition 5.2] or [@Shen_2016 Proposition 4.1], we have $$\begin{split}
&[e(TX',\nabla^{TX'})]^{\mathrm{max}}\\
&=(-1)^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\frac{|W(U_{M},T)|/|W(K,T)|}{\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}/K)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.4.19pp20}$$ Then by , we have $$[e(TX',\nabla^{TX'})]^{\mathrm{max}}=-c_{G}.
\label{eq:7.3.61std}$$ By and , we have $$\alpha_{E_{d}}=-2\pi(da_{\lambda}+b_{\lambda_{0}}).
\label{eq:7.3.62std}$$
Combing and - , we get the first identity in , and hence the other identities. This gives a second proof to this corollary.
Connection to Müller-Pfaff’s results {#section7.4kk}
------------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that $G$ has compact center with $\delta(G)=1$. We explain here how to connect our computations in previous subsection to Müller-Pfaff’s results in [@MR3128980].
If $\Lambda\in P_{++}(U)$, by Proposition \[prop:5.3.2dec19\], if $\omega\in W_{u}$, then $\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)$ is a dominant weight for $U_{M}$. Let $V_{\Lambda,\omega}$ denote the corresponding irreducible representation of $U_{M}$. Moreover, by the Weyl dimension formula, $\dim V_{\Lambda,\omega}$ is a polynomial in $\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)$.
Let $a^{1}\in {\mathfrak{b}}^{*}$ be which takes value $-1$ at $a_{1}$.
\[def:7.4.1ff20\] For $\omega\in W_{u}$ and $\Lambda\in P_{++}(U)$, for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$, set $$P_{\omega,\Lambda}(z)=\dim V_{\Lambda,\omega} \bigg[\exp\big(\langle
\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}+z
\sqrt{-1}a^{1}, \Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}\rangle\big)\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\label{eq:6.4.52ss20s}$$
Since $\theta$ fix $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}$, by the fact that $\det
\theta|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}})}=1$, we get that $P_{\omega,\Lambda}(z)$ is an even polynomial in $z$.
We can verify directly that for $\omega\in W^{1}$, $\Lambda\in
P_{++}(U)$, we have $$P_{\omega,\Lambda}(z)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}/T)}{\mathrm{Vol}(U/T_{U})}\Pi_{\alpha^{0}\in R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})}\frac{\langle \alpha^{0},\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}+z{\sqrt{-1}}a^{1}\rangle}{\langle \alpha^{0},\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}\rangle}.
\label{eq:7.4.2kk20}$$ The scalar product in is taken with respect to $-B|_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$. Up to a universal constant, $P_{\omega,\Lambda}(z)$ is just the polynomial related to the Plancherel measure of representation $V_{\Lambda,\omega}$ as given in [@MR3128980 Eq.(6.10)]. Note that there is no factor $(2\pi)^{2l}$ appeared in because of our normalization for $[\cdot]^{\mathrm{max}}$.
\[lm:7.4.2kk\] We have the following identity $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{j=0}^{l}\frac{(-4)^{j+1}(j+1)!}{\sqrt{2}(2j+2)!}Q^{\lambda,\lambda_{0}}_{j,\omega}(d)(2\pi^2(da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega})^2)^{j+\frac{1}{2}}\\
&=- 2\pi \int_{0}^{|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|} P_{\omega, d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(t)dt.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.4.2kk20s}$$
We have $$\begin{split}
&\langle \eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}+z
\sqrt{-1}a^{1},\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}({\mathfrak{b}})}\rangle\\
&=z\beta(a_{1})\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}+\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.4.3kk20s}$$ Since $P_{\omega,d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(z)$ is an even function in $z$, then $$\begin{split}
P_{\omega,d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(z)=&\dim
V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega} \frac{1}{(2l)!}\bigg[\big(z\beta(a_{1})\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}}+\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle\big)^{2l}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}\\
=&\dim V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}
\sum_{j=0}^{l}\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2j} z^{2j}}{(2l-2j)!(2j)!}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\cdot\bigg[\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}},2j}\langle
\omega(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}),\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}\rangle^{2l-2j}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.4.4kk20s}$$
Note that for $j=0,1,\cdots, l$, $$\int_{0}^{|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|}
t^{2j}dt=\frac{1}{2j+1}
|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|^{2j+1}.
\label{eq:7.4.5kk20s}$$
The equality in is a consequence of , and .
As a consequence of and Lemma \[lm:7.4.2kk\], we have the following result.
\[cor:7.4.3ss20\] Suppose that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate with respect to $\theta$. Then $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=2\pi c_{G} \sum_{\omega\in W_{u}}\varepsilon(\omega)
\int_{0}^{|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|} P_{\omega, d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(t)dt.
\label{eq:7.4.3ss20}$$
By [@MR3128980 Lemma 6.1], we can get the following identity, $$|W(K,T)|=2|W(K_{M},T)|.
\label{eq:6.4.54ss20}$$ Combining , , , we see that the formula in Corollary \[cor:7.4.3ss20\], is exactly the same formula of Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980 Proposition 6.6] for ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$.
Recall that the $U$-representation $E_{d}$ has highest weight $d\lambda+\lambda_{0}\in P_{++}(U)$. Then by Weyl dimension formula, $\dim E_{d}$ is a polynomial in $d$. If $\lambda$ is regular, then the degree (in $d$) of $\dim E_{d}$ is $\frac{\dim {\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}}}{2}$.
For determining the leading term of ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$, as mentioned in the introduction part, we can specialize the result of Bismut-Ma-Zhang [@BMZ2015toeplitz Theorem 0.1] as in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Section 8] for the symmetric space $X$. Here to emphasize ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$ being a polynomial in $d$, we prefer to state a result of Müller-Pfaff [@MR3128980 Proposition 1.3] as follows.
\[prop:7.4.4\] Suppose that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate. Then there exists a constant $C_{X,\lambda,\lambda_{0}}\neq 0$ such that $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=C_{X,\lambda,\lambda_{0}} d \dim
E_{d} + R(d),
\label{eq:7.4.9kk20}$$ where $R(d)$ is a polynomial whose degree is no greater than the degree of $\dim E_{d}$.
In [@MR3128980 Propositions 6.7 & 6.8], when $G=\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$ or $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq>1$ odd, they gave very explicit computations for ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$ which verify . In particular, for certain nondegenerate dominant weight $\lambda$, they also worked out explicitly the constant $C_{X,\lambda,0}$ [@MR3128980 Corollaries 1.4 & 1.5].
An important step in Müller-Pfaff’s proof to Proposition \[prop:7.4.4\] is reducing the computation of ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})$ to the cases where $G=\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$ or $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq>1$ odd. Such reduction is already explained in Subsection \[subs:4.2std\]. More precisely, we have $$X=X_{1}\times X_{2},
\label{eq:}$$ where $X_{1}$ is one case listed in , and $X_{2}$ is a symmetric space rank $0$.
We use the notation in Subsection \[subs:4.2std\]. Let $\lambda_{i}$, $\lambda_{0,i}$ be dominant weights of $U_{i}$, $i=1,2$ such that $$\lambda=\lambda_{1}+\lambda_2, \;
\lambda_{0}=\lambda_{0,1}+\lambda_{0,2}.
\label{eq:7.4.16kk20}$$ Now we consider the sequence $d\lambda+\lambda_{0}$, $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $$E_{d}=E_{d\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{0,1}}\otimes
E_{d\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{0,2}}.
\label{eq:7.4.17kk20}$$
Since $G_{2}$ is equal rank, the nondegeneracy of $\lambda$ with respect to $\theta$ is equivalent to the nondegeneracy of $\lambda_{1}$ with respect to $\theta_{1}$. Then by Proposition \[prop:4.2.2bio\], after taking the Mellin transform, we have $$\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d},s)=[e(TX_{2},\nabla^{TX_{2}})]^{\mathrm{max}_{2}}\dim E_{d\lambda_2+\lambda_{0,2}}\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{I}}_{X_{1}}(F_{d\lambda_1+\lambda_{0,1}},s).
\label{eq:7.4.19kk20}$$ Then $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_{d})=[e(TX_{2},\nabla^{TX_{2}})]^{\mathrm{max}_{2}}\dim
E_{d\lambda_2+\lambda_{0,2}}{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X_{1}}(F_{d\lambda_1+\lambda_{0,1}}).
\label{eq:7.4.20kk20}$$ Then we only need to evaluate ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X_{1}}(F_{d\lambda_1+\lambda_{0,1}})$ explicitly, which has been done in [@MR3128980 Section 6].
Note that in [@MR3128980 Proposition 1.3], the authors proved Proposition \[prop:7.4.4\] for $\lambda_{0}=0$. Actually, their results still hold if we take a nonzero $\lambda_{0}\in P_{++}(U)$ via repeating their computations for $G=\mathrm{SL}_{3}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\mathrm{SO}^{0}(p,q)$ with $pq>1$ odd.
Asymptotic elliptic orbital integrals {#subsection7.5}
-------------------------------------
\[def:7.5.1kk20\] A function $f(d)$ in $d$ is called a pseudopolynomial in $d$ if it is a finite sum of the term $c_{j,s}e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}sd}d^{j}$ with $j\in\mathbb{N}$, $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $c_{j,s}\in {\mathbb{C}}$. The largest $j\geq 0$ such that $c_{j,s}\neq 0$ in $f(d)$ is called the degree of $f(d)$.
We say that the oscillating term $e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}sd}$ is nice if $s\in\mathbb{Q}$. We say that a pseudopolynomial $f(d)$ in $d$ is nice if all its oscillating terms are nice.
If $f(d)$ is a nice pseudopolynomial in $d$, then there exists a $N_{0}\in\mathbb{N}_{>0}$ such that the function $f(dN_{0})$ is a polynomial in $d$.
We will use the same notation as in Section \[section6paris\]. The following theorem is a consequence of the geometric localization formula obtained in Theorem \[thm:6.2.1ss\].
\[thm:7.5.3conf\] Suppose that $\gamma\in G$ is elliptic and that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate with respect to $\theta$. If $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ is with $\Re(s)\gg 0$, the Mellin transform $\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},s)$ of ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)$, $t>0$ is well-defined and holomorphic. It admits a meromorphic extension to $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$ which is holomorphic at $s=0$.
Set $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})=\frac{\partial}{\partial
s}|_{s=0}\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},s).
\label{eq:7.5.1conf}$$ Then ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ is a pseudopolynomial in $d$ (for $d$ large). If $\gamma$ is of finite order, then ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ is a nice pseudopolynomial in $d$.
More precisely, let $k\in T$ be an element conjugate to $\gamma$ in $G$. Let $W^{1}_{U}(k)\subset W(U,T_{U})$ be defined as in with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$. Then for $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$, $\sigma\lambda\in
P_{++}(\widetilde{U}(k))$ is nondegenerate with respect to the Cartan involution $\theta$ on ${\mathfrak{z}}(k)$. For $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $E_{\sigma,d}^{k}$ be the irreducible unitary representation of $\widetilde{U}(k)$ with highest weight $d\sigma\lambda+\sigma(\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})-\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}(k)}$. This way, we get a sequence of flat vector bundles $\{F_{\sigma,d}^{k}\}_{d\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ on $X(k)$. Then we have $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})=\sum_{\sigma\in
W^{1}_{U}(k)}\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})
{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X(k)}(F_{\sigma,d}^{k}).
\label{eq:7.5.2kk20}$$
For $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$, the term $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ defined as in is an oscillating term, which is nice if $\gamma$ is of finite order.
For proving this theorem, we only need to prove . Actually, by Theorem \[thm:6.2.1ss\], for $t>0$, we get $${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)=\sum_{\sigma\in
W^{1}_{U}(k)}\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})
{\mathcal{I}}_{X(k)}(F_{\sigma,d}^{k},t),
\label{eq:7.5.3std}$$ Then follows from the linearity of Mellin transform.
For $\sigma\in W^{1}_{U}(k)$, it is clear that $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ is an oscillating term by its defining formula . If $\gamma$ is of finite order, so is $k\in T$, then there exists $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $k^{N}=1$. Since $\sigma(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}$ is analytically integrable, then $$\xi_{\sigma(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}}(k)^{N}=1.
\label{eq:7.5.4std}$$ Therefore, by , $\varphi^{U}_{k}(\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0})$ is a nice oscillating term in $d$. The rest part follows from the fact each ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X(k)}(F_{\sigma,d}^{k})$ is a polynomial in $d$, where we can use Theorem \[thm:7.3.3ss\], Corollaries \[cor:7.3.6kkss\] & \[cor:7.4.3ss20\] to compute them. This completes the proof of our theorem.
If we write down each polynomial ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X(k)}(F_{\sigma,d}^{k})$ by the formulae as in , then we can get an explicit formula for ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)$ in terms of root data and $\lambda$, $\lambda_{0}$.
In the sequel, we give a different way to evaluate ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ inspired by the computations in Subsection \[section7.3\]. Let $\gamma\in G$ be elliptic, after conjugation, we may assume that $\gamma=k\in T$. Then $T$ is also a maximal torus for $K(\gamma)^0$, and ${\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{b}}$.
Recall that $\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma)}$, $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma)}$, $\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}$ are defined in Subsection \[subsection5.2ss\]. Note that $\dim {\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)=4l(\gamma)$. If $\nu\in\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)^{*})$, let $[\nu]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $$\nu -
[\nu]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}\frac{\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma),2l(\gamma)}}{(2l(\gamma))!}
\label{eq:7.5.19sskk20}$$ is of degree strictly smaller than $4l(\gamma)$.
Recall that $-B(\cdot,\theta\cdot)$ is an Euclidean product on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let ${\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$, $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$ be the orthogonal spaces of ${\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)$, $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}(\gamma)$ in ${\mathfrak{n}}$, $\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}$ respectively. As $T$-modules, ${\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\simeq\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$.
For $\gamma=k\in T$, set $$c_{G}(\gamma)=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2}
+1}\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma)^{0}/T)|W(U_{M}(\gamma)^{0}, T)|}{\mathrm{Vol}(U_{M}(\gamma)^{0}/T)|W(K(\gamma)^{0},T)|}\frac{1}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(\gamma))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)}}.
\label{eq:7.5.5kk20s}$$ Then $c_{G}(1)$ is just the constant $c_{G}$ defined in .
We will use the same notation as in Subsections \[section5.3pl\] & \[section5.4\]. In particular, $W_{u}$ is defined by as a subset of $W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U,{\mathbb{C}}})$, and $W^{1}(\gamma)$ is defined by as a subset of $W({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}},{\mathbb{C}}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}})$. Now we extend Definition \[def:7.4.1ff20\] for $\gamma\in T$.
For $\omega\in W_{u}$, $\sigma\in W^{1}(\gamma)$, if $\Lambda\in P_{++}(U)$, for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$, set $$\begin{split}
P^{\gamma}_{\omega,\sigma,\Lambda}(z)
=&\mathrm{Vol_{L}}(\mathcal{O}^{\gamma}_{\sigma(\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})})\\
&\cdot\bigg[\exp\big(\langle
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma)},\sigma(\eta_{\omega}(\Lambda)+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})+z
\sqrt{-1}a^{1}\rangle\big)\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.35ss20s}$$
As in Subsection \[section7.4kk\], the coefficients of $z^{j}$ in $P^{\gamma}_{\omega,\sigma,\Lambda}(z)$ are polynomials in $\Lambda$.
\[thm:7.5.5kk20\] Suppose that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate, and that $\gamma=k\in T$. Recall that $\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma,\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}))$ is an oscillating term defined by . Then $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})=2\pi c_{G}(\gamma)\cdot
\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{\omega\in W_{u}}{\sigma \in
W^{1}(\gamma)}}\varepsilon(\omega)
\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma,\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}))\int_{0}^{|da_{\lambda,\omega}+b_{\lambda_{0},\omega}|} P^{\gamma}_{\omega,\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(t)dt.
\label{eq:7.5.35ss20}$$
If we consider $G=\mathrm{Spin}(1, 2n+1)$, $n\geq 1$ as in [@Fedosova2015compact], then up to a constant, the pseudopolynomial $\sum_{\sigma\in
W^{1}(\gamma)}\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma,\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}))P^{\gamma}_{\omega,\sigma,d\lambda+\lambda_{0}}(t)$ is just the one defined by Ksenia Fedosova in [@Fedosova2015compact Proposition 5.1]. This way, our results are compatible with her results in [@Fedosova2015compact Theorem 1,1] for hyperbolic orbifolds.
Let $\mathrm{Char}(A)$ denote the character ring of the complex representations of a compact Lie group $A$. One key ingredient in both and is an explicit decomposition of characters of $U$ into characters of $U_{M}(\gamma)^{0}$. In the diagram , we give two ways of this decomposition. The formula in is obtained by the computations along the upper path in , and a proof to will follow the lower path as in Subsection \[section7.3\]. $$\xymatrixcolsep{6pc}\xymatrix{
& \mathrm{Char}(U(\gamma)^{0})\ar[dr]^{\otimes
\Lambda^{\cdot}{\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}}} &
\\
\mathrm{Char}(U)\ar[dr]^{\otimes
\Lambda^{\cdot}{\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}}}
\ar[ur]^{\mathrm{Kirillov\;for\;}\gamma\;\in\;U}&
&\mathrm{Char}(U_{M}(\gamma)^{0})\\
&
\mathrm{Char}(U_{M})\ar[ur]^{\mathrm{Kirillov\;for\;}\gamma\;\in\; U_{M}} & }
\label{eq:7.5.6kk20}$$
Now we focus on . Since $\gamma=k\in
T$, for $Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0\in {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)$, $J_\gamma(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)$ is given by $$\begin{split}
\frac{\widehat{A}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)|_{{\mathfrak{p}}(\gamma)})}{\widehat{A}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)|_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)})}\bigg[\frac{1}{\det (1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^\perp(\gamma)}}\frac{\det(1-e^{-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^\perp(\gamma)}}{\det(1-e^{-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^\perp(\gamma)}}\bigg]^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$
Since ${\mathfrak{t}}\subset {\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)\subset {\mathfrak{k}}$, then $R({\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$ is a subset of $R({\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. Let $R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$ be the positive root system for $({\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$ induced by $R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}},{\mathfrak{t}})$. We use the notation in Subsections \[section5.1ss20\], \[subsection5.2ss\]. Then ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is a Cartan subalgebra for ${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$, ${\mathfrak{m}}(\gamma)$. Let $R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$, $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$ be the corresponding root systems.
As in , we have the following disjoint union $$R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})=R(\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})\cup
R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}}).$$ Since $R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})\subset R({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, then by intersecting with $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, we get a positive root system $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})$. Moreover, $$R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})=R^{+}(\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}})\cup
R^{+}({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),{\mathfrak{t}}).$$ If $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$, let $\pi_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$, $\pi_{\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$, $\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$ be the analogues defined as in . We also define $\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$, $\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$, $\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)$ as in .
Set $$\begin{split}
&{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\cap{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},\;
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\cap{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}};\\
&{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\cap{\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}),\;
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\cap{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}({\mathfrak{b}}).
\end{split}$$ Let ${\mathfrak{m}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$ be the orthogonal space of ${\mathfrak{m}}(\gamma)$ in ${\mathfrak{m}}$ with respect to $B$. Then $${\mathfrak{m}}^{\perp}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus
{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma).$$ We also have $${\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),\;
{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}={\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),
\label{eq:6.6.11ss20}$$ and $${\mathfrak{k}}^{\perp}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus
{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma),\;
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\perp}(\gamma)={\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma).
\label{eq:6.6.12ss20}$$
Set $${\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)={\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}'_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)\oplus {\mathfrak{k}}'_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma).$$ Then it is the orthogonal space of ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$ in ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ with respect to $B$.
\[lm:7.5.7skk\] The following spaces are isomorphic to each other as modules of $T$ by the adjoint actions, $${\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\simeq\bar{{\mathfrak{n}}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\simeq
{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma) \simeq
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma).$$
Note that $$\dim {\mathfrak{n}}=\dim{\mathfrak{k}}-\dim {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},\; \dim {\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)=\dim
{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)-\dim {\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma).$$ Together with the splittings , , we get $$\dim {\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)=\dim {\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma).$$ Similarly, $\dim {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)=\dim
{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$.
If $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)$, then $f+\theta(f)\in{\mathfrak{k}}$, we can verify directly that $f+\theta(f)\in {\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$. Then the map $f\in{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\mapsto f+\theta(f)\in
{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$ defines an isomorphisms of $T$-modules. Similar for ${\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)\simeq
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$.
Since $\gamma=k\in T$, let $y_0\in {\mathfrak{t}}$ be such that $\exp(y_0)=\gamma$. Note that $y_{0}$ is not unique.
\[lm:5.4.1\] If $y\in {\mathfrak{t}}$ is regular with respect to $R({\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}},{\mathfrak{t}})$, then we have $$\begin{split}
&J_{\gamma}(y)\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}^{*})}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}^{*})}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(y))]\\
=&\frac{(-1)^{\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/2 +1}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)}}\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k)]\\
&\cdot\frac{\pi_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}{\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)}\frac{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(-iy+y_{0})}{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y_{0})}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.5bonn}$$
Using , and Lemma \[lm:7.5.7skk\], we get that for $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, $$\begin{split}
&\bigg[\frac{1}{\det
(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{z}}^\perp(\gamma)}}\frac{\det(1-e^{-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{k}}^\perp(\gamma)}}{\det(1-e^{-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{p}}^\perp(\gamma)}}\bigg]^{1/2}\\
&=\frac{(-1)^{\frac{\dim
{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}{2}}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}^{\perp}(\gamma)}}\frac{1}{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y_{0})}\frac{\sigma_{{\mathfrak{k}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(-iy+y_{0})}{\sigma_{\sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(-iy+y_{0})}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.20kks}$$
Recall that as $K_{M}$-modules, we have the following isomorphism $${\mathfrak{p}}\simeq {\mathfrak{b}}\oplus {\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\oplus {\mathfrak{n}}.$$ Note that $$\mathrm{Ad}(k)=e^{\mathrm{ad}(y_{0})}.$$ If $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, when acting on ${\mathfrak{p}}$, we have $$\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-i\mathrm{ad}(y))=\exp(\mathrm{ad}(-iy+y_{0})).$$ By Lemma \[lm:6.4.2dec\], if $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, then $$\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}^{*})}[(N^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{p}}^{*})}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)\exp(-\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ad}(y))]\\
&=(-1)^{\frac{\dim{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}{2}+1}\sigma_{{\sqrt{-1}}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy-y_{0})^2 \cdot\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})}[e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k)].
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.24kks}$$
Combining , and , we get .
We now prove Theorem \[thm:7.5.5kk20\].
Put $$\begin{split}
F_{\gamma}(d,t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi t)^{p/2}}\int_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)}
J_\gamma(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)}\big]&\\
\cdot\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\rho^{E_{d}}(k)e^{-i\rho^{E_d}(Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0)}] e^{-|Y^{\mathfrak{k}}_0|^2/2t}\frac{dY^{\mathfrak{k}}_0}{(2\pi t)^{q/2}}.&
\end{split}
\label{eq:5.4.6bonn}$$ By , we have $${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d,t)=\exp\big(-2\pi^{2} t
|d\lambda+\lambda_{0}+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}}|^{2}\big)F_{\gamma}(d,t).
\label{eq:7.5.22decjan19}$$
Recall that $r=p+q=\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathfrak{z}}(\gamma)$. By Weyl integration formula, then $$\begin{split}
F_{\gamma}(d,t)=&\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(K(\gamma)^{0}/T)}{(2\pi
t)^{r/2} |W(K(\gamma)^{0},T)|}\\
&\cdot\int_{\mathfrak{t}}|\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(y)|^2
J_\gamma(y)\mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}\big[(N^{\Lambda^\cdot({\mathfrak{p}}^*)}-\frac{m}{2})\mathrm{Ad}(k)e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)})\big]\\
&\qquad\qquad\mathrm{Tr}^{E_{d}}[\rho^{E_{d}}(k)\exp(-i\rho^{E_d}(y))] e^{-|y|^2/2t}dy.
\end{split}$$
Recall that $l(\gamma)=\frac{1}{2}\dim {\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)$. As in , if $y\in{\mathfrak{t}}$, then $$\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}=(-1)^{l(\gamma)}\pi_{{\mathfrak{k}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/{\mathfrak{t}}}(iy)^{2}\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)_{{\mathbb{C}}}}.
\label{eq:7.5.25ss20ks}$$
By the argument as - , using Lemma \[lm:5.4.1\] and , we get $$\begin{split}
F_{\gamma}(d,t)=&\frac{c_{G}(\gamma)}{(2\pi
t)^{r/2}
}\int_{y\in
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)_{{\mathbb{C}}}}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\\
&\qquad\qquad\cdot\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\cdot\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[e^{-i\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(y)}\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes E_{d}}(k)]e^{-|y|^2/2t}dy.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.26ss20}$$ The constant $c_{G}(\gamma)$ is defined by .
If $y\in {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$, then $$B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{2\pi})\in\Lambda^{2}({\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{\mathfrak{b}}(\gamma)^{*}).
\label{eq:7.4.31dec19}$$ If $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$, as in , we have $$\frac{\det(i\mathrm{ad}(y))|_{{\mathfrak{n}}(\gamma)_{{\mathbb{C}}}}}{(2\pi
t)^{2l(\gamma)}}=[\exp\big(\frac{1}{t}B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{2\pi})\big)]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}.
\label{eq:7.5.32decss19s}$$ Note that $$r=\dim{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)+4l(\gamma)+1.
\label{eq:7.5.33decss19s}$$
Combining - , we get $$\begin{split}
&F_{\gamma}(d,t)=\frac{c_{G}(\gamma)}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\bigg[\int_{y\in
{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\cdot\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(e^{-iy}k)]e^{\frac{1}{t}B(y,\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{2\pi})-|y|^2/2t}\frac{dy}{(2\pi t)^{\dim {\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)/2}}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.32kk20}$$
Let $\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}$ be the standard negative Laplace operator on ${\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$. Using the same argument as in . Then we can rewrite as follows, $$\begin{split}
F_{\gamma}(d,t)=&\frac{c_{G}(\gamma)}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma),2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\\
&\exp(\frac{t}{2}\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\bigg\{\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(e^{-iy}k)]\bigg\}|_{y=-\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{2\pi}}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.33kk20}$$
As explained in , $\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}[\rho^{\Lambda^{\cdot}({\mathfrak{n}}^{*}_{{\mathbb{C}}})\otimes
E_{d}}(e^{-iy}k)]$ is an alternative sum of characters of $V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}$, $\omega\in W_{u}$ of $U_{M}$. Then we apply the generalized Kirillov formula to each character.
For $\omega\in W_{u}$, the function in $y\in{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)$ $$\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}[\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(e^{-iy}k)]
\label{eq:7.5.36conf}$$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}$ associated with the eigenvalue $4\pi^{2}|\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}|^{2}$.
We will use the same notation as in Subsection \[section5.4\]. The orbit $\mathcal{O}^{\gamma}_{\sigma(\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})}$ is defined in equipped with a Liouville measure $d\mu^{\gamma}_{\sigma}$. Finally, as , we get the following identity, $$\begin{split}
&\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma),2}}{8\pi^{2}t})\bigg\{\widehat{A}^{-1}(i\mathrm{ad}(y)|_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)})\big[\frac{\det (1-
e^{-i\mathrm{ad}(y)}\mathrm{Ad}(k))|_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{\det(1-\mathrm{Ad}(k))
_{{\mathfrak{u}}^{\perp}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\mathrm{Tr_{s}}^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}[\rho^{V_{d\lambda+\lambda_{0},\omega}}(e^{-iy}k)]\bigg\}|_{y=-\frac{\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}}{2\pi}}\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}\\
=& \sum_{\sigma\in
W^{1}(\gamma)}\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma,\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0}))\mathrm{Vol_{L}}(\mathcal{O}^{\gamma}_{\sigma(\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}})})\\
&\cdot\bigg[\exp(-\frac{\beta(a_{1})^{2}
\omega^{Y_{{\mathfrak{b}}}(\gamma),2}}{8\pi^{2}t}-\langle \sigma(\eta_{\omega}(d\lambda+\lambda_{0})+
\rho_{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}}),
\Omega^{{\mathfrak{u}}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(\gamma)}\rangle)
\bigg]^{\mathrm{max}(\gamma)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:7.5.34ss20}$$
Then we proceed as in , Theorem \[thm:7.3.3ss\], by the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[lm:7.4.2kk\], we get . This completes the proof of our theorem.
Note that by , - , we can give formulae for ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$, ${\mathcal{M}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},s)$ in terms of the root data as in , .
A proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\] {#section8paris}
======================================
In this section, we give a complete proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\], then Theorem \[thm:0.00001s\] (and Theorem \[thm:1.0.1bis\]) follows as a consequence. We assume that $G$ is a connected linear real reductive Lie group with $\delta(G)=1$ and compact center, so that $U$ is a compact Lie group.
A lower bound for the Hodge Laplacian on $X$ {#section:lower}
--------------------------------------------
We use the notation as in Subsection \[section3.6\]. Recall that $e_1$, $\cdots$, $e_m$ is an orthogonal basis of $TX$ or ${\mathfrak{p}}$. Put $$C^{{\mathfrak{g}},H}=-\sum_{j=1}^{m} e_{j}^{2}\in U{\mathfrak{g}}.
\label{eq:8.1.1ss20}$$ Let $C^{{\mathfrak{g}},H,E}$ be its action on $E$ via $\rho^{E}$. Then $$C^{{\mathfrak{g}},E}=C^{{\mathfrak{g}},H,E}+C^{{\mathfrak{k}},E}.
\label{eq:7.7.16pp}$$
Let $\Delta^{H,X}$ be the Bochner-Laplace operator on bundle $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^*X)\otimes F$ associated with the unitary connection $\nabla^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F,u}$. Put $$\begin{split}
\Theta(F)=\frac{S^X}{4}-\frac{1}{8} \langle R^{TX}(e_i,e_j)e_k,e_\ell\rangle c(e_i)c(e_j)\widehat{c}(e_k)\widehat{c}(e_\ell)&\\
-C^{{\mathfrak{g}},H,E}+\frac{1}{2}\big(c(e_i)c(e_j)-\widehat{c}(e_i)\widehat{c}(e_j)\big)R^{F}(e_i, e_j),
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.5.3lara}$$ where $R^{F}$ is the curvature of the unitary connection $\nabla^{F}$ on $F$.
Then $\Theta(F)$ is a self-adjoint section of $\mathrm{End}(\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F)$, which is parallel with respect to $\nabla^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes F,u}$. By [@BMZ2015toeplitz eq.(8.39)], we have $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}=-\Delta^{H,X}+\Theta(F).
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.5.5lara}$$
Let $\Omega_c^\cdot(X, F)$ be the set of smooth sections of $\Lambda^{\cdot}(T^{*}X)\times F$ on $X$ with compact support. Let $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{L_2}$ be the $L_2$ scalar product on it. If $s\in \Omega_c^\cdot(X, F)$, we have $$\langle \mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}s,s\rangle_{L_2}\geq \langle \Theta(F)s,s\rangle_{L_2}.
\label{eq:8.5.6lara}$$
Let $\Delta^{H,X,i}$ denote the Bochner-Laplace operator acting on $\Omega^i(X,F)$, and let $p^{H,i}_t(x,x')$ be the kernel of $\exp(t\Delta^{H,X,i}/2)$ on $X$ with respect to $dx'$. We will denote by $p^{H,i}_t(g)\in\mathrm{End}(\Lambda^i({\mathfrak{p}}^*)\otimes E)$ its lift to $G$ explained in Subsection \[section3.2\]. Let $\Delta^{X}_0$ be the scalar Laplacian on $X$ with the heat kernel $p^{X,0}_t$.
Let $||p^{H,i}_t(g)||$ be the operator norm of $p^{H,i}_t(g)$ in $\mathrm{End}(\Lambda^i({\mathfrak{p}}^*)\otimes E)$. By [@MP2013raysinger Proposition 3.1], if $g\in G$, then $$||p^{H,i}_t(g)||\leq p^{X,0}_t(g).
\label{eq:8.6.5qq}$$
Let $p^H_t$ be the kernel of $\exp(t\Delta^{H,X}/2)$, then $$p^H_t=\oplus_{i=1}^p p^{H,i}_t.
\label{eq:8.5.8sud}$$ Let $q^{X,F}_t$ be the heat kernel associated with $\mathbf{D}^{X,F,2}/2$, by , for $x,x'\in X$, $$q^{X,F}_t(x,x')=\exp(-t\Theta(F)/2)p^{H}_t(x,x').
\label{eq:8.5.9}$$
Recall that $P_{++}(U)$ is the set of dominant weights of $U$ with respect to $R^{+}({\mathfrak{u}},{\mathfrak{t}}_{U})$ defined in Subsection \[section5.3pl\]. As in Subsection \[section4.3\], we fix $\lambda, \lambda_{0}\in P_{++}(U)$ such that $\lambda$ is nondegenerate with respect to $\theta$. Recall that for ${d}\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $(E_{d},\rho^{E_{d}})$ is the irreducible unitary representation of $U$ with highest weight $d\lambda+\lambda_{0}$, which extends uniquely to a representation of $G$. By [@MR2838248 Théorème 3.2] [@BMZ2015toeplitz Theorem 4.4 and Remark 4.5] and [@MR3128980 Proposition 7.5], there exist $c>0$, $C>0$ such that, for ${d}\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\Theta(F_{d})\geq c{d}^2- C,
\label{eq:8.5.4sudpps}$$ where the estimate $d^{2}$ comes from the positive operator $C^{{\mathfrak{g}},H,E_{d}}$. By , , , we get $$\mathbf{D}^{X,F_{d},2}\geq c{d}^2- C.
\label{eq:8.4.26pps}$$
\[lm:8.5.1sud\] There exists ${d}_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $c_0>0$ such that if ${d}\geq {d}_0$, $x,x'\in X$ $$||q^{X,F_{d}}_t(x,x')||\leq e^{-c_0{d}^2 t} p^{X,0}_t(x,x').
\label{eq:8.5.13sud}$$
By , there exist ${d}_0\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $c'>0$ such that if ${d}\geq {d}_0$, $$\Theta(F_{d})\geq c' {d}^2.
\label{eq:8.5.14sud}$$ Then if $t>0$, $$||\exp(-t\Theta(F_{d})/2)||\leq e^{-c'{d}^2 t/2}.
\label{eq:8.5.15sud}$$ By , , , , we get . This completes the proof of our lemma.
Our locally symmetric orbifold $Z$ is defined as $\Gamma\backslash
X$, where $\Gamma$ is a cocompact discrete subgroup of $G$. For $\gamma\in\Gamma$, the number $m_{\gamma}\geq 0$ is given by , which depends only on the conjugacy class of $\gamma$ (in $G$ or $\Gamma$). Recall that $E[\Gamma]$ is the finite set of elliptic conjugacy classes in $\Gamma$.
For $t>0$, $x\in X$, $\gamma\in \Gamma$, set $$v_t(F_{d},\gamma, x) = \mathrm{Tr_s}^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)\otimes
F_{d}}\bigg[\big(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*X)}-\frac{m}{2}\big)q^{X,F_{d}}_{t}(x,\gamma(x))\gamma\bigg].
\label{eq:8.6.7mmk}$$
By Lemma \[lm:8.5.1sud\] and , we have the following result.
\[lm:8.6.3ugc\] There exist $C_0>0$, $c_0>0$ such that if ${d}$ is large enough, for $t >0$, $x\in X$, $\gamma\in \Gamma$, $$|v_t(F_{d}, \gamma, x)|\leq C_0 (\dim E_{d}) e^{-c_0 d^2 t}p^{X,0}_{t}(x,\gamma(x)).
\label{eq:8.6.8mk2}$$
Set $$m_{\Gamma}=\inf_{[\gamma]\in
[\Gamma]\backslash E[\Gamma]} m_{\gamma}.
\label{eq:ss8.6.1copy}$$ By [@liu2019hypoelliptic Proposition 1.8.4], $m_{\Gamma}>0$.
The following proposition is a special case of [@liu2019hypoelliptic Proposition 7.5.3].
\[prop:8.6.5ugc\] There exist constants $C>0$, $c>0$ such that if $x\in X$, $t\in\, ]0,1]$, then $$\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma, \gamma \mathrm{\;nonelliptic}} p^{X,0}_t(x,\gamma(x))\leq C\exp(-c/t).
\label{eq:8.6.11ugc}$$
By [@Donnelly1979asymptotic Theorem 3.3], there exists $C_0>0$ such that when $0<t\leq 1$, $$p_t^{X,0}(x,x')\leq C_0 t^{-m/2} \exp(-\frac{d^2(x,x')}{4t}).
\label{eq:8.6.6}$$
By [@liu2019hypoelliptic Proposition 1.8.5], there exist $c>0$, $C>0$ such that for $R>0$, $x\in X$, $$\#\{\gamma\in \Gamma\;|\;\gamma
\mathrm{\;nonelliptic}, d_{\gamma}(x)\leq R\}\leq C\exp(cR).
\label{eq:8.6.1wwx}$$ By , , , and using the same arguments as in the proof of [@MP2013raysinger Proposition 3.2], we get .
A proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\] {#section:torsionZ}
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we give a proof to Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\]. As explained in the introduction, the result (1) in Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\] is trivial by the definition of ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ in . The results (2) - (4) are already proved in Theorem \[thm:7.5.3conf\]. We only need to prove the result (5). We restate it as follows.
\[prop:8.7.1ugc\] If $\Gamma\subset G$ is a cocompact discrete subgroup, set $Z=\Gamma\backslash X$, then there exists $c>0$ such that for $d$ large enough, $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{T}(Z,
F_{d})=&\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(Z)}{|S|}{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{I}}_{X}(F_d)\\
&+\sum_{[\gamma]\in
E^{+}[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|} {\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_d)+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}),
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.7.14ugc}$$ where $E^{+}[\Gamma]=E^{+}[\Gamma]\backslash \{[1]\}$ is the finite set of nontrivial elliptic classes in $[\Gamma]$.
We do some preparations before giving the proof. By , we have $$\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}\geq c{d}^2- C.
\label{eq:8.AAAA}$$ Then if ${d}$ is large enough, we have $$H^{\cdot}(Z, F_{d})=0.
\label{eq:8.4.5ppap}$$ By , , if ${d}$ is large enough, we have $$\chi(Z,F_{d})=0,\;\;\; \chi^{\prime}(Z,F_{d})=0.
\label{eq:8.6.6s}$$
As in , for $t>0$, set $$b(F_{d},t)=(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial
t})\mathrm{Tr_s}\bigg[\big(N^{\Lambda^\cdot(T^*Z)}-\frac{m}{2}\big)\exp(-t\mathbf{D}^{Z,F_{d},2}/2)\bigg].
\label{eq:8.8.7kkkk}$$ As in [@BMZ2015toeplitz Subsection 7.2], by , there exist constants $\tilde{c}>0$, $\widetilde{C}>0$ such that for $d$ large enough and for $t>1/d$, $$|b(F_{d},t)|\leq \widetilde{C}\exp(-\tilde{c} d -\tilde{c} t).
\label{eq:8.2.6parisconf}$$
By , , we have $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})=-\int_{0}^{+\infty} b(F_{d}, t)\frac{dt}{t}.
\label{eq:8.6.9kkkk}$$
We rewrite as follows, $$\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})=-\int_{1/d}^{+\infty} b(F_{d}, t)\frac{dt}{t}-\int_{0}^{d} b(F_{d},t/{d}^2)\frac{dt}{t}.
\label{eq:8.6.14kkkk}$$
By , there exists $c>0$ such that for $d$ large enough, $$\int_{1/d}^{+\infty} b(F_{d},t)\frac{dt}{t}=\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}).
\label{eq:8.6.11111}$$
By , , , we get $$\begin{split}
b(F_{d},t)=(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t})\int_Z
\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma} v_t(F_{d},\gamma,z)dz.
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.6.15kkkk}$$ We split the sum in into two parts, $$\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma, \gamma \text{ elliptic}} + \sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma, \gamma \text{ nonelliptic}}
\label{eq:8.7.17ugc}$$ so that we write $$b(F_{d},t)=b_{\mathrm{ell}}(F_{d},t)+b_{\mathrm{nonell}}(F_{d},t).
\label{eq:muge}$$ By - , we get $$b_{\mathrm{ell}}(F_{d},t)=\sum_{[\gamma]\in
E[\Gamma]}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(\Gamma\cap Z(\gamma)\backslash
X(\gamma))}{|S(\gamma)|}(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}){\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t).
\label{eq:8.2.12std}$$
By and , the terms in ${\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)$ are of the form $$t^{-j+1/2}\exp(-2\pi^{2}t(da'+b')^{2})Q(d),
\label{eq:8.2.13std}$$ where $Q(d)$ is a pseudopolynomial in $d$, and $a',b'\in{\mathbb{R}}$ with $a'\neq 0$ due to the nondegeneracy of $\lambda$. By , there exists $c>0$ such that for $d$ large enough, $$\int_{0}^{d}b_{\mathrm{ell}}(F_{d},t/d^{2})\frac{dt}{t}=\int_{0}^{+\infty}b_{\mathrm{ell}}(F_{d},t)\frac{dt}{t}+\mathcal{O}(e^{-cd}).
\label{eq:8.2.15std}$$
Using Proposition \[prop:6.3.1est\] and by , we get $${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})=-\int_{0}^{+\infty}(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}){\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d},t)\frac{dt}{t}.
\label{eq:8.2.16std}$$
Now we consider the contribution from the nonelliptic elements. If $x\in X$, put $$h_t(F_{d},x)= \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma, \gamma \text{
nonelliptic}} v_t(F_{d},\gamma,x).
\label{eq:8.7.18ugc}$$ Then $$b_{\mathrm{nonell}}(F_{d},t)=(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t})\int_Z
h_{t}(F_{d},z)dz.
\label{eq:8.2.18std}$$ Now we prove the following uniform estimates for $x\in X$, $$\int_0^{d}(1+2t\frac{\partial}{\partial t})
h_{t/{d}^2}(F_{d},x)\frac{dt}{t}= \mathcal{O}(e^{-c{d}}).
\label{eq:8.7.19ugc}$$
Indeed, using Lemma \[lm:8.6.3ugc\] and Proposition \[prop:8.6.5ugc\], there exists $C>0$, $c'>0$, $c''>0$ such that if ${d}$ is large enough, $0<t\leq {d}$, then $$|h_{t/{d}^2}(F_{d},x)|\leq C \dim(E_{d}) e^{-c' t}\exp(-c''{d}^2/t).
\label{eq:8.7.20ugc}$$
Recall that $\dim E_{d}$ is a polynomial in $d$. Then by , we have $$\begin{split}
&\big|\int_0^1 h_{t/{d}^2}(F_{d},x)\frac{dt}{t}\big|\leq C e^{-c''{d}^2/2}\dim(E_{d}) \int_0^1 e^{-c''{d}^2/2t}\frac{dt}{t}=\mathcal{O}(e^{-c{d}}),\\
&\big|\int_1^{d}h_{t/{d}^2}(F_{d},x)\frac{dt}{t}\big|\leq C e^{-c''{d}}\dim(E_{d}) \int_1^{d}e^{-c't}\frac{dt}{t}=\mathcal{O}(e^{-c{d}}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:8.7.24ugc}$$ By - , we get .
At last, we assembly together , , , , , , and , we get exactly . This completes the proof of our proposition.
In Proposition \[prop:8.7.1ugc\], each elliptic $\gamma\in\Gamma$ is of finite order, therefore ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ is a nice pseudopolynomial. Since $\mathcal{T}(Z,F_{d})$ is always real number, then still holds if we take the real part of ${\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{E}}_{X,\gamma}(F_{d})$ instead.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We simulate two-flavour lattice QCD with at a finite chemical potential $\mu_I$ for isospin, and finite temperature. At small $\mu_I$, we determine the position of the crossover from hadronic matter to a quark-gluon plasma as a function of $\mu_I$. At larger $\mu_I$ we observe the phase transition from the superfluid pion-condensed phase to a quark-gluon plasma, noting its change from second order to first order as $\mu_I$ is increased. We also simulate two-flavour lattice QCD at zero quark mass, using an action which includes an additional 4-fermion interaction, at temperatures close to the chiral transition on $N_t=8$ lattices.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, University of Illinois, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA'
- 'HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA'
author:
- 'J. B. Kogut[^1] and D. K. Sinclair, [^2]'
title: '[Lattice QCD at finite isospin density and/or temperature]{}[^3]'
---
Introduction
============
QCD at finite temperature and/or densities is relevant to the physics of the early universe, neutron stars and relativistic heavy-ion collisions — RHIC and the CERN heavy-ion program.
Because of the difficulties involved with simulating QCD at finite chemical potential $\mu$ for quark number with its complex fermion determinant, we are simulating $N_f=2$ lattice QCD with a finite chemical potential $\mu_I$ for isospin ($I_3$), which has a real positive fermion determinant [@ks1]. We are currently studying the $\mu_I$ dependence of the finite temperature transition [@ks2]. At small $\mu$, the Bielefeld-Swansea collaboration has observed that the phase of the fermion determinant is sufficiently well behaved that the $\mu$ and $\mu_I$ dependence of the transition are identical [@bs1]. Our predictions are in good agreement with those of de Forcrand and Philipsen [@dfp1].
At large values of $\mu_I$ ($\mu_I > m_\pi$), the low temperature phase is characterized by a pion condensate. The finite temperature transition is now a true phase transition, which appears to be second order for lower $\mu_I$ values and first order at higher $\mu_I$ values.
We also simulate lattice QCD with an irrelevant chiral 4-fermion term which allows us to simulate at zero quark mass, giving us direct access to the critical exponents at the finite temperature transition [@xqcd]. We are using $16^3 \times 8$ and $24^3 \times 8$ lattices for these simulations.
In section 2 we present preliminary results of our finite $\mu_I$ and temperature simulations. Section 3 gives some preliminary graphs from our $N_t=8$ finite-temperature simulations using our modified action. Finally we present our conclusions and indicate further avenues of research in section 4.
QCD at finite $\mu_I$ and temperature
=====================================
The quark part of our lattice action is $$S_f=\sum_{sites} \left[\bar{\chi}[D\!\!\!\!/(\frac{1}{2}\tau_3\mu_I)+m]\chi
+ i\lambda\epsilon\bar{\chi}\tau_2\chi\right].$$ For simulations at $\mu_I < m_\pi$, we set the symmetry breaking parameter $\lambda=0$.
We perform simulations on an $8^3 \times 4$ lattice with $m=0.05$, $\lambda=0$ and $0 \le \mu_I \le 0.55$, for a set of $\beta$s covering the crossover region for each $\mu_I$. We measure the chiral condensate, the plaquette, the Wilson Line and the isospin density and their corresponding susceptibilities for each set of parameters. The position of the crossover was obtained as the peak of the susceptibilities. This was determined using Ferrenberg-Swendsen reweighting techniques [@fs]. Figure \[fig:fs\] shows the chiral susceptibilities obtained from such reweightings for 3 of the 7 $\mu_I$ values we use. The multiple values for each $\mu_I$ are the results of using distributions from several $\beta$s close to the peak.
The crossover $\beta$ values, $\beta_c$, obtained from the peaks in the susceptibilities for each of the 4 observables, are plotted in figure \[fig:beta\_c\] as functions of $\mu_I^2$, since the leading term is expected to be quadratic in $\mu_I$. We note that the 4 predictions for each $\mu_I$ appear consistent within errors, indicating that this is a reasonable definition of the position of the crossover. The straight line $$\beta_c=5.322-0.143\mu_I^2$$ in this figure is only meant as a rough guide. Using the relation $\beta_c(\mu)=\beta_c(\mu_I=2\mu)$, which should hold for small $\mu,\:\mu_I$ our results are consistent with those of de Forcrand and Philipsen [@dfp1].
\[fig:beta\_c\]
We are repeating these simulations for $m=0.1$ and $m=0.2$ where the critical $\mu_I$s, $\mu_c=m_\pi$ are larger. In no case does there appear to be a critical end point, beyond which the transition becomes first order, for $\mu_I < m_\pi$.
We are extending our $m=0.05$ simulations to $\mu_I > m_\pi$. While the thermal phase transition where the pion condensate evaporates appears to be second order for $\mu_I=0.6$, simulations on $16^3 \times 4$ lattices show indications of the metastability expected for a first order transition, at $\mu_I=0.8$.
“$\chi$QCD” at finite temperature
=================================
We simulate lattice QCD with 2 flavours of massless staggered quarks and an irrelevant chiral 4-fermion interaction which allows us to run at zero quark mass, at finite temperature on $16^3 \times 8$ and $24^3 \times 8$ lattices. Using $N_t=8$ should free us from the lattice artifacts which were present for $N_t=4,6$ [@xqcd].
Having massless quarks should enable us to extract the critical exponent $\beta_m$ which describes the vanishing of the chiral condensate as the chiral transition is approached from below, and the critical $\beta$ ($\beta_c$). Running at $\beta_c$ with small quark masses will give us the critical exponent $\delta$.
Preliminary results for the chiral condensate and Wilson Line are given in figure \[fig:XQCD\]. These clearly indicate that the transition occurs in the range $5.530 < \beta_c < 5.545$ and appears sufficiently smooth to be second order.
Conclusions
===========
We have determined the $\mu_I$ dependence of the finite temperature transition for 2-flavour lattice QCD. For small $\mu$, the fluctuations of the phase of the fermion determinant are small enough that the $\mu$ and $\mu_I$ dependence of this transition are the same [@bs1]. The $\mu_I$ dependence we measure predicts a $\mu$ dependence consistent with that obtained from simulations with imaginary $\mu$ [@dfp1]. We will check if it is also consistent with series expansions around $\mu=0$ [@bs1]. Our simulations at 3 different quark masses indicate that the transition is a crossover for $\mu_I < m_\pi$. At higher $\mu_I$, where the the pion condensate evaporates at the transition, we see evidence for a change to first order behaviour, but it is unclear if this is related to the critical endpoint expected at finite $\mu$.
Others have estimated the position of the critical endpoint at finite $\mu$ for the more physical $2+1$-flavour QCD [@fk], the closely related 3-flavour QCD [@bs2; @dfp2] and 4-flavour QCD [@mpl]. We are extending our simulations to 3-flavours, where one can tune the quark mass to make the critical endpoint as close to $\mu=0$ as desired. If the endpoint is at small enough $\mu$, we expect a critical endpoint at the corresponding $\mu_I$, giving another estimate for the position of this endpoint.
We are using the “$\chi$QCD” action to determine the critical exponents for the chiral transition of finite temperature QCD, on $N_t=8$ lattices.
We thank F. Karsch, P. de Forcrand, O. Philipsen and D. Toublan for helpful discussions. These simulations were performed on the IBM SP at NERSC and the Jazz cluster at Argonne.
[9]{} J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 034505. J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. [**119**]{} (2003) 556; J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, talk presented by D. K. Sinclair at “Finite Density QCD at Nara” (2003). C. R. Allton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 074507; Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 014507. P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**642**]{} (2002) 290. J. B. Kogut, J. F. Lagae and D. K. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 034504; J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Phys. Lett. B [**492**]{} (2000) 228; Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 034508; arXiv:hep-lat/0211008 (2002). A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{} (1989) 1195. Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, Phys. Lett. B [**534**]{} (2002) 87; JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 014; Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B [**568**]{} (2003) 73. C. R. Allton [*et al.*]{}, poster presented by F. Karsch at “Lattice2003” (2003). P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, arXiv:hep-lat/0307020 (2003). M. D’Elia and M. P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 014505.
[^1]: Supported in part by NSF grant NSF PHY-0102409.
[^2]: Supported by US Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under contract W-31-109-ENG-38.
[^3]: Talk presented by D. K. Sinclair, Lattice2003, Tsukuba.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present the discovery of 1847 Mira candidates in the Local Group galaxy M33 using a novel semi-parametric periodogram technique coupled with a Random Forest classifier. The algorithms were applied to $\sim 2.4\times 10^5$ $I$-band light curves previously obtained by the M33 Synoptic Stellar Survey. We derive preliminary Period-Luminosity relations at optical, near- & mid-infrared wavelengths and compare them to the corresponding relations in the Large Magellanic Cloud.'
author:
- 'Wenlong Yuan, Shiyuan He, Lucas M. Macri, James Long, & Jianhua Z. Huang'
bibliography:
- 'mira.bib'
title: 'The M33 Synoptic Stellar Survey. . Mira Variables'
---
Introduction
============
Mira variables (Miras) are asymptotic giant branch (AGB) pulsating stars that exhibit large cyclical variations in flux at optical wavelengths, typically with periods spanning $100-700$ d but in extreme cases going beyond 1500 d. The “canonical” empirical classification requires $\Delta V\!>\!2.5$ mag within a pulsation period and spectroscopic confirmation [@Kholopov1985]. Recent surveys for these variables [such as @Soszynski2009] have adopted $\Delta I\!>\!0.$8 mag as the only requirement for classification, since spectroscopic followup of very large samples is not currently feasible. Longer-term variations in the mean flux level of each cycle are typical [@Mattei1997; @Whitelock1997] and visual light curves exhibit a wide range of shapes; @Ludendorff1928 classified Miras into three classes and ten subclasses based on this attribute.
Since the progenitors of Miras are relatively low-mass stars, they are ubiquitous and present in all types of galaxies. Thousands of Mira candidates have been discovered in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds based on photometry from the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment [hereafter, OGLE; @Udalski1992] and MACHO [@Alcock1993] projects. The Mira Period-Luminosity relations (hereafter, PLRs) were initially studied by @Gerasimovic1928. @Glass1981 found the first evidence of a near-infrared (NIR) PLR for Miras, based on a small sample of variables in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). Using the MACHO database, @Wood1999 were the first to identify multiple PLRs for AGB stars and to confirm the nature of Miras as radial fundamental mode pulsators. Also using MACHO periods, @Glass2003 determined that the Mira $K$-band PLR exhibits a relatively small scatter of $\sigma\sim$0.13 mag while @Whitelock2008 found similar dispersions for $K$-band PLRs separated into O- and C-rich subtypes ($\sigma=0.14$ and 0.15 mag, respectively). These values are comparable to the intrinsic dispersion of the Cepheid PLR in the same bandpass [@Macri2015 $\sigma=0.09$ mag,]. @Soszynski2009 [@Soszynski2011; @Soszynski2013] characterized the NIR Mira PLRs in the LMC, the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Galactic Bulge, respectively, using OGLE and 2MASS photometry. In just a few years, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will begin to obtain frequent images of dozens of nearby galaxies, which will have the necessary depth to enable the discovery of Miras and the determination of distances to these systems.
In this work we report the results of a search for Mira candidates in M33 using $I$-band observations spanning nearly a decade, obtained by the DIRECT project [@Macri2001 hereafter, M01] and by @Pellerin2011 [hereafter, PM11]. Traditional periodogram methods such as Lomb-Scargle [@Lomb1976; @Scargle1982] are not optimal for this search due to relatively sparse temporal sampling, large gaps between observing seasons, and the expected long-term variations in Mira light curves. We developed a novel semi-parametric periodogram technique [@He2016 hereafter, H16] based on the Gaussian Process method that contains a data-driven component in the model light curve to account for deviations from strict periodicity and gives an overall better performance. We coupled this algorithm to Random Forest classifiers, training and testing them extensively on simulated light curves.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: §\[sec:observations\] introduces the observations and data reduction; §\[sec:simulation\] gives details of the light curve simulations; §\[sec:model\] discusses the methodology used to search for Mira candidates and estimate their periods; §\[sec:results\] presents our results, which include a comparison of the Random Forest classification with other techniques and preliminary PLRs for O-rich Mira candidates.
Observations and data reduction {#sec:observations}
===============================
We based our search on the observations of M33 obtained by @Macri2001 and @Pellerin2011. These surveys covered most of the disk of this galaxy with a combined baseline of nearly a decade (1996 September to 1999 November for M01; 2002 August to 2006 August for PM11) mainly using the Fred L. Whipple Observatory 1.2-m and the WIYN 3.5-m telescopes with a variety of cameras (see the respective publications for details). While images were obtained in multiple bandpasses ($BVI$), our analysis is only based on the $I$-band time-series photometry because Mira candidates fall below the detection limit in the bluer bands. Given that both studies had to rely on multiple pointings to cover the area of interest and not all locations were observed on a given night, the sampling pattern varies considerably across the disk. Fig. \[fig:obs\] shows the overall sequence of observations, of which only a subset will be applicable at a given position.
![[*Top:*]{} Cadence of M33 observations in $I$ by M01 & PM11. The grayscale levels are linearly proportional to the number of measurements per sq. arcmin. of each epoch. [*Bottom-left:*]{} Expanded view of the cadence for seasons $1-4$. [*Bottom-right*]{}: Histogram of measurements for stars with $N\!>\!10$ and $I\!<\!21.45$ mag.\[fig:obs\]](fig01.eps){width="49.00000%"}
We performed new photometric measurements on the pre-processed images from PM11 to mitigate issues arising from geometric distortions and poor image registration at the corners of each field (which corresponds to a single telescope and camera). Unlike the approach of the previous work, we first analyzed the images of a given field and later combined the photometry for matching sources. We obtained aperture and point-spread function (PSF) photometry using the [DAOPHOT]{}, [ALLSTAR]{} and [ALLFRAME]{} programs [@Stetson1987; @Stetson1994] in a quasi-automatic manner by integrating the tasks into an [R]{} script pipeline. We defined the PSF for each image using the top 50 bright and isolated stars and selected the one with the sharpest PSF from each field to serve as reference for [ALLFRAME]{}. We selected a larger number of secondary standards for image registration and to tie the photometric measurements. These were among the brightest few percent of all sources in a given field and had photometric uncertainties below 0.02 mag. We determined frame-to-frame zeropoint offsets, computed mean instrumental magnitudes and extracted light curves using [TRIAL]{} [@Stetson1996].
We obtained astrometric and photometric calibrations for each field using the catalog published by the Local Group Galaxies Survey [hereafter LGGS, @Massey2006]. We derived the astrometric solution for the reference frame of each field using WCSTools [@Mink1999]. We matched LGGS sources to the star list from the (now astrometrically calibrated) reference frame of each field and solved the following transformation equation: $$I_c = (1+a)\cdot I_i + b$$ [where $I_c$ is the magnitude in the standard system (Kron-Cousins $I$ for LGGS) and $I_i$ is the instrumental PSF magnitude of the reference frame of a given field, $b$ is the zeropoint offset and $a$ provides a simple correction for color terms and/or photometric biases due to crowding (given the considerable variation in stellar density across the disk and in image quality among the fields). We were not able to apply a traditional photometric transformation with zeropoint and color terms because we only have single-band ($I$) photometry for the vast majority of the sources. We solved for the coefficients using the top 25% and 10% brightest stars in fields imaged at WIYN and FLWO, respectively, applying an iterative outlier rejection of 3 & 2.3$\sigma$, respectively. The median value of $a$ was 0.001, with 95% of the values falling between $-0.024$ and $+0.015$.]{}
![Photometric precision for secondary standards as a function of magnitude.\[fig:photprec\]](fig02.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Given the significant overlap between the fields of M01 and PM11, most objects have multiple light curve segments that were merged as follows. If two sources in different fields had coordinates that matched to better than $1\arcsec$ and there were no other sources detected within $1\arcsec$, they they were considered as the same object. If there were neighboring sources within that radius, then the closest object with a magnitude difference less than 0.5 mag was selected (recall that each field was already transformed to the standard system prior to this step). We ensured that at most one source in one field could merge with one source in another field. We tested the photometric precision of the aforementioned steps by reidentifying the local standards of each field and examining the dispersion of the merged light curves relative to the dispersion of individual segments. Fig. \[fig:photprec\] shows that we reach a photometric precision of 0.03 mag.
We selected 239907 light curves for the Mira search, rejecting any with less than 10 measurements or with mean magnitudes fainter than $I\!=\!21.45$ mag. The first cut is based on extensive testing via simulated light curves (§\[sec:simulation\]) of our algorithm (§\[sec:model\]); the procedure does not yield reliable periods for sparser samplings. The second cut is due to the large photometric uncertainties beyond that magnitude limit, which prevent the detection of light curve variations of the expected amplitude.
Simulated M33 light curves {#sec:simulation}
==========================
We simulated $10^5$ light curves of Miras and the same number of semi-regular variables (SRVs) that accurately reproduce the photometric uncertainties and temporal sampling of the M33 dataset. The simulated light curves were used to test our period determination algorithm and to train a classifier to identify Mira candidates. The methods used in the simulation are based on the ones we developed for H16 and rely on very high precision $I$-band light curves sampled at hundreds of epochs over 7.5 years by phase of the OGLE project [@Udalski2008]. We also generated an equal number of artificial light curves of “constant” stars, in order to properly balance the training data for the classifier.
Miras {#ssec:simmira}
-----
The procedure used to fit templates to the OGLE- Mira light curves is explained in detail in §4.3 of H16. Briefly, the light curve is decomposed into a mean value, a regular variation of period $P$, a low-frequency (long-term) trend and a high-frequency/small-scale term. The latter three components are modeled by a Gaussian process with different kernels. The maximum likelihood method is used to obtain the model parameters as a function of the trial value of $P$. Once the best-fit model is found, it can be used to predict the magnitude at any time $t$ during the observation baseline, including the brightest value reached by the variable (hereafter, $I_m$). This quantity is of interest because [@Kanbur1997] has suggested that PLRs at maximum light may have a significantly smaller dispersion than at mean light.
Simulated light curves were generated by sampling the best-fit model using randomly-selected observing patterns from the actual light curves, with equal probabilities. We shifted the starting point of each simulated light curve by a random value $\Delta t$, limited in range only to ensure the resulting light curve was still contained within the span of the OGLE observations. These random shifts helped to obtain many unique simulated light curves when using the same template. We applied a shift of $\Delta m\!=\!+6.2$ mag to account for the approximate difference in apparent $I$-band distance moduli between the LMC and M33 [$\Delta\mu_0\!=\!6.26\pm0.03$ mag and $\Delta A_I=-0.05$ mag based on @Pellerin2011; @Schlafly2011]. Furthermore, we introduced a realistic amount of photometric noise following the procedure outlined in §4.1 of H16.
As a final step in our simulations, we took into account the fact that the OGLE LMC observations reach substantially deeper in terms of absolute magnitude than the M33 observations and considered the possibility that the light curve shape of Miras may be a function of their luminosity. If the latter is true, a mismatch of the luminosity functions would bias our classifier. We derived the completeness function of the M33 photometry (by fitting the observed luminosity function with an exponential) and applied it to the luminosity function of the OGLE LMC Mira candidates, after offsetting the latter by the difference in apparent distance moduli between the two galaxies. We then randomly selected simulated Mira light curves such that we reproduced the observed luminosity function of the M33 photometry.
Fig. \[fig:sim\_mira\] shows a representative example of a simulated Mira light curve that mimics the cadence and photometric precision of the actual M33 data, while Fig. \[fig:complete\] shows the completeness function of the M33 photometry.
Semi-regular variables and “constant” stars
-------------------------------------------
The light curves of SRVs share some similarities with those of Miras (cyclic variations), although they tend to be more chaotic, less periodic, and usually exhibit smaller amplitudes. Nevertheless, since they outnumber Miras 6 to 1 in the catalog of @Soszynski2009, ignoring them could significantly bias our classifier. Hence, we included simulated SRV light curves in the training data. We obtained templates by applying a smoothing spline to the OGLE observations and generated artificial light curves by following the same procedure as for Miras (sampling based on the M33 observing patterns, random shifts of the starting point, convolution with M33 completeness function, and addition of photometric noise).
Lastly, in order to balance the various types of objects that are used to train the classifier, we simulated light curves of “constant” stars by randomly shuffling the observation times of all light curves in our dataset while keeping the original magnitudes and uncertainties. The shuffling removes any potential periodicity in the original data and allows the generation of multiple artificial light curves from the same object.
![Example of a template Mira light curve and simulated M33 measurements. [*Top:*]{} OGLE measurements of a Mira candidate in the LMC (black points), best-fit template using our model (blue curve), and sampling pattern of one of the M33 fields (vertical black lines). The horizontal blue arrow indicates the random shift applied to the pattern to sample the light curve. [*Bottom:*]{} Corresponding simulated M33 light curve, including additional photometric noise.\[fig:sim\_mira\]](fig03.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Semi-parametric model for identification and period determination of Miras {#sec:model}
==========================================================================
Given the stochastic variations exhibited by Mira light curves at optical wavelengths, traditional algorithms become less efficient at discovering these objects and obtaining reliable periods in the limit of sparsely-sampled observations. We have shown in H16 that our semi-parametric model gives an overall improvement for period recovery in this regime. We applied this model to the M33 observations and coupled it to a Random Forest classifier to identify Mira candidates.
We refer interested readers to §3 of H16 for a detailed description of our semi-parametric model and its performance, which are only briefly summarized here. The model is based on Gaussian Process regression, which
![[*Left*]{}: Derivation of the empirical completeness function for M33 photometry (top: logarithmic; bottom: linear scale). An exponential model is fit to the observed luminosity function (solid black line) over the magnitude range shown with a solid blue line and extrapolated over the range plotted with a dotted blue line. The derived completeness function (solid red line) is shown in the bottom panel only. [*Right*]{}: Magnitude distribution of Mira template light curves before (grey) and after (blue) convolution with the completeness function (red line). \[fig:complete\]](fig04.eps){width="49.00000%"}
[has been previously applied to astronomical time-series observations. For example, @Faraway2016 modeled the light curves of several types of transient event from the the Catalina Real-time Transient Survey with a squared exponential kernel, while @Aigrain2016 applied this technique to [*Kepler*]{} data to correct systematic trends in its photometry.]{}
The semi-parametric model we used is a simplified version of the one described in §\[ssec:simmira\] to account for the quality of the M33 data. Given a set of measurements over $n$ epochs, $\{(t_i, m_i, \sigma_i)\}_{i=1}^n$, with $t$, $m$, and $\sigma$ representing time, magnitude and measurement uncertainty, respectively, the model is $$m_i = m + \beta_1\cos(2\pi ft_i) + \beta_2\sin(2\pi ft_i) + h(t_i) + \sigma_i\epsilon_i$$ where $f$ is the frequency (d$^{-1}$), $h(t)$ is modeled by a Gaussian Process with the squared exponential kernel, $$k(t_1,t_2) = \theta_1^2\exp (-{(t_1-t_2)^2}/{2\theta_2^2}),\nonumber$$
[and the amplitude of the periodic component is $A_P=2(\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2)^{1/2}$. The parameters $m$, $\beta_1$, and $\beta_2$ are assumed to follow Gaussian priors and integrated out of the likelihood function when estimating other parameters. Optimization is performed over hyper-parameters $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ for each trial value of $f$, ranging from $5\times 10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ every $10^{-5}$. The log-likelihood function $Q$ (hereafter, “frequency spectrum”) is evaluated at each trial frequency (see Equation 10 in H16).]{}
We applied the model to all simulated and real light curves and adopted the highest peak in the frequency
{width="\textwidth"}
[llcrr]{} $\Delta Q$ & Difference of log-likelihoods $Q_1 - Q_b$ (see below) & F & 1 & 12\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(R_q)/\sigma(m)$ & Ratio of standard deviations (see below) & L & 2 & 9\
\[-3pt\] $A_{0.9}$ & Light curve range from 10$^{\rm th}$ to 90$^{\rm th}$ percentile & L & 3 & 5\
\[-3pt\] $\Delta Q_{12}$ & Difference in log-likelihood between highest and second peak & F & 4 & 11\
\[-3pt\] $A$ & Light curve range & L & 5 & 7\
\[-3pt\] $A_P$ & Amplitude of the periodic component & M & 6 & 2\
\[-3pt\] $\log{\theta_2}$ & Log of hyperparameter $\theta_2$ & M & 7 & 6\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(\overline{m})$ & Standard deviation of residuals about $\overline{m}$ & L & 8 & 4\
\[-3pt\] $f_1$ & Best-fit frequency & M & 9 & 1\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(R_q)$ & Standard deviation of residuals from piece-wise quadratic fits & M & 10 & 13\
\[-3pt\] $Q_1$ & Best-fit log-likelihood & F & 11 & 15\
\[-3pt\] $\overline{m}$ & Unweighted mean magnitude & L & 12 & 3\
\[-3pt\] $Q_b$ & The baseline value of frequency spectrum (10$^{\rm th}$ percentile) & F & 13 & 14\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(R_{\rm model})$ & Standard deviation of the best-fit model residuals & L & 14 & 10\
\[-3pt\] $N$ & Number of measurements & L & 15 & 18\
\[-3pt\] $\theta_1$ & Hyperparameter $\theta_1$ & M & 16 & 8\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(\beta_1)$ & Posterior uncertainty of $\beta_1$ & M & 17 & 17\
\[-3pt\] $\sigma(\beta_2)$ & Posterior uncertainty of $\beta_2$ & M & 18 &
[spectrum (hereafter, $f_1$) as the most likely frequency. We found that the true period was successfully recovered (with a tolerance of $|f_1-f_{\rm true}| < 2.7\times 10^{-4}$ as defined in H16) for 69.4% of all simulated Mira light curves. ]{}
We estimated period uncertainties for all light curves using a non-parametric bootstrap approach followed by error scaling, as follows. First, we resampled the measurements with replacement and derived new values of $f_1$, repeating this procedure 500 times per variable. We used the standard deviation of the results for each object as an initial estimate of the period uncertainty. Next, we carried out the same procedure on the simulated Miras (with 30 iterations per light curve) and calculated $\delta P = (P_i - P_r) / \sigma(P_r)$, where $P_i$ and $P_r$ are the input and recovered periods and $\sigma(P_r)$ is the bootstrap-based uncertainty for the latter. Restricting our analysis to the successfully-recovered variables (as defined in the previous paragraph) and under the assumption that period residuals should follow a Gaussian distribution, we calculated the fraction with $|\delta P|<1$ and iteratively rescaled $\sigma(P_r)$ until 68.3% of the objects met that criteria. This required a rescaling factor of 2.33, which was then applied to the bootstrap-based uncertainty estimates of the Mira candidates.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Random Forest classification of Miras {#ssec:rfcls}
-------------------------------------
Random Forest is a machine-learning technique that has already proven to be effective in classifying different classes of variable stars [@Richards2011; @Dubath2011]. We built a Random Forest classifier based on the model parameters, the features of the frequency spectra, and information obtained from the simulated light curves as detailed below. Once trained on the simulated data, it was applied to the M33 observations to select Mira candidates. Our choice of Random Forest is supported by a comparative study reported in §\[ssec:rfcomp\], where it is shown to outperform several state-of-the-art classifiers on simulated data. Fig. \[fig:spec\] shows the frequency spectra for a representative artificial light curve of each of the three classes (Mira, SRV and “constant”). The frequency spectra of SRVs and “constant” stars are usually quite different due to their lack of periodicity, which indicates the shape of this function can be used to identify Mira candidates.
![[*Top*]{}: Piecewise quadratic fit to a simulated Mira light curve. [*Bottom:*]{} Distribution of a classification feature based on such fits for simulated Miras (blue), SRVs (red), and constant stars (black).\
\
\[fig:quand\]](fig06.eps){width="48.00000%"}
We extracted 7 features from the best-fit model parameters, 4 from the frequency spectra, and 7 from the light curves. Table \[tab:ftr\] provides a summary of all features and their rank in terms of importance for separating Mira candidates from other stars and for separating the
![Distribution of Random Forest voted values of Mira probability ($P_M$) for the entire M33 sample. There are 5480 objects with $P_M>0.5$. \[fig:prob\]](fig07.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![Example light curves and best-fit models (solid lines) for likely Miras in M33 with different values of $P_M$. \[fig:lc\]](fig08.eps){width="48.00000%"}
{width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="49.50000%"} {width="49.50000%"}
[former into likely C-rich or likely O-rich. The upper-left panel of Fig. \[fig:spec\] shows a graphical representation of the features that were extracted from the frequency spectra. Fig. \[fig:quand\] shows two features we extracted from the light curves: the standard deviation of the residuals from piecewise quadratic fits ($\sigma(R_q)$), and its ratio to the scatter about the overall mean value ($\sigma(\overline{m})$). This ratio is significantly smaller for Miras than for any of the other classes.]{}
We trained the Random Forest classifier by building 400 decision trees with simulated light curves, each composed of $1.2\times 10^5$ non-Miras and $2.5\times 10^3$ Miras. This ratio was chosen to match the estimated fraction of Mira candidates in the actual data, derived from the ratio of Miras to other stars in the OGLE catalog (after applying the M33 completeness function). We then applied the trained classifier to the actual M33 data and obtained the voted probabilities for each star to be a Mira (hereafter, $P_M$); Fig. \[fig:prob\] shows the resulting histogram. Based on a five-fold cross validation on the simulated light curves, the Mira recovery rate at $P_M=0.5$ is 75.4% and the impurity is 0.7%. There are 5480 objects with probabilities above this value, 5145 of which have $A_P>0.6$ mag and were selected for further study. Fig. \[fig:lc\] shows three representative light curves for Mira candidates with different values of $P_M$. The full set of light curves is available in the online edition of this article. The Mira subtype was tentatively inferred by using another Random Forest classifier trained on the same features, which yielded the probability of each candidate being O-rich ($P_O$). Using the features of Mira candidates in the LMC bar to classify variables in the inner disk of M33 should be a robust approach, given the similar chemical abundances of both regions [@Romaniello2008; @Bresolin2011]. Fig. \[fig:coclass\] shows the separation between subtypes based on the features with the highest rank in terms of discrimination: $P$ and $A_P$. The difference in the distribution of variables between the left and middle panels is due to the shallower depth and sparser sampling of the M33 survey relative to the OGLE coverage of the LMC. We caution that this is a limited two-dimensional view of a classification process that is based on 18 features. Fig. \[fig:coclass2\] attempts to provide additional insight into the Random Forest classification process by plotting the distribution of a subsample of candidates in other two-dimensional slices of parameter space. Based on a five-fold cross-validation on the simulated light curves, the O-rich recovery rate at $P_O=0.5$ is 91.4% and the impurity is 12.8% while the corresponding values for C-rich variables are 82.3% and 12.1%.
Comparison with other classification methods {#ssec:rfcomp}
--------------------------------------------
Although we chose Random Forest (RF) as our classifier, it is insightful to compare its performance against other popular classifiers. We selected three state-of-the-art classifiers: sparse linear discriminant analysis with $\ell_1$ penalty (LDA), sparse logistic regression with $\ell_1$ penalty (SLR), and a $\nu$-classification support vector machine with radial basis kernel (SVM). We used the same input features discussed in §\[ssec:rfcls\], normalized to zero mean and unit variance.
[lrrrrrrrrrrllrrrr]{} 01321114+3032588 & 23.04642 & 30.54967 & 324.1 & 2.0 & 19.85 & 0.14 & 2.12 & 0.29 & 18.60 & 0.36 & O & 39 & 3.0 & 0.3 & 1955.9 & 2106.1\
01321450+3019349 & 23.06041 & 30.32637 & 309.7 & 10.0 & 20.05 & 0.07 & 1.70 & 0.09 & 19.55 & 0.08 & O & 46 & 2.2 & 0.2 & 1914.0 & 1993.3\
01321654+3025260 & 23.06890 & 30.42388 & 295.9 & 11.3 & 20.07 & 0.05 & 0.78 & 0.05 & 19.55 & 0.05 & C & 56 & 1.4 & 0.1 & 1955.8 &
First we considered the classification task of Mira vs. non-Mira. The comparison was in terms of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and its summary statistic AUC (area under curve). They were computed via repeated splitting of the simulated data set. On each instance, $10^4$ Mira and non-Mira light curves (3.7% of the total) were sampled without replacement to serve as training data, while the rest served as test data. The procedure was repeated 200 times and the final prediction for each light curve was calculated from the averaged probability across all iterations. The resulting ROC curves, shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:rocs\], are nearly identical with AUC values of 0.984, 0.979, 0.975 and 0.976 for RF, LDA, SLR & SVM, respectively.
We carried out a similar comparison for the classification task of Miras into C-rich vs. O-rich, with ROC curves plotted in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:rocs\]. In this case RF is significantly superior to the other methods, with AUCs of 0.912, 0.793, 0.787 and 0.801 for RF, LDA, SLR & SVM, respectively.
Mira candidates and Period-Luminosity Relations
-----------------------------------------------
We examined the distribution of best-fit periods for the selected objects and found a large peak at $P\sim340$ d which is not seen in the LMC samples. Visual examination of the light curves in this period bin showed they exhibit a significant change in the mean magnitude of segments obtained from different telescopes. Further examination of the reference images for each field revealed that for these objects, the poorer angular resolution of the FLWO images resulted in the blending of several sources (clearly separated in the WIYN frames). We visually inspected each light curve and its respective reference images and rejected affected objects.
Our final sample consists of 1847 Mira candidates. Table \[tab:par\] lists their following properties (and their uncertainties, when applicable): IAU-standard ID, coordinates, most likely period, mean $I$ mag, amplitude of the periodic component ($A_P$), brightest magnitude of the best-fit model light curve ($I_m$), subtype (O/C), number of light curve measurements ($N$), range of magnitudes ($A$) and times ($\Delta t$) spanned by the light curve, and time of maximum light for the periodic component ($T_0$). 1581 & 266 objects were classified as O- & C-rich, respectively.
Fig. \[fig:peramphist\] shows histograms of periods and amplitudes for both subtypes, while Fig. \[fig:xydist\] shows their deprojected galactocentric distribution. Our survey is limited to the innermost $\sim 5$ kpc of the galaxy and within this limited area we see no statistically significant difference in the distribution of candidates by subtype or period.
![Distribution of periods (left) and amplitudes (right) for Mira candidates of each subtype.[]{data-label="fig:peramphist"}](fig12.eps){width="49.50000%"}
![Deprojected distribution of Mira candidates (O-rich in black, C-rich in red). The dashed lines indicate the boundaries of our survey.[]{data-label="fig:xydist"}](fig13.eps){width="45.00000%"}
We note that we recovered the only spectroscopically-confirmed Mira in M33 [@Barsukova2011], for which we found $P=578\pm32$ d (in contrast to the previously published estimate of $P=665$d). Our classifiers yielded $P_M=0.89$ and $P_O=0.9$ for this object.
Figs. \[fig:pllmc\] & \[fig:plm33\] show preliminary PLRs for O-rich Mira candidates in the LMC and M33 at wavelengths ranging from 0.8 to 4.5$\mu$m. We emphasize the following is a simple analysis to demonstrate the validity of our methods for identifying, phasing and classifying Mira candidates in M33. A complete analysis (including C-rich candidates) will be presented in a future paper.
The $I_m$ magnitudes of the LMC Mira candidates were determined using the method described in §\[sec:simulation\], while the random-phase magnitudes at longer wavelengths were obtained from the SAGE catalog [@Meixner2006]. We chose to plot the $I_m$ PLR to show a minimally biased comparison of the relations at this wavelength, since the $V\!-\!I$ colors necessary to generate a “Wesenheit”-corrected mean-light $I$-band PLR are not available for M33. We show one example of a relation corrected for interstellar extinction for $K_s$, using the formulation of @Soszynski2009. We note that this formulation may not be appropriate to correct for the circumstellar dust that is specially prevalent among C-rich and long-period Miras [see @Ita2011 for a thorough analysis of this issue]. We solved for quadratic PLRs, $$m = a_0 + a_1 (\log P - 2.3) + a_2 (\log P - 2.3)^2$$ [using an iterative $3\sigma$ clipping and removing the single largest outlier in each band until convergence. Table \[tab:plr\] summarizes the results of the fits.]{}
{width="95.00000%"}
The M33 sample was restricted to 1161 candidate variables with $A_P/A < 1.1$, $\sigma(A_P)/A_P < 0.15$, $\sigma(P)/P<0.1$ and $P<\Delta t$. These selection criteria were based on an examination of the input and recovered parameters for the simulated M33 Miras. When the amplitude of the periodic component significantly exceeds the range of magnitudes spanned by the data, and/or the best-fit period is longer than the time span of the light curve, the recovered parameters exhibit considerably larger scatter and the fraction of variables with successfully recovered periods (as defined in H16) is noticeably lower. The simulated O-rich Miras that met our selection criteria had input/output ratios of $A_P$ of $1.02\pm 0.21$, versus $0.70\pm 0.82$ for the others. Likewise, the fraction of successfully recovered periods was 86% for the variables meeting the criteria versus only 45% for the others.
{width="95.00000%"}
The $I_m$ magnitudes of M33 Mira candidates are from Table \[tab:par\], while the random-phase magnitudes at longer wavelengths were taken from @Javadi2015 [for $JHK_s$] and @Thompson2009 [for 3.6 & 4.5$\mu$m]. We matched the catalogs using tolerances of $0\farcs 3$ and $0\farcs 5$ and found 972 and 302 counterparts, respectively. We fixed the linear and quadratic terms of the PLRs to those derived from the LMC sample and solved for $a_0$, applying an iterative $3\sigma$ clipping that removed the single largest outlier at a time. Once this procedure converged, we modeled the cumulative distribution of PLR resid uals as the combination of a Gaussian (to account for the finite width of the instability strip) plus an exponential distribution towards brighter values (to account for blends, which can only bias the residuals in one direction). The final values of $a_0$ listed in Table \[tab:plr\] include these “blending corrections”, which amount to $\sim0.09$ mag and $\sim0.25$ mag at near- and mid-infrared wavelengths, respectively. The larger contamination for the two longest bands is likely due to the significantly poorer angular resolution of the [*Spitzer*]{} images. The
[llrrrrrr]{} & $I_m$ & 13.66$\pm$0.02 & -2.12$\pm$0.14 & -5.01$\pm$0.37 & 0.33 & 427 & 399\
& $J$ & 12.71$\pm$0.01 & -3.16$\pm$0.01 & -3.07$\pm$0.03 & 0.27 & &\
& $H$ & 11.87$\pm$0.01 & -3.42$\pm$0.01 & -2.85$\pm$0.03 & 0.27 & &\
& $K_s$ & 11.52$\pm$0.01 & -3.72$\pm$0.01 & -2.75$\pm$0.03 & 0.24 & &\
& $W^K_{JK}$ & 10.72$\pm$0.01 & -4.15$\pm$0.02 & -2.46$\pm$0.04 & 0.25 & &\
& 3.6 & 11.12$\pm$0.01 & -3.75$\pm$0.01 & -2.95$\pm$0.03 & 0.17 & &\
& 4.5 & 11.02$\pm$0.01 & -3.63$\pm$0.01 & -3.24$\pm$0.03 & 0.19 & &\
& $I_m$ & 19.82$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.40 & 1161 & 1125\
& $J$ & 19.02$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.33 & &\
& $H$ & 18.29$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.34 & &\
& $K_s$ & 17.94$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.26 & &\
& $W^K_{JK}$ & 17.19$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.32 & &\
& 3.6 & 17.20$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.20 & &\
& 4.5 & 17.15$\pm$0.01 & & & 0.23 & &
[scatter in the M33 PLRs (after accounting for blended objects) compares favorably with the higher-quality LMC samples and the mean (error-weighted) LMC-relative distance modulus of $6.31\pm0.11$ mag is consistent with previous determinations [@bonanos06; @Pellerin2011].]{}
Summary
=======
We carried out a search for Mira variables in M33 using sparsely-sampled $I$-band light curves. We determined periods using a novel semi-parametric Gaussian Process model and used the Random Forest method to identify Mira candidates and classify them into Carbon- or Oxygen-rich subtypes. We identified 1847 likely Mira candidates, most of them O-rich, which exhibit Period-Luminosity Relations with dispersions comparable to those seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
WY & LMM acknowledge financial support from NSF grant AST-1211603 and from the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A&M University. S.H. was partially supported by the Texas A&M University-NSFC Joint Research Program. JZH was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1208952. We thank Drs. A. Javadi & J. L. Prieto for providing the M33 photometry at near- and mid-infrared wavelengths, respectively. We thank the anonymous referee for helpful and constructive comments.
This publication has made use of the following resources:
- data products from the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment, conducted by the Astronomical Institute of the University of Warsaw at Las Campanas Observatory, operated by the Carnegie Institution for Science.
- the VizieR catalogue access tool and the cross-match service provided by the Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, France.
- NASA’s Astrophysics Data System at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
- the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA.
- data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and the NSF.
- the Texas A&M University Brazos HPC cluster.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Building on a bijection of Vandervelde, we enumerate certain unimodal sequences whose alternating sum equals zero. This enables us to refine the enumeration of strict partitions with respect to the number of parts and the BG-rank.'
address:
- 'College of Mathematics and Statistics, Chongqing University, Huxi campus LD506, Chongqing 401331, P.R. China'
- 'College of Mathematics and Statistics, Chongqing University, Huxi campus LD206, Chongqing 401331, P.R. China'
author:
- Shishuo Fu
- Dazhao Tang
title: On certain unimodal sequences and strict partitions
---
Introduction {#sec1: intro}
============
A *partition* [@Andr1976] $\lambda$ of a natural number $n$ is a finite weakly decreasing sequence of positive integers $\lambda_{1}\geq\lambda_{2}\cdots\geq\lambda_{r}>0$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{r}\lambda_{i}=n$. The $\lambda_{i}$’s are called the *parts* of the partition. Such a partition $\lambda$ is frequently represented by its *Young diagram* (or *Ferrers graph*) [@Andr1976 Chap. 1.3], which we take to be a left-justified array of square boxes with $r$ rows such that the $i$-th row consists of $\lambda_{i}$ boxes (the left one in Fig. \[shiftY\]). But for the graphical representation of strict partitions, we prefer the shifted Young diagram (the right one in Fig. \[shiftY\]).
A celebrated theorem of Euler asserts that there are as many partitions of $n$ into distinct parts as there are partitions into odd parts. In 2010, Sam Vandervelde [@Van] raised and then answered himself a natural question on whether there is a similar relationship between partitions into distinct parts (abbreviated as *strict partitions* in what follows) and partitions involving even parts (see Corollary \[Vandervelde Cor\] below). He provided a short generating function proof of this result by making appropriate substitutions in the Jacobi triple product identity.
\[shiftY\]
In search of a bijective proof, Vandervelde discovered this statistic which he named the “characteristic” of a partition, which is actually equivalent to the “BG-rank” introduced by Berkovich and Garvan [@BG] in their study of the refinements of Ramanujan’s famous partition congruence modulo 5. He was then able to propose a conjecture (Conjecture 1, [@Van]) that not only strengthened the initial result, but also suggested strongly the existence of a bijective proof. Vandervelde then provided such a bijective proof for the case when the characteristic or BG-rank $k=0$, for which partition he named as “balanced partition”. The cheif aim of this paper is to prove the entire conjecture bijectively for all integer $k$. We note that, being not aware of Vandervelde’s conjecture, Huang et al. [@HSWW] supplied essentially the first proof of it (see Corollary \[HSWW cor\] below).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce and study certain unimodal sequences in Section \[sec2: main theorem\]. In Section \[sec: application\], we build on this result and enumerate strict partitions with respect to the number of parts and the BG-rank (see Theorem \[4case\]). We conclude in the last section with some remarks to motivate further investigation.
$(a,b)$-sequences {#sec2: main theorem}
=================
\[abseq\] For integers $a\ge 0,\; l\ge b\ge 1$, we call $\{d_1,\cdots,d_l\}$ an *$(a,b)$-sequence of length $l$*, if it consists of $l$ positive integers that satisfy the following conditions:
1) $d_1=a+1, d_2=a+2,\cdots,d_b=a+b~$;
2) $d_b\ge d_{b+1}\ge d_{b+2}\ge \cdots \ge d_l\ge 1~$;
3) $\sum_{i=1}^{l}(-1)^{i}d_i=0~$.
Let ${\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$ denote the set of all $(a,b)$-sequences, and denote ${\mathcal{S}}:=\left(\bigcup_{a\ge 0, b\ge 1}{\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}\right)\cup \{\epsilon\}$, where $\epsilon$ denotes the empty sequence. Suppose $\Delta=\{d_1,\cdots,d_l\}\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}~$, then let $a(\Delta)=a,\; b(\Delta)=b,\; l(\Delta)=l,\; |\Delta|=\sum_{i=1}^{l}d_i,\; |\Delta|_a=\sum_{i=1}^{l}(-1)^id_i$. For the empty sequence $\epsilon$, we set $a(\epsilon)=b(\epsilon)=l(\epsilon)=|\epsilon|=|\epsilon|_a=0$. Notice that due to condition 3), $|\Delta|$ must be an even integer. We have the following bivariate generating function.
\[gf: abseq\] There holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{id: abseq}
S(x,y) & :=\sum_{\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}}}x^{a(\Delta)}y^{b(\Delta)}q^{\frac{|\Delta|}{2}}=1+\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x^i\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(1+(y-1)q^k)y^{2k-1}q^{k(i+k)}}
{(q;q)_k(q;q)_{i+k}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
(a;q)_{k}=\prod_{n=0}^{k-1}(1-aq^{n})\end{aligned}$$ is the $q$-shifted factorial.
In order to prove the above theorem, we constuct a bijection $\phi_a$ that maps each $\Delta\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$ with weight $|\Delta|=2n$ to an integer partition $\lambda$ of $n$. This bijection, in the case of $a=0$, was originally developed by Vandervelde [@Van]. Before we describe this map, let us make some useful observations.
\[fillup\] Take any $\Delta=\{d_1,\cdots,d_l\}\in{\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$.
1. There does not exist $m,\; 0<m<l$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{same sign}
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^i d_i\right)\cdot\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(-1)^i d_i\right)>0.\end{aligned}$$
2. If for some $n\ge b-1$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^i d_i=0$, then $n\equiv l \pmod 2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pair}
d_{n+1}=d_{n+2}\ge d_{n+3}=d_{n+4}\ge \cdots \ge d_{l-1}=d_l.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, when $b=1$, we can take $n=0$, and $\sum_{i=1}^{0}(-1)^i d_i=0$ holds trivially, so in this case we always have $d_1=d_2\ge d_3=d_4\ge \cdots \ge d_{l-1}=d_l$.
First, we prove (1) by contradiction. Suppose there exists such a $\Delta\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$, find the smallest $m$ that satisfies . A simple calculation reveals that $m\ge b$. Next we discuss according to the parity of $m$.
- If $m$ is even, then by the minimality of $m$, we must have $$\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^i d_i>0,\; \sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(-1)^i d_i>0,$$ But now we see $$\begin{aligned}
0=\sum_{i=1}^l (-1)^i d_i=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} (-1)^i d_i+(d_{m+2}-d_{m+3}+\cdots)\ge \sum_{i=1}^{m+1} (-1)^i d_i>0,\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction. The penultimate inequality is due to condition 2) in Definition \[abseq\].
- If $m$ is odd, then we have instead $$\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^i d_i<0,\; \sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(-1)^i d_i<0,$$ and we see $$\begin{aligned}
0=\sum_{i=1}^l (-1)^i d_i=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} (-1)^i d_i-(d_{m+2}-d_{m+3}+\cdots)\le \sum_{i=1}^{m+1} (-1)^i d_i<0,\end{aligned}$$ which is absurd again.
Next for (2), since $n\ge b-1$, $n+1\ge b$, so we have $d_{n+1}\ge d_{n+2}\ge \cdots \ge d_l\ge 1$. Moreover, condition 3) together with $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^i d_i=0$ forces $\sum_{i=n+1}^l (-1)^i d_i=0$, which in turn results in , as desired.
Following Chu [@Chu], we define a $k$-Durfee rectangle for the Young diagram of a given partition to be the largest $i\times (i+k)$ rectangle (consisting of $i$ rows and $i+k$ columns) contained in that Young diagram for a fixed $k$. Then the original Durfee square becomes the $0$-Durfee rectangle in this setting. Notice that this notion of Durfee rectangle is different from Andrews’ generalization in [@And].
\[pab\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be the set of all (integer) partitions, including the empty partition $\varnothing$. And for $a\ge 0, b\ge 1$, let ${\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$ be the set of all integer partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdots)$ whose $a$-Durfee rectangle has size $\left\lceil \frac{b}{2}\right\rceil \times (\left\lceil \frac{b}{2}\right\rceil+a)$, and either $\lambda_{b/2}>a+b/2$ if $b$ is even, or $\lambda_{(b+1)/2}=a+(b+1)/2$ if $b$ is odd.
Now we describe the aforementioned bijection $\phi_a$. The main idea is to use the given sequence $\Delta=\{d_1,\cdots,d_l\}\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$ to “double cover” the board configuration depicted in Fig. \[board\]. The doubly covered region in the end of this process will be the Young diagram of an integer partition in ${\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$.
More precisely, the $i$-th labelled block in this board configuration has size $1\times \left(a+\dfrac{i+1}{2}\right)$ (resp. $\dfrac{i}{2}\times 1$) if $i$ is odd (resp. even). We denote this block as $B_i$ and its area as $b_i$. So for example, $b_1=a+1,b_2=1,b_3=a+2,b_4=2,\cdots$. Assume we are given $\Delta=\{d_1,\cdots,d_l\}\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$, we get $\phi_a(\Delta)$ by performing the following fillings of the initially empty board.
1. Use $d_1=a+1$ cells to fill up $B_1$.
2. For $2\le i\le l$, first use $d_{i-1}$ cells to double cover the already existing cells in $B_{i-1}$, and then use the remaining cells to fill $B_i$.
3. For each odd-numbered (horizontal) block, the filling is always from left to right, while for each even-numbered (vertical) block, the filling is from top to bottom.
4. After we have used up all $d_i, 1\le i\le l$, the doubly covered cells form the Young diagram of an integer partition, which is defined to be $\lambda=\phi_a(\Delta)$.
(0,0) – (10,0); (0,-1) – (6,-1); (0,-2) – (7,-2); (0,-3) – (8,-3); (0,-4) – (8,-4); (0,0) – (0,-6); (4,0) – (4,-4); (5,0) – (5,-1); (6,0) – (6,-2); (7,0) – (7,-3); (8,0) – (8,-4); (0.2,-4.2) – (1.8,-4.7); (3.8,-4.2) – (2.2,-4.7); (1) at (2.5,-0.5) [$1$]{}; (2) at (5.5,-.5) [$2$]{}; (3) at (2.5,-1.5) [$3$]{}; (4) at (6.5,-.5) [$4$]{}; (5) at (2.5,-2.5) [$5$]{}; (6) at (7.5,-.5) [$6$]{}; (7) at (2.5,-3.5) [$7$]{}; (a) at (2,-5) [$a$]{}; at (5,-5) [$\vdots$]{}; at (9,-1) [$\cdots$]{};
\[bij\] For a fixed $a\ge 0$ and any $b\ge 1$, the map $\phi_a$ defined above is a bijection from ${\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$ to ${\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$, such that $|\Delta|=2|\phi_a(\Delta)|$, for any $\Delta\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$.
Given any $\Delta\in {\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$, to see that $\phi_a(\Delta)$ is indeed in ${\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$, we consider two phases.
Phase I is when we use $d_i$ cells to fill the blocks for $1\le i\le b$. Each time we observe an exact cover of the blocks involved, since $b_1=a+1=d_1, b_1+b_2=a+2=d_2, b_2+b_3=a+3=d_3,\cdots, b_{b-1}+b_b=a+b=d_b$. In the end of this phase we have built up the $\left\lceil \frac{b}{2}\right\rceil \times (\left\lceil \frac{b}{2}\right\rceil+a)$ Durfee rectangle of $\phi_a(\Delta)$. Moreover, depending on the parity of $b$, we have certain restriction on the length of the bottom row in this Durfee rectangle, as stated in Definition \[pab\].
Phase II is for $b<i\le l$. We claim that at the $i$-th step, $d_i$ is no less than the number of cells already covered in $B_{i-1}$, and no more than the number of cells already doubly covered in $B_{i-2}$. More precisely, we have
- $d_i\ge |\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}(-1)^j d_j|$. This is due to Lemma \[fillup\] $(1)$.
- $d_{i-1}\ge d_i$. This is clear since $i>b$ and we have condition 2) in Definition \[abseq\].
Finally, condition 3) in Definition \[abseq\] guarantees that we will not have any singly covered cells left. In conclusion, $\lambda=\phi_a(\Delta)\in {\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$ indeed, and each cell of its Ferrers graph is doubly covered, when we used up all $d_i$s in $\Delta$. This shows that the map $\phi_a$ is well-defined, and $|\Delta|=2|\phi_a(\Delta)|$.
To prove that $\phi_a$ is a bijection, we note the following way to define its inverse. Given an integer partition $\lambda\in{\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$, we put its Ferrers graph on the board as shown in Fig. \[board\], such that their top left corners coincide. And we denote the number of cells in $\lambda$ that are confined in $B_i$ as $c_i$, then we put $$d_1=c_1,~d_i=c_{i-1}+c_{i}, \text{ for } i\ge 2.$$ It should be clear that the positive numbers $d_1,d_2,\cdots$ form a sequence in ${\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$, and this is exactly $\phi_a^{-1}(\lambda)$. This completes the proof.
Assume $a=6$, $b=5$, take $\Delta=(7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 8, 7, 5 ,5, 4, 3, 1, 1)\in{\mathcal{S}}_{6,5}$, then $\lambda=\phi_6(\Delta)=(12, 10, 9, 6, 4, 3, 1)\in\mathcal{P}_{6,5}$ and $|\lambda|=|\Delta|/2=45$.
Theorem \[gf: abseq\] is true.
First note that the empty sequence corresponds to the empty partition trivially, and they are both weighted as $1$ from both sides of the identity. Next for any $b\ge 1$, fix an $a\ge 0$, it suffices to compare the coefficients of $x^a$ on both sides of , and realize that they are respectively the generating functions of $(a,b)$-sequences over $\bigcup_{b\ge 1}{\mathcal{S}}_{a,b}$, and integer partitions over $\bigcup_{b\ge 1}{\mathcal{P}}_{a,b}$, which are the same according to Theorem \[bij\]. To obtain on the right hand side of the identity, we only need to add together the odd and even cases for the power of $y$ and simple simplifications.
Application to strict partitions {#sec: application}
================================
The motivation for studying $(a,b)$-sequences introduced in the last section comes from their connection with strict partitions. Let ${\mathcal{D}}$ denote the set of all strict partitions, including the empty partition $\varnothing$ and ${\mathcal{T}}=\{\frac{1}{2}k(k+1): k\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ denote the set of all triangular numbers, then the following observation reveals this connection.
\[decomp\] There is an injection $\iota:\; {\mathcal{D}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{T}}\times {\mathcal{S}}$. Suppose $\iota(\lambda)=(t,\Delta)$, then $|\lambda|=t+|\Delta|$. Moreover, $(t,\Delta)\in \iota({\mathcal{D}})$ if and only if either
1. $a(\Delta)=k$, or
2. $a(\Delta)\le k-1$ and $b(\Delta)=1$, or
3. $\Delta=\epsilon$,
where $t=\binom{k+1}{2}$ for some $k\ge 0$.
Recall that we use the shifted Young diagram to represent strict partitions as the second diagram in Fig. \[shiftY\]. Given a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdots,\lambda_m)\in {\mathcal{D}}$, we read its shifted Young diagram column-wise from left to right and obtain a sequence $c(\lambda)=\{c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_{\lambda_1}\}$. For instance, we get $c(\lambda)=\{1,2,3,4,3,1,1\}$ for the diagram shown in Fig. \[shiftY\]. In general, it should be clear that $c(\lambda)$ satisfies the first two conditions of being a $(0,m)$-sequence. Moreover, we claim that there exists certain integer $k$, where $0\le k \le m$, such that $\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-1)^{i}c_i=\sum_{i=1}^{\lambda_1}(-1)^{i}c_i$. Assuming this claim for the moment, we see that $\Delta:=\{c_{k+1},c_{k+2},\cdots,c_{\lambda_1}\}$ satisfies all three conditions in Definition \[abseq\] and hence $\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}}$. Now we simply take $t=1+2+\cdots+k=\binom{k+1}{2}$, and define $\iota(\lambda)=(t,\Delta)$. We see $\iota(\lambda)\in {\mathcal{T}}\times {\mathcal{S}}$ indeed and $$|\lambda|=\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_m=c_1+c_2+\cdots+c_{\lambda_1}=t+|\Delta|.$$ Now take any $(t,\Delta)\in\iota({\mathcal{D}})$ with $t=\binom{k+1}{2}$, we have the following discussion, which leads to the three cases characterizing the image set $\iota({\mathcal{D}})$.
1. $k<m$. In this case $k+1\le m$ so $c_{k+1}=k+1$, which means $a(\Delta)=k$.
2. $k=m<\lambda_1$. In this case $k=c_k\ge c_{k+1}\ge c_{k+2}\geq\cdots$, so we must have $a(\Delta)\le k-1$ and $b(\Delta)=1$.
3. $k=m=\lambda_1$. This happens exactly when $\lambda$ itself is a staircase partition $$(k,k-1,\cdots,2,1)$$ and $\Delta=\epsilon$.
To see that $\iota$ is an injection, simply note that for any $(t,\Delta)\in {\mathcal{D}}\times{\mathcal{S}}$ that satisfies either (1) or (2) or (3), we can uniquely recover its preimage by appending columns of length $1,2,\cdots,k$ to the left of the columns of length given by the integers in the sequence $\Delta$ and getting a valid shifted Young diagram. This also proves the “if” part of the characterization of $\iota({\mathcal{D}})$.
Finally we prove the aforementioned claim. For $c(\lambda)=\{c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_{\lambda_1}\}$, we consider the sequence of the initial alternating sums, namely $$\begin{aligned}
0, \quad -c_1, \quad -c_1+c_2, \quad -c_1+c_2-c_3, \quad -c_1+c_2-c_3+c_4, \quad \ldots\end{aligned}$$ This sequence ends at the full alternating sum $|c(\lambda)|_a$, and it starts as $0,-1,1,-2,2,\ldots$, until it reaches $\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^ic_i$. This is also the point where this alternating sum assumes the largest absolute value (say $l$) among the entire sequence. Actually, by far all the integer values from $-l$ to $l$ have appeared precisely once each, with a possible exception for value $l$ (this depends on the parity of $m$). Passing this point, the behavior of these alternating sums is less predictable but will never surpass $l$ in absolute value, since $c_m\ge c_{m+1}\ge\cdots\ge c_{\lambda_1}$. Therefore, the ending value $|c(\lambda)|_a$ must have appeared exactly once before $\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^{i}c_{i}$, hence we have proved the claim.
Tab. \[D:table\] lists all five strict partitions of $7$ and their images under the injection $\iota$.
${\mathcal{D}}$ $\iota({\mathcal{D}})$
----------------- ------------------------
$7$ $(1,\{1,1,1,1,1,1\})$
$6+1$ $(3,\{1,1,1,1\})$
$5+2$ $(1,\{2,2,1,1\})$
$4+3$ $(3,\{2,2\})$
$4+2+1$ $(1,\{2,3,1\})$
: the injection $\iota$[]{data-label="D:table"}
Basing on this injection, we can enumerate strict partitions with respect to the number of parts and the BG-rank.
For any partition $\lambda$, its BG-rank is defined to be the excess of the number of the odd-indexed odd parts over the number of the even-indexed odd parts, and is denoted as $r(\lambda)$.
\[twodef\] If $\lambda$ is a strict partition, we have $-|c(\lambda)|_a=r(\lambda)$. One convenient way to see this is to paint the (standard) Young diagram in a chessboard fashion using black and white, and then weight each black cell (resp. white cell) by $1$ (resp. by $-1$), with the left-top cell painted black. Then the sum of the weights of all the cells in the diagram gives us $r(\lambda)$ on one hand, and when viewed using the shifted Young diagram, it gives us $-|c(\lambda)|_a$ on the other hand.
\[4case\] Given any integers $k,m,n$ such that $m\ge 2k-1$ if $k>0$, $m\ge -2k$ if $k\le 0$, $n\ge \binom{m+1}{2}$, the number of strict partitions of $n$ with exactly $m$ parts and BG-rank being $k$, equals
1. the number of $\Delta \in {\mathcal{S}}_{2k-1,m-2k+1}$ with $|\Delta|=n-\binom{2k}{2}$, if $k>0, m>2k-1$.
2. the number of partitions $\lambda$ with its largest part no greater than $2k-1$, and $2|\lambda|=n-\binom{2k}{2}$, if $k>0, m=2k-1$.
3. the number of $\Delta \in {\mathcal{S}}_{-2k,m+2k}$ with $|\Delta|=n-\binom{2k}{2}$, if $k\le 0, m>-2k$.
4. the number of partitions $\lambda$ with its largest part no greater than $-2k$, and $2|\lambda|=n-\binom{2k}{2}$, if $k\le 0, m=-2k$.
We only show case (1) here, since the remaining cases are quite similar. As we have already observed in Remark \[twodef\], for any strict partition $\lambda$, we have $r(\lambda)=-|c(\lambda)|_a$. Now suppose $k>0, m>2k-1, n\ge \binom{m+1}{2}$, and $\lambda$ is a strict partition of $n$ with $m$ parts and $r(\lambda)=k$, so $|c(\lambda)|_a=-k<0$. We apply $\iota$ to get $\iota(\lambda)=(t,\Delta)$, where $t=\binom{2k}{2}$ and $\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}}_{2k-1,m-2k+1}$. Conversely, for any $\Delta\in{\mathcal{S}}_{2k-1,m-2k+1}$ with $|\Delta|=n-\binom{2k}{2}$, we can append $1,2,\cdots,2k-1$ to the left of $\Delta$ to get $c(\lambda)$, and hence $\lambda$, so these two sets are indeed equinumerous. Finally, note that in cases (2) and (4), we use partitions rather than $(a,b)$-sequences, because in these two cases we have $b(\Delta)=1$ and the observation in Lemma \[fillup\] (2) gives us the results.
We enumerate here all the strict partitions of $n$ with $m$ parts and BG-rank being $k$, for various values of $(k,m,n)$. And we also list the corresponding equinumerous objects as predicted by the last theorem.
1. For $(k,m,n)=(3,6,33)$, we have the following qualified strict partitions of $33$: $$(13,6,5,4,3,2),\; (11,8,5,4,3,2),\; (9,8,7,4,3,2).$$ And there are exactly three sequences in ${\mathcal{S}}_{5,1}$ with weight being $n-\binom{2k}{2}=18$, namely $$\{6,6,1,1,1,1,1,1\},\; \{6,6,2,2,1,1\},\; \{6,6,3,3\}.$$
2. For $(k,m,n)=(2,3,16)$, we have the following qualified strict partitions of $16$: $$(13,2,1),\; (11,4,1),\; (9,6,1),\; (9,4,3),\; (7,6,3).$$ And there are exactly five partitions of $\dfrac{n-\binom{2k}{2}}{2}=5$ with the largest part no greater than $3$, namely $$(1,1,1,1,1),\; (2,1,1,1),\; (2,2,1),\; (3,1,1),\; (3,2).$$
3. For $(k,m,n)=(0,3,12)$, we have the following qualified strict partitions of $12$: $$(6,4,2),\; (7,3,2),\; (8,3,1),\; (6,5,1).$$ And there are exactly four sequences in ${\mathcal{S}}_{0,3}$ with weight being $n-\binom{2k}{2}=12$, namely $$\{1,2,3,3,2,1\},\; \{1,2,3,3,1,1,1\},\; \{1,2,3,2,1,1,1,1\},\; \{1,2,3,2,2,2\}.$$
4. For $(k,m,n)=(-1,2,11)$, we have the following qualified strict partitions of $1$: $$(10,1),\; (8,3),\; (6,5).$$ And there are exactly three partitions of $\dfrac{n-\binom{2k}{2}}{2}=4$ with the largest part no greater than $2$, namely $$(1,1,1,1),\; (2,1,1),\; (2,2).$$
As an immediate application of last theorem, we derive the following result first obtained by Huang et al in [@HSWW].
\[HSWW cor\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}_j$ be the set of all partitions with $2$-core size $\binom{2j}{2}$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pjd}
\sum_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{P}}_j\cap{\mathcal{D}}}q^{|\lambda|}=\frac{q^{\binom{2j}{2}}}{\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{2i})}.\end{aligned}$$
As observed in [@CJW], $r(\lambda)=j$ if and only if its $2$-core is a staircase partition of height $2j-1$, if $j>0$, and $-2j$, if $j\le 0$. In either case, the size of its $2$-core is $\binom{2j}{2}$. Therefore ${\mathcal{P}}_j\cap {\mathcal{D}}$ is exactly the set of all strict partitions with BG-rank being $j$.
To get its generating function, we just fix $j$ (suppose $j>0$), and let $m$ run through all integers no less than $2j-1$, i.e., we combine cases (1) and (2) in Theorem \[4case\] for all possible values of $m$. We note that ${\mathcal{P}}_{a,2b}\cup{\mathcal{P}}_{a,2b-1}$ is the set of partitions with their $a$-Durfee rectangles having size $b\times(b+a)$, and the partitions without an $a$-Durfee rectangle are those whose largest part is no greater than $a$. This, together with Theorem \[bij\], gives us . The $j\le 0$ case can be proved analogously, we just need to combine cases (3) and (4) in Theorem \[4case\] instead.
Now we just sum over all $j$ and compare the coefficients of $q^{n}$ on both sides to arrive at Vandervelde’s partition theorem that parallels Euler’s “Distinct v.s. Odd” theorem.
\[Vandervelde Cor\] For every nonnegative integer $n$, the number of strict partitions of $n$ is equal to the number of partitions of $n$ into even parts along with precisely one triangular part.
Final remarks
=============
We conclude with several remarks that merit further study.
1) First, with the aid of , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{iden:pjd}
q_{j}(n)=p\left(\dfrac{n-j(2j-1)}{2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{j}(n)$ counts the number of strict partitions of $n$ with BG-rank being $j$. Combining and one of Ramanujan’s classical congruences [@Ram] $p(5n+4)\equiv0\pmod{5}$, we obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned}
q_{j}(10n+1) &\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 9\phantom{,0} \pmod{10},\label{cong 1:mod 10}\\
q_{j}(10n+3)&\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 3,5\pmod{10},\label{cong 2:mod 10}\\
q_{j}(10n+4)&\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 2,6\pmod{10},\label{cong 3:mod 10}\\
q_{j}(10n+6)&\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 4\phantom{,0}\pmod{10},\label{cong 4:mod 10}\\
q_{j}(10n+8)&\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 0,8\pmod{10},\label{cong 5:mod 10}\\
q_{j}(10n+9)&\equiv0\pmod{5},\quad \textrm{if}\quad j\equiv 1,7\pmod{10}.\label{cong 6:mod 10}\end{aligned}$$
Of course, there are more congruences beyond this list. For example, by Ramanujan’s congruences modulo 7 and 11 for $p(n)$, we will obtain some congruences modulo 7 and 11 for $q_{j}(n)$ similar to –.
2) Next, there are many refinements of Euler’s “Distinct v.s. Odd” theorem. As an example we present the following refinement due to Fine.
The number of strict partitions of $n$ with largest part $k$ equals the number of partitions of $n$ into odd parts such that $2k+1$ equals the largest part plus twice the number of parts.
The BG-rank naturally induces a new refinement of the set of strict partitions, it would be interesting to find an equidistributed statistic on the set of partitions into odd parts. Consequently this will lead to a new refinement of Euler’s theorem.
3) Finally, recall that the classical hook length formula for partitions, ordinary and strict. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{P}}x^{|\lambda|}\prod_{h\in\mathcal{H}(\lambda)}\dfrac{1}{h^{2}}=e^{x}, \label{hook len for: ordinary}\\
\sum_{\mu\in\mathcal{D}}x^{|\mu|}\prod_{h\in\mathcal{H}(\mu)}\dfrac{1}{2^{\ell(\mu)}h^{2}}=e^{\frac{x}{2}}, \label{hook len for: strict}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}(\lambda)$ (resp. $\mathcal{H}(\mu)$) is the multiset of hook lengths associated with the ordinary partition $\lambda$ (resp. the strict partition $\mu$), and $\ell(\mu)$ counts the number of parts in $\mu$. One of the generalization of given in [@HJ2011 Theorem 4.2] is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{P}}q^{|\lambda|}x^{\#\mathcal{H}_{2}(\lambda)}b^{BG(\lambda)}\prod_{h\in\mathcal{H}_{2}(\lambda)}\dfrac{1}{h^{2}}=\exp
\left(\dfrac{xq^{2}}{2}\right)\sum_{j=-\infty}^{+\infty}b^{j}q^{j(2j-1)},\label{BG-rank version}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}_{2}(\lambda)=\{h\in\mathcal{H}(\lambda),~h\equiv0\pmod{2}\}$. In view of this, it is natural to consider a generalization of to involve BG-rank as does. Although at this moment we are unclear how this could be done, since the hook length of strict partition is essentially defined as the usual hook length of the corresponding doubled distinct partition [@HX2016], while the BG-rank of all doubled distinct partitions are zero.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors wish to acknowledge Dennis Stanton for bringing [@HSWW] to their attention, and acknowledge Guo-Niu Han and Huan Xiong for their helpful comments on a preliminary version of this paper. Both authors’ research were supported by the National Science Foundation of China grant 11501061.
[99]{}
G. E. Andrews, Generalizations of the Durfee square, *J. Lond Math. Soc.* **3** (2) (1971): 563–570.
G. E. Andrews, *The theory of partitions (No. 2)*, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 2 (G.-C. Rota, ed.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1976 (Reprinted: Cambridge Univ. Press, London and New York, 1984)
A. Berkovich and F. Garvan, On the Andrews-Stanley refinement of Ramanujan’s partition congruence modulo 5 and generalizations, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**358**]{} (2) (2006): 703–726.
W. Y. C. Chen, K. Q. Ji and H. S. Wilf, BG-ranks and 2-cores, *Electronic J. Combin.* [**13**]{}(1) (2006): article 18.
W. Chu, Durfee rectangles and the Jacobi triple product identity, *Acta Math. Sin., New Series* [**9**]{} No. 1 (1993): 24–26.
G. Han and K. Ji, Combining hook length formulas and BG-ranks for partitions via the Littlewood decomposition, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**363**]{} (2) (2011): 1041–1060.
G. Han and H. Xiong, Polynomiality of some hook-content summations for doubled distinct and self-conjugate partitions, arXiv preprint (2016). ([arXiv:1601.04369v1](http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04369v1)).
J. Huang, A. Senger, P. Wear and T. Wu, Partition statistics equidistributed with the number of hook difference one cells, arXiv preprint (2014). ([arXiv:1405.0072v1](http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0072v1)).
S. Ramanujan, Some properties of $p(n)$, the number of partitions of $n$, Paper 25 of *Collected Papers of S. Ramanujan*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1927; reprinted by Chelsea, New York, 1962; reprinted by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000.
S. Vandervelde, Balanced Partitions, *Ramanujan J.* **23**(1) (2010) 297–306.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study a new, generalized version of the well-known group testing problem. In the classical model of group testing we are given $n$ objects, some of which are considered to be defective. We can test certain subsets of the objects whether they contain at least one defective element. The goal is usually to find all defectives using as few tests as possible. In our model the presence of defective elements in a test set $Q$ can be recognized if and only if their number is large enough compared to the size of $Q$. More precisely for a test $Q$ the answer is [yes]{} if and only if there are at least $\alpha |Q|$ defective elements in $Q$ for some fixed $\alpha$.'
author:
- 'Dániel Gerbner[^1]'
- 'Balázs Keszegh$^\star$'
- 'Dömötör Pálvölgyi[^2]'
- 'Gábor Wiener[^3]'
title: 'Density-based group testing'
---
[AMS subject classification: 94A50]{}
[Keywords: Group testing, search, query.]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
The concept of group testing was developed in the middle of the previous century. Dorfman, a Swiss physician intended to test blood samples of millions of soldiers during World War II in order to find those who were infected by syphilis. His key idea was to test more blood samples at the same time and learn whether at least one of them are infected [@dorfman]. Some fifteen years later Rényi developed a theory of search in order to find which electrical part of his car went wrong. In his model – contrary to Dorfman’s one – not all of the subsets of the possible defectives (electric parts) could be tested [@K3].
Group testing has now a wide variety of applications in areas like DNA screening, mobile networks, software and hardware testing.
In the classical model we have an underlying set $[n]=\{1,\dots,n\}$ and we suppose that there may be some defective elements in this set. We can test all subsets of $[n]$ whether they contain at least one defective element. The goal is to find all defectives using as few tests as possible. One can easily see that in this generality the best solution is to test every set of size 1. Usually we have some additional information like the exact number of defectives (or some bounds on this number) and it is also frequent that we do not have to find all defectives just some of them or even just to tell something about them.
In the case when we have to find a single defective it is well-known that the information theoretic lower bound is sharp: the number of questions needed in the worst case is $\lceil \log n \rceil$, which can be achieved by binary search.
Another well-known version of the problem is when the maximum size of a test is bounded. (Motivated by the idea that too large tests are not supposed to be reliable, because a small number of defectives may not be recognized there). This version can be solved easily in the adaptive case, but is much more difficult in the non-adaptive case. This latter version was first posed by Rényi. Katona [@Katona] gave an algorithm to find the exact solution to Rényi’s problem and he also proved the best known lower bound on the number of queries needed. The best known upper bound is due to Wegener [@wegener].
In this paper we assume that the presence of defective elements in a test set $Q$ can be recognized if and only if their number is large enough compared to the size of $Q$. More precisely for a test $ Q \subseteq [n]$ the answer is [yes]{} if and only if there are at least $\alpha |Q|$ defective elements in $Q$. Our goal is to find at least $m$ defective elements using tests of this kind.
Let $g(n,k,\alpha,m)$ be the least number of questions needed in this setting, i.e. to find $m$ defective elements in an underlying set of size $n$ which contains at least $k$ defective elements, where the answer is [yes]{} for a question $ Q \subseteq [n]$ if and only if there are at least $\alpha |Q|$ defective elements in $Q$.
We suppose throughout the whole paper that $1\le m\le k$ and $0<\alpha<1$. Let $a=\lfloor \frac{1}{\alpha}\rfloor$, that is, $a$ is the largest size of a set where the answer [no]{} has the usual meaning, namely that there are no defective elements in the set. It is obvious that if a set of size greater than $k/\alpha$ is asked then the answer is automatically [no]{}, so we will suppose that question sets has size at most $k/\alpha$. All logarithms appearing in the paper are binary.
It is worth mentioning that a similar idea appears in a paper by Damaschke [@damaschke] and a follow-up paper by De Bonis, Gargano, and Vaccaro [@debonis]. Since their motivation is to study the concentration of liquids, their model deals with many specific properties arising in this special case and they are interested in the number of merging operations or the number of tubes needed in addition to the number of tests.
If $k=m=1$, then the problem is basically the same as the usual setting with the additional property that the question sets can have size at most $a$: this is the above mentioned problem of Rényi. As we have mentioned, finding the optimal non-adaptive algorithm, or even just good bounds is really hard even in this simplest case of our model, thus in this paper we deal only with adaptive algorithms.
In the next section we give some upper and lower bounds as well as some conjectures depending on the choices of $n$, $k$, $\alpha$, and $m$. In the third section we prove our main theorem, which gives a general lower and a general upper bound, differing only by a constant depending only on $k$. In the fourth section we consider some related questions and open problems.
Upper and lower bounds {#mbarmi}
======================
First of all it is worth examining how binary search, the most basic algorithm of search theory works in our setting. It is easy to see that it does not work in general, not even for $m=1$. If (say) $ k=2$ and $ \alpha = 0.1$, then question sets have at most 20 elements (recall that we supposed that there are no queries containing more than $k/\alpha$ elements, since they give no information at all, because the answer for them is always [no]{}), thus if $n$ is big, we cannot perform a binary search.
However, if $k\geq n\alpha$, then binary search can be used.
\[gyors\] If $\alpha \le k/n$, then $g(n,k,\alpha,m) \le \lceil\log n\rceil
+c$, where $c$ depends only on $\alpha$ and $m$, moreover if $m=1$, then $c=0$.
We show that binary search can be used to find $m$ defectives. That is, first we ask a set $F$ of size $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ and then the underlying set is substituted by $F$ if the answer is [yes]{} and by $\overline{F}$ if the answer is [no]{}. We iterate this process until the size of the underlying set is at most $2m/\alpha$. Now we check that the condition $\alpha \le k/n$ remains true after each step. Let $n'=\lfloor n/2 \rfloor $ be the size of the new underlying set and $k'$ be the number of defectives there. If the answer was [yes]{} , then $k' \ge
\alpha n'$, thus $\alpha \le k'/n'$. If the answer was [no]{}, then there are at least $k- \lceil \alpha n' \rceil +1 $ defectives in the new underlying set, that is $k' \ge k- \lceil
\alpha n' \rceil +1 \ge \alpha n- \lceil \alpha n' \rceil +1 \ge
\alpha n'$, thus $\alpha \le k'/n'$ again.
Now if $m=1$ we simply continue the binary search until we find a defective element, altogether using at most $\lceil \log
n\rceil$ questions.
If $m>1$, then we can find $m$ defectives in the last underlying set using at most $c:=\max_{n' \le 2m/\alpha} g(n',m, \alpha, m)$ further queries.
(Notice that since the size of the last underlying set is greater than $m/\alpha$, it contains at least $m$ defectives.) This number $c$ does not depend on $k$, just on $\alpha$ and $m$ and it is obvious that we used at most $\lceil\log n\rceil +c$ queries altogether. [$\Box$]{}
This theorem has an easy, yet very important corollary. If the answer for a question $A$ is [yes]{}, then there are at least $\alpha|A|$ defective elements in $A$. If $\alpha|A| \ge
m$, then we can find $m$ of these defectives using $g(|A|,\alpha|A|,\alpha,m)
\le \log |A| +c$ questions, where $c$ depends only on $\alpha$ and $m$. Basically it means that whenever we obtain a [yes]{} answer, we can finish the algorithm quickly.
The proof of Theorem \[gyors\] is based on the fact that if the ratio of the defective elements $k/n$ is at least $\alpha$, then this condition always remains true during binary search. If $k/n < \alpha$, then this trick does not work, however if the difference between $k/n$ and $\alpha$ is small, a similar result can be proved for $m=1$. Recall that $a= \lfloor 1/\alpha \rfloor $.
\[felezgetes\] If $k \ge \frac{n}{a}- \lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor-1$ and $k\ge 1$, then $g(n,k,\alpha,1) \le
\lceil\log n\rceil +1 $.
The proof of the theorem is based on the following lemmas.
\[felezgetes1\] Let $t\geq 0$ be an integer. Then $g(2^ta,2^t-t,\alpha,1) \le
t + \lceil \log a \rceil $.
We use induction on $t$. For $t=0$ and $t=1$ the proposition is true, since we can perform a binary search on $a$ or $2a$ elements (by asking sets of size at most $a$ we learn whether they contain a defective element). Suppose now that the proposition holds for $t$, we have to prove it for $t+1$. That is, we have an underlying set of size $2^{t+1}a$ containing at least $2^{t+1}-t-1$ defectives. Our first query is a set $A$ of size $2^ta$. If the answer is [yes]{} , then we can continue with binary search. If the answer is [no]{}, then there are less than $\alpha 2^ta \leq
2^t $ defectives in $A$, therefore there are at least $2^{t+1}-t-1-2^t+1=2^t-t$ defectives in $\overline{A}$. By the induction hypothesis $g(2^ta,2^t-t,\alpha,1) \le t + \lceil \log a
\rceil $, thus $g(2^{t+1}a,2^{t+1}-t-1,\alpha,1) \le t+1+ \lceil
\log a \rceil $ follows, finishing the proof of the lemma. [$\Box$]{}
\[felezgetes2\] Let $t\geq 2$ be an integer. Then $g(2^ta,2^t-t-1,\alpha,1) \le
t + \lceil \log a \rceil+1 $.
Let us start with asking three disjoint sets, each of cardinality $2^{t-2}a$. If the answer to any of these is [yes]{}, then we can continue with binary search, using $t-2+\lceil \log a\rceil$ additional questions. If all three answers are [no]{}, then there are at least $2^t-t-1-3(2^{t-2}-1)=2^{t-2}-(t-2)$ defectives among the remaining $2^{t-2}a$ elements, hence we can apply Lemma \[felezgetes1\]. [$\Box$]{}
Let us suppose $n>2a$ (otherwise binary search works) and let $t=\lfloor \log \frac{n}{a} \rfloor$, $r=n-2^ta$. We have an underlying set of size $n=2^{t}a+r$ containing at least $\frac{n}{a}-\lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor-1 $ defectives. If $r=0$, then by Lemma \[felezgetes2\] we are done. Otherwise let the first query $A$ contain $r$ elements. A positive answer allows us to find a defective element by binary search on $A$ using altogether at most $\lceil \log n \rceil +1$ questions (actually, at most $\lceil \log n \rceil $ questions, because $r\le n/2$). If the answer is negative then the new underlying set contains $2^ta$ elements, of which more than $ \frac{n}{a}-\lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor - \alpha r -1 = 2^t + r/a -\alpha r -\lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor -1 \ge 2^t - \lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor-1 $ are defective. Since $\lfloor \log \frac{n}{a} \rfloor =t$, the number of defectives is at least $2^t-t$, thus by Lemma \[felezgetes1\] we need at most $t + \lceil \log a \rceil $ more queries to find a defective element, thus altogether we used at most $t + 1 + \lceil \log a \rceil \le \lceil\log n\rceil +1 $ queries, from which the theorem follows. [$\Box$]{}
One might think that binary search is the best algorithm to find one defective if it can be used (i.e. for $k\geq n\alpha$). A counterexample for $k$ really big is easy to give: if $k=n$ then we do not need any queries and for $m=1, k=n-1$ we need just one query. It is somewhat more surprising that $g(n,\alpha n, \alpha, 1) \ge \lceil \log n \rceil $ is not necessarily true.
For example, the case $n=10, k=4, \alpha = 0.4, m=1$ can be solved using 3 queries: first we ask a set $A$ of size 4. If the answer is [yes]{}, we can perform a binary search on $A$, if the answer is [no]{} then there are at least 3 defectives among the remaining 6 elements and now we ask a set $B$ of size 2. If the answer is [yes]{} then we perform a binary search on $B$, otherwise there are at least 3 defectives among the remaining 4 elements, so one query (of size 1) is sufficient to find a defective. However, a somewhat weaker lower bound can be proved:
\[keszegh\] $g(n,k,\alpha,m) \ge \lceil \log(n-k+1) \rceil $.
We prove the stronger statement that even if one can use any kind of yes-no questions, still at least $\lceil \log(n-k+1) \rceil $ questions are needed. This is a slight generalization of the information theoretic lower bound.
\[domotor\] To find one of $k$ defective elements from a set of size $n$, one needs $\lceil \log(n-k+1) \rceil $ yes-no questions in the worst case and this is sharp.
Suppose there is an algorithm that uses at most $q$ questions. The number of sequences of answers obtained is at most $2^q$, thus the number of different elements selected by the algorithm as the output is also at most $2^q$. This means that $n-2^q\le k-1$, otherwise it would be possible that all $k$ defective elements are among those ones that were not selected. Thus $q \ge \lceil \log(n-k+1) \rceil $ indeed.
Sharpness follows easily from the simple algorithm that puts $k-1$ elements aside and runs a binary search on the rest. [$\Box$]{}
Theorem \[keszegh\] is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[domotor\], but this is not true for the sharpness of the result. However, Theorem \[keszegh\] is also sharp: if $\alpha \le \frac{2}{n-k+1}$, then we can run a binary search on any $n-k+1$ of the elements to find a defective.
We have seen in Theorem \[gyors\] that if $n \leq k/\alpha$, then binary search works (with some additional constant number of questions if $m>1$). On the other hand, if $n$ goes to infinity (with $k$ and $\alpha$ fixed), then the best algorithm is linear.
\[approxi\] For any $k$, $\alpha$, $m$
$$\frac{n}{a}+c_1 \le g(n,k,\alpha,m)\le \frac{n}{a}+c_2,$$
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ depend only on $k$, $\alpha$, and $m$.
Upper bound: first we partition the underlying set into $\lfloor \frac{n}{a}\rfloor$ $a$-element sets and possibly one additional set of less than $a$ elements. We ask each of these sets (at most $\lfloor
\frac{n}{a}\rfloor+1$ questions). Then we choose $m$ sets for which we obtained a [yes]{} answer (or if there are less than $m$ such sets, then we choose all of them). We ask every element one by one in these sets (at most $ma$ questions). One can easily see that we find at least $m$ defective elements, using at most $\lfloor
\frac{n}{a}\rfloor+ma+1$ questions.
Lower bound: We use a simple adversary’s strategy: suppose all the answers are [no]{} and there are $m$ elements identified as defectives. Let us denote the family of sets that were asked by $\mathcal{F}$. It is obvious that those sets of $\mathcal{F}$ that have size at most $a$ contain no defective elements. Suppose there are $i$ such sets. We use induction on $i$. There are $n'
\ge n-ia$ elements not contained in these sets and we should prove that at least $\frac{n}{a}+c_1-i\le \frac{n'}{a}+c_1$ other questions are needed. Hence by the induction it is enough to prove the case $i=0$.
Suppose $i=0$. If there is a set $A$ of size $k+1$, such that $|A\cap F|\le 1$ for all $F\in \mathcal{F}$, then any $k$-element subset of $|A|$ can be the set of the defective elements. In this case any element can be non-defective, a contradiction. Thus for every set $A$ of size $k+1$ there exists a set $F\in \mathcal{F}$, such that $|A \cap F| \ge 2$.
Let $b=\lfloor \frac{k}{\alpha}\rfloor$. We know that every set of $\mathcal{F}$ has size at most $b$. Then a given $F\in\mathcal{F}$ intersects at most $\sum_{j=2}^{k+1}{b \choose
j}{n-b \choose k+1-j}$ $(k+1)$-element sets in at least two points. This number is $O(n^{k-1})$, and there are $\Omega(n^{k+1})$ sets of size $k+1$, hence $|\mathcal{F}|=\Omega(n^{2})$ is needed.
It follows easily that there is an $n_0$, such that if $n>n_0$, then $|\mathcal{F}| \ge \frac{n}{a}$. Now let $c_1=-n_0/a$. If $n>n_0$ then $|\mathcal{F}| \ge \frac{n}{a} \ge \frac{n}{a}+c_1$, while if $n \le n_0$ then $|\mathcal{F}| \ge 0 \ge \frac{n}{a}+c_1$, thus the number of queries is at least $\frac{n}{a}+c_1$, finishing the proof. [$\Box$]{}
*Remark.* The theorem easily follows from Theorem \[maintheorem\], it is included here because of the much simpler proof.
It is easy to give a better upper bound for $m=1$.
\[uj1\] Suppose $k+\log k +1 \leq \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil$. Then $$g(n,k,\alpha,1)\le \left\lceil \frac{n}{a} \right\rceil -k + \lceil \log a \rceil .$$
First we ask a set $X$ of size $ka$. If the answer is [yes]{}, then we can find a defective element in $\lceil \log ka \rceil$ steps by Theorem \[gyors\]. In this case the number of questions used is at most $1+\lceil \log ka \rceil = 1 + \lceil \log k + \log a \rceil \leq 1 + \lceil \log k \rceil + \lceil \log a \rceil \leq \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil -k + \lceil \log a \rceil$, where the last inequality follows from the condition of the theorem.
If the answer is [no]{}, then we know that there are at most $k-1$ defectives in $X$, so we have at least one defective in $\overline{X}$. Continue the algorithm by asking disjoint subsets of $X$ of size $a$, until the answer is [yes]{} or we have at most $2a$ elements not yet asked. In these cases using at most $\lceil\log 2a\rceil $ questions we can easily find a defective element, thus the total number of questions used is at most $1+ \lceil \frac{n-ka-2a}{a} \rceil +\lceil \log 2a \rceil = 1 + \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil -k -2 +\lceil \log a \rceil +1 = \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil -k +\lceil \log a \rceil$, finishing the proof. [$\Box$]{}
Note that if the condition of Theorem \[uj1\] does not hold (that is, $k+\log k +1 > \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil$), then $k\ge
\frac{n}{a}- \lfloor\log \frac{n}{a}\rfloor-1$, hence $\lceil \log
n \rceil +1$ questions are enough by Theorem \[felezgetes\].
The exact values of $g(n,k,\alpha,m)$ is hard to find, even for $m=1$. The algorithm used in the proof of Theorem \[uj1\] seems to be optimal for $m=1$ if $k+\log k +1 \leq \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil $. However, counterexamples with $ 1/\alpha$ not an integer are easy to find (consider i.e. $n=24$, $k=2$, $\alpha = \frac{2}{11}$).
\[sej1\] If $\frac{1}{\alpha}$ is an integer and $k+\log k +1 \leq \lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil $, then the algorithm used in the proof of Theorem \[uj1\] is optimal for $m=1$.
It is easy to see that Conjecture \[sej1\] is true for $k=1$. For other values of $k$ it would follow from the next, more general conjecture.
\[integer\] If $\frac{1}{\alpha}$ is an integer, then $g(n,k,\alpha,1) \le g(n,k+1,\alpha,1)+1$.
Obviously, Conjecture \[integer\] also fails if $1/\alpha$ is not an integer. One can see for example that $g(24,1,2/11,1)=7$ and $g(24,2,2/11,1)=5$.
The main theorem
================
In this section we prove a lower and an upper bound differing only by a constant depending only on $k$. For the lower bound we need the following simple generalization of the information theoretic lower bound.
\[trivi2\] Suppose we are given $p$ sets $A_1, \ldots , A_p$ of size at least $n$, each one containing at least one defective and an additional set $A_0$ of arbitrary size containing no defectives. Let $m \le p$. Then the number of questions needed to find at least $m$ defectives is at least $\lceil m \log n \rceil$.
Suppose that we are given the additional information that every set $A_i$ ($i \ge 1$) contains exactly one defective element. Now we use the information theoretic lower bound: there are $\prod_{i=1}^p
|A_i|$ possibilities for the distribution of the defective elements at the beginning, and at most $\prod_{i=1}^{p-m}|A_{j_i}|$ at the end (suppose we have found defective elements in every set $A_i$ except in $A_{j_1}, \dots, A_{j_{p-m}}$), thus if we used $l$ queries, then $2^l \ge
n^m$, from which the proposition follows. [$\Box$]{}
Now we formulate the main theorem of the paper.
\[maintheorem\] For any $k$, $\alpha$, $m$ $$\frac{n}{a} +m\log a-c_1(k)\le g(n,k,\alpha,m)\le \frac{n}{a} +m\log a+c_2(k),$$ where $c_1(k)$ and $c_2(k)$ depend only on $k$.
First we give an algorithm that uses at most $\frac{n}{a} +m\log a+c_2(k)$ queries, proving the upper bound. In the first part of the procedure we ask disjoint sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots , A_r$ of size $a$ until either there were $m$ [yes]{} answers or there are no more elements left. In this way we ask at most $\lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil $ questions.
Suppose we obtained [yes]{} answers for the sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots A_{m_1}$ and [no]{} answers for the sets $A_{m_1+1}, \ldots , A_{r}$. If $m_1 \ge m$, then in the second part of the procedure we use binary search in the sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots , A_m$ in order to find one defective element in each of them. For this we need $m \lceil \log a \rceil $ more questions.
If $m_1<m$, then first we use binary search in the sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots , A_{m_1}$ in order to find defective elements $a_1 \in A_1, a_2\in A_2, \ldots , a_{m_1} \in A_{m_1} $. Then we iterate the whole process using $S_1 = \cup_{i=1}^{m_1} A_i\setminus \{ a_i \}$ as an underlying set, that is we ask disjoint sets $B_1, B_2, \ldots , B_t$ of size $a$ until either we obtain $m-m_1$ [yes]{} answers or there are no more elements left. Suppose we obtained [yes]{} answers for the sets $B_1, B_2, \ldots B_{m_2}$ and [no]{} answers for the sets $A_{m_2+1}, \ldots , A_{t}$. If $m_2 \ge m-m_1$, then in the second part of the procedure we use binary search in the sets $B_1, B_2, \ldots , B_{m-m_1}$ in order to find one defective element in each of them, while if $m_2<m-m_1$, then first we use binary search in the sets $B_1, B_2, \ldots , B_{m_2}$ in order to find defective elements $b_1 \in B_1, b_2\in B_2, \ldots , b_{m_2} \in A_{m_2} $ and continue the process using $S_2 = \cup_{i=1}^{m_2} B_i\setminus \{ b_i \}$ as an underlying set, and so on, until we find $m=m_1+m_2+\ldots+m_j$ defective elements. Note that $m_i\ge 1, \; \forall i \le j$, since $k\ge m$. We have two types of queries: queries of size $a$ and queries of size less than $a$ (used in the binary searches). The number of questions of size $a$ is at most $\lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil $ in the first part and at most $m_1+m_2+\ldots+m_{j-1}< m\le k$ in the second part. The total number of queries of size less than $a$ is at most $m \lceil \log a \rceil $, thus the total number of queries is at most $\lceil \frac{n}{a} \rceil + m \lceil \log a \rceil + k$, proving the upper bound.
To prove the lower bound we need the following purely set-theoretic lemma.
\[domlemma\] Let $k,l,a$ be arbitrary positive integers and $\beta > 1$. Let now $\cal H$ be a set system on an underlying set $S$ of size $c(k,l,\beta)\cdot a=k\beta (2^{kl}-1)a$, such that every set of $\cal H$ has size at most $\beta a$ and every element of $S$ is contained in at most $l$ sets of $\cal H$. Then we can select $k$ disjoint subsets of $S$ (called heaps) $K_1,K_2 , \ldots ,K_k$ of size $\beta a$, such that every set of $\cal{H}$ intersects at most one heap.
Let us partition the underlying set into $k$ heaps of size $\beta
a(2^{kl}-1)$ in an arbitrary way. Now we execute the following procedure at most $kl-1$ times, eventually obtaining $k$ heaps satisfying the required conditions. In each iteration we make sure that the members of a subfamily $\cal H'$ of $\cal H$ will intersect at most one heap at the end.
In each iteration we do the following. We build the subfamily ${\cal H'}
\subseteq {\cal H}$ by starting from the empty subfamily and adding an arbitrary set of $\cal H$ to our subfamily until there exists a heap $K_i$ such that $|K_i \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | \ge |K_i|/2$, that is $K_i$ is at least half covered by ${\cal H'}$. We call $K_i$ the selected heap. If the half of several heaps gets covered in the same step, then we select one where the difference of the number of covered elements and the half of the size of the heap is maximum.
Now we keep the covered part of the selected heap and keep the uncovered part of the other heaps and throw away the other elements. We also throw away the sets of the subfamily ${\cal H'}$ from our family ${\cal H}$, as we already made sure that the members of ${\cal H'}$ will not intersect more than one heap at the end. In this way we obtain smaller heaps but we only have to deal with the family ${\cal H} \setminus {\cal H'}$.
We prove by induction that after $s$ iterations all heaps have size at least $\beta a(2^{kl-s}-1)$. This trivially holds for $s=0$. By the induction hypothesis, the heaps had size at least $\beta a(2^{kl-s+1}-1)$ before the $s$th iteration step. After the $s$th step the new size of the selected heap $K$ is at least $|K|/2\ge \beta
a(2^{kl-s+1}-1)/2\ge \beta a(2^{kl-s}-1)$. Now we turn our attention to the unselected heaps. Suppose the set we added last to $\cal H'$ is the set $I$. Clearly, $|K_j \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}\setminus\{I\}} H | \le |K_j|/2$ for all $j$. Let $K$ be the selected heap and $K_i$ be an arbitrary unselected heap. Now by the choice of $K$ we have $|K_i \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | \le |K_i|/2 + |I|/2$, otherwise $|K_i \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | + |K\cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | > |K_i|/2 + |K|/2 + |I|$, which is impossible, since $|K_i \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | + |K\cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | = | ((K_i\cup K) \cap \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}\setminus\{I\}} H ) \cup ((K_i\cup K) \cap I )| \leq |K_i|/2 + |K|/2 + |I|$.
Now since $|I| \leq \beta a$, the new size of the unselected heap $K_i$ is $|K_i'|=|K_i \setminus \cup_{H\in {\cal H'}} H | \ge |K_i|/2-\beta
a/2 \ge \beta a(2^{kl-s+1}-1)/2-\beta a/2\ge \beta a(2^{kl-s}-1)$, finishing the proof by induction.
Now in each iteration we delete a family that covers the selected heap, thus any heap can be selected at most $l$ times, since every element is contained in at most $l$ sets. After $kl-1$ iterations the size of an arbitrary heap will be still at least $\beta a$. Furthermore, all but one heaps were selected exactly $l$ times, thus any remaining set of $\cal H$ can only intersect the last heap. That is, heaps at this point satisfy the required condition for all sets of $\cal H$.
If we can iterate the process at most $kl-2$ times, then after the last possible iteration more than half of any heap is not covered by the union of the remaining sets. Deleting the covered elements from each heap we obtain heaps of size at least $\beta a$ that satisfy the condition. [$\Box$]{}
Now we are in a position to prove the lower bound of Theorem \[maintheorem\]. We use the adversary method, i.e. we give a strategy to the adversary that forces the questioner to ask at least $\frac{n}{a} +m\log a-c_1(k)$ questions to find $m$ defective elements.
Recall that all questions have size at most $\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor$ and now the adversary gives the additional information that there are exactly $k$ defective elements.
During the procedure, the adversary maintains weights on the elements. At the beginning all elements have weight $0$. Let us denote the set of the possible defective elements by $S'$. At the beginning $S'=S$. At each question $A$ the strategy determines the answer and also adds appropriate weights to the elements of $A$. If a question $A$ is of size at most $a=\lfloor 1/\alpha\rfloor$, then the answer is [no]{} and weight $1$ is given to all elements of $A$. If $|A|>a$, the answer is still [no]{} and weight $a/\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor$ is given to the elements of $A$. Thus after some $r$ questions the sum of the weights is at most $ra$. If an element reaches weight $1$, then the adversary says that it is not defective, and the element is deleted from $S'$. The adversary does that until there are still $ca$ elements in $S'$ but in the next step $S'$ would become smaller than this threshold (the exact value of $c$ will be determined later). Up to this point the number of elements thrown away is at least $n-ca-\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor$, thus the number of queries is at least $\frac{n}{a}-c-\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor/a\ge \frac{n}{a}-c-k$.
Let the set system $\cal F$ consist of the sets that were asked up to this point and let ${\cal F}' = \{ F\cap S' \; | \; F\in {\cal F} , |F|> a \} $.
The following observations are easy to check.
- $|S'| \ge ca$.
- Every set $F \in \cal F'$ has size at most $\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor\le k(a+1)\le 2ka$
- Every element of $S'$ is contained in at most $\lfloor k/\alpha \rfloor/a\le k(1+1/a)\le 2k$ sets of $\cal F'$.
- Every $k$-set that intersects each $F\in \cal F'$ in at most one element is a possible set of defective elements.
Now let $l:=2k$, $\beta:=2k$, and $c:=c(k,l,\beta )=k\beta ( 2^{kl}-1)=2k^2(2^{2k^2}-1)$. By the observations above, we can apply Lemma \[domlemma\] with $\cal H=\cal F'$. The lemma guarantees the existence of heaps $K_1,K_2, \ldots , K_k$ of size $\beta a\ge a$, such that every transversal of the $K_i$’s is a possible $k$-set of defective elements. Now by applying Proposition \[trivi2\] with $A_i=K_i$ and $A_0=S\setminus S'$, we obtain that the questioner needs to ask at least $\lceil m\log a \rceil$ more queries to find $m$ defective elements.
Altogether the questioner had to use at least $\frac{n}{a}-c-k+m\log a$ queries, which proves the lower bound, since the number $c$ depends only on $k$ (the constant in the theorem is $c_1(k)=c+k$). [$\Box$]{}
The constant in the lower bound is quite large, by a more careful analysis one might obtain a better one. For example, we could redefine the weights, such that we give weight $a/|A|$ to the elements of $A$, thus still distributing weight at most $a$ per asked set.
It is also worth observing that if $1/\alpha$ is an integer, then we can use Lemma \[domlemma\] with $l=\beta=k$, instead of $l=\beta=2k$. This way one can prove stronger results for small values of $k$ and $m$ if $1/\alpha$ is an integer. We demonstrate it for $k=2$ in the next section. The following claim is easy to check.
\[c1claim\] Let $\cal H$ be a set system on an underlying set $S$ of size $3a$, consisting of disjoint sets of size at most $2a$. Then we can select $2$ disjoint subsets of $S$ (called heaps) $K_1,K_2$ of size at least $a$, such that every set of $\cal{H}$ intersects at most one heap.
The case $k=2$
==============
In this section we determine the exact value $g(n,2,\alpha,1)$. Let $\delta=\lfloor 2 \{ \frac{1}{\alpha} \} \rfloor $, where $\{ x \}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.
Consider the following algorithm W, where $n$ denotes the number of remaining elements:
If $n\le 2^{\lceil\log a\rceil}+1$, we ask a question of size $\lfloor n/2\rfloor\le a$, then depending on the answer we continue in the part that contains at least one defective element, and find that with binary search.
If $2^{\lceil\log a\rceil} + 2\le n\le 2^{\lceil\log
a\rceil+1}+1$, then we ask a question of size $2^{\lceil\log
a\rceil}+1$ (this falls between $a$ and $2a+1$). If the answer is [yes]{}, we put an element aside and continue with the remaining elements of the set we asked, otherwise we continue with the elements not in the set we asked. This way independent of whether we got a [yes]{} or [no]{} answer, we have at most $2^{\lceil\log a\rceil}$ elements with at least one defective, hence we can apply binary search.
If $2^{\lceil\log a\rceil+1}+2\le n\le 3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log
a\rceil} $, then first we ask a question of size $2a+\delta$. If the answer is [yes]{}, we put an element aside and continue with the remaining elements of the set we asked, otherwise we continue with the elements not in the set we asked. This way independent of whether we got a [yes]{} or [no]{} answer, we have at most $2^{\lceil\log a\rceil} + a$ elements with at least one defective. We continue with a set of size $a$, and after that we can finish with binary search.
If $n\ge 3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log a\rceil}+1$, then we ask a question of size $a$. If the answer is [no]{}, we proceed as above. If the answer is [yes]{}, we can find a defective element with at most $\lceil\log a\rceil$ further questions.
Counting the number of questions used in each case, we can conclude.
\[egyes\] If $n\le 3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log
a\rceil}$, then algorithm W takes only $\lceil\log (n-1)\rceil$ questions, thus according to Theorem \[domotor\] it is optimal.
In fact a stronger statement is true. Note that the following theorem does not contradict to Conjecture \[sej1\], as the algorithm mentioned there uses the same number of steps as algorithm W in case $k=2$, $1/\alpha$ is an integer and $\lceil
n/a\rceil\ge 4$.
Algorithm W is optimal for any $n$.
We prove a slightly stronger statement, that algorithm W is optimal even among those algorithms that have access to an unlimited number of extra non-defective elements. This is crucial as we use induction on the number of elements, $n$.
It is easy to check that the answer for a set that is greater than $2a+\delta$ is always [no]{}, while if both defective elements are in a set of size $2a+\delta$, then the answer is [yes]{}. We say that a question is [*small*]{} if its size is at most $a$, and [*big*]{} if its size is between $a+1$ and $2a+\delta$. Note that small questions test if there is at least one defective element in the set, while big questions test if both defective elements are in the set. Suppose by contradiction that there exists an algorithm Z that is better than W, i.e. there is a set of elements for which Z is faster than W. Denote by $n$ the size of the smallest such set and by $z(n)$ the number of steps in algorithm Z. We will establish through a series of claims that such an $n$ cannot exist. It already follows from Claim \[egyes\] that $n$ has to be at least $3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log a\rceil} +1$.
Note that for $n= 3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log a\rceil}$ algorithm W uses $\lceil\log (n-1)\rceil=\lceil\log (2a+\delta -1)\rceil +1$ questions. An important tool is the following lemma.
\[nullas\] If $n \ge 3a + \delta + 2^{\lceil\log a\rceil} +1$, then algorithm Z has to start with a big question. Moreover, it can ask a small question among the first $z(n)-\lceil \log (2a+\delta-1)\rceil$ questions only if one of the previous answers was [yes]{}.
First we prove that algorithm Z has to start with a big question. Suppose it starts with a small question. We show that in case the answer is [no]{}, it cannot be faster than algorithm W. In this case after the first answer there are at least $n-a$ (and at most $n-1$) elements which can be defective, and an unlimited number of non-defective elements, including those which are elements of the first question. By induction algorithm W is optimal in this case, and one can easily see that it cannot be faster if there are more elements, hence algorithm Z cannot be faster than algorithm W on $n-a$ elements plus one more question. On the other hand algorithm W clearly uses this many questions (as it starts with a question of size $a$), hence it cannot be slower than algorithm Z.
Similarly, to prove the moreover part, suppose that the first $z(n)-\lceil \log (2a+\delta-1)\rceil$ answers are [no]{} and one of these questions, $A$ is small. Let us delete every element of $A$. By induction algorithm W is optimal on the remaining at least $n-a$ elements, hence similarly to the previous case, algorithm Z uses more questions than algorithm W on $n-a$ elements, hence cannot be faster than algorithm W. More precisely, we can define algorithm W’, which starts with asking $A$, and after that proceeds as algorithm W. One can easily see that algorithm W’ cannot be slower than algorithm Z or faster than algorithm W. [$\Box$]{}
Note that a [yes]{} answer would mean that $\lceil \log
(2a+\delta-1)\rceil$ further questions would be enough to find a defective with binary search, hence in the worst case, (when the most steps are needed) no such answer occurs among the first $z(n)-\lceil \log (2a+\delta-1)\rceil$ questions anyway. Now we can finish the proof of the theorem with the following claim.
\[harmas\] If $n>3a+\delta+2^{\lceil \log
a\rceil}$, then algorithm W is optimal.
If not, then the smallest $n$ for which W is not optimal must be of the form $2a+\delta+2^{\lceil \log
a\rceil}+za+1$, where $z\ge 1$ integer. (This follows from the fact that the number of required questions is monotone in $n$ if we allow the algorithm to have access to an unlimited number of extra non-defective elements.) By contradiction, suppose that algorithm Z uses only $\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil +z$ questions. Suppose the answer to the first $z$ questions are [no]{}. Then by to Lemma \[nullas\], these questions are big. Suppose that the $z+1$st answer is also [no]{}. We distinguish two cases depending on the size of the $z+1$st question $A$. In both cases we will use reasoning similar to the one in Theorem \[approxi\]
Case 1. The $z+1$st question is small. After the answer there are $\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1$ questions left, so depending on the answers given to them, any deterministic algorithm can choose at most $2^{\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1}$ elements. Hence algorithm Z gives us after the $z+1$st answer a set $B$ of at most $2^{\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1}$ elements, which contains a defective.
Before starting the algorithm, all the ${n \choose 2}$ pairs are possible candidates to be the set of defective elements. However, after the $z+1$st question (knowing the algorithm) the only candidates are those which intersect $B$. The $z+1$st question shows at most $a$ non-defective elements, but all the pairs which intersect neither $A$ nor $B$ have to be excluded by the first $z$ questions. Thus ${n-|A|-|B| \choose 2} \ge{2a+\delta+2^{\lceil
\log a\rceil}+za+1-a-2^{\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1}\choose
2}\ge {(z+1)a+\delta+1 \choose 2}$ pairs should be excluded, but $z$ questions can exclude at most $z{2a+\delta \choose 2}$ pairs, which is less if $z\ge 1$.
Case 2. The $z+1$st question is big. After it we have $\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1$ questions left, so depending on the answers given to them, any deterministic algorithm can choose at most $2^{\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil-1}$ elements. This means that we have to exclude with the first $z+1$ questions at least ${2a+\delta+2^{\lceil \log a\rceil}+za+1
-2^{\lceil\log(2a+\delta-1)\rceil -1}\choose 2}\ge
{(z+2)a+\delta+1\choose 2}$ pairs. But they can exclude at most $(z+1){2a+\delta \choose 2}$ pairs, which is less if $z\ge 1$. [$\Box$]{}
This finishes the proof of the theorem. [$\Box$]{}
Open problems
=============
It is quite natural to think that $g(n,k,\alpha, m)$ is increasing in $n$ but we did not manage to prove that. The monotonicity in $k$ and $m$ is obvious from the definition. On the other hand, we could have defined $g(n,k,\alpha,m)$ as the smallest number of questions needed to find $m$ defectives assuming there are *exactly* $k$ defectives (instead of *at least* $k$ defectives) among the $n$ elements, in which case the monotonicity in $k$ is far from trivial. We conjecture that this definition gives the same function as the original one.
It might seem strange to look for monotonicity in $\alpha$, but we have seen that for $m=1$ we can reach the information theoretic lower bound (which is $\lceil \log (n-k+1) \rceil$ in this setting) for $\alpha\le 2/(n-k+1)$. All the theorems from Section \[mbarmi\] also suggest that the smaller $\alpha$ is, the faster the best algorithm is even for general $m$. Basically in case of a [no]{} answer it is better if $\alpha$ is small, and in case of a [yes]{} answer the size of $\alpha$ does not matter very much, since the process can be finished fast. However, we could only prove Theorem \[maintheorem\] concerning this matter.
Another interesting question is if we can choose $\alpha$. If $m=1$ then we should choose $\alpha\le 1/(n-k+1)$, and as we have mentioned in the previous paragraph, we believe that a small enough $\alpha$ is the best choice.
Another possibility would be if we were allowed to choose a new $\alpha$ for every question. Again, we believe that the best solution is to choose the same, small enough $\alpha$ every time. This would obviously imply the previous conjecture.
Finally, a more general model to study is the following. We are given two parameters, $\alpha\ge\beta$. If at least an $\alpha$ fraction of the set is defective, then the answer is [yes]{}, if at most a $\beta$ fraction, then it is [no]{}, while in between the answer is arbitrary. With these parameters, this paper studied the case $\alpha=\beta$. This model is somewhat similar to the threshold testing model of [@damaschke], where instead of ratios $\alpha$ and $\beta$ they have fixed values $a$ and $b$ as thresholds.
[99]{}
Damaschke, P.: The algorithmic Complexity of Chemical Treshold Testing, algorithms and complexity (Rome, 1997), 205–216, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 1203, Springer, Berlin (1997)
De Bonis, A., Gargano, L., Vaccaro, U.: Efficient algorithms for chemical threshold testing problems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 259 , no. 1–2, 493-511. (2001)
Dorfman,R.: The Detection of Defective Members of Large Populations, Ann. Math. Statistics 14 436–440. (1943)
Du, D.Z., Hwang, F.K.: Combinatorial Group Testing and Its Applications, World Scientific, first ed., (1994)
Katona, G.O.H.: On separating systems of a finite set, J. Combinatorial Theory 1, 174–194. (1966)
Katona, G.O.H.: Rényi and the Combinatorial Search Problems, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 26, 363–378. (1991)
Wegener, I.: On separating systems whose elements are sets of at most k elements, Discrete Math. 28, 219–222. (1979)
[^1]: Research supported in part by the Hungarian NSF, under contract NK 78439
[^2]: Research supported by Hungarian NSF, grant number: OTKA CNK-77780
[^3]: Supported in part by the Hungarian National Research Fund and by the National Office for Research and Technology (Grant Number OTKA 67651)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'For electronic excitations in the ultraviolet and visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the intensities are usually calculated within the dipole approximation, which assumes that the oscillating electric field is constant over the length scale of the transition. For the short wavelengths used in hard X-ray spectroscopy, the dipole approximation may not be adequate. In particular, for metal K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS), it becomes necessary to include higher-order contributions. In quantum-chemical approaches to X-ray spectroscopy, these so-called quadrupole intensities have so far been calculated by including contributions depending on the square of the electric-quadrupole and magnetic-dipole transition moments. However, the resulting quadrupole intensities depend on the choice of the origin of the coordinate system. Here, we show that for obtaining an origin-independent theory, one has to include all contributions that are of the same order in the wave vector consistently. This leads to two additional contributions depending on products of the electric-dipole andelectric-octupole and of the electric-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments, respectively. We have implemented such an origin-independent calculation of quadrupole intensities in XAS within time-dependent density-functional theory, and demonstrate its usefulness for the calculation of metal and ligand K-edge XAS spectra of transition metal complexes.'
---
[ **Origin-independent calculation of quadrupole intensities in X-ray spectroscopy\
**]{}
[ Stephan Bernadotte, Andrew J. Atkins, and Christoph R. Jacob[^1], ]{}\
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),\
Center for Functional Nanostructures and Institute of Physical Chemistry,\
Wolfgang-Gaede-Str. 1a, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Date: = November 27, 2012\
Status: published in *J. Chem. Phys.* **137**, 204106 (2012).\
DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766359>
Introduction
============
X-ray spectroscopy [@koningsberger_x-ray_1988; @sthr_nexafs_1992; @singh_advanced_2010] is a powerful spectroscopic tool for the elucidation of structural and electronic properties of materials [@guo_electronic_2011; @schuber_local_2011; @gross_exafs_2010] and (bio-)molecular systems[@bauer_x-ray_2010; @solomon_electronic_2004; @pollock_valence-to-core_2011]. X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) probes the excitation of core electrons. Here, one distinguishes excitations to low-lying unoccupied states (so-called prepeaks), excitations to states close to the ionization threshold (X-ray absorption near-edge structure, XANES), and excitations to continuum states (extended x-ray absorption fine structure, EXAFS). On the other hand, X-ray emission spectroscopy (XES) considers the emission of X-ray radiation after the formation of a core hole.
Of particular interest are the applications of these techniques to study catalytic mechanisms *in situ* (for examples, see, Ref. [@bauer_x-ray_2010; @singh_advanced_2010; @singh_electronic_2010; @kleymenov_structure_2012]) and to investigate biological or biomimetic systems containing transition metal centers (see, e.g., Refs. [@ray_joint_2007; @berry_electronic_2008; @chandrasekaran_prediction_2011; @sun_s_2011; @lancaster_x-ray_2011; @beckwith_manganese_2011; @roemelt_manganese_2012]). Usually, XAS and XES are used as fingerprint techniques in such studies to identify the oxidation state, spin state, and local coordination environment of a metal center. This requires either the comparison with spectra measured for model compounds or with theoretical predictions. To be able to extract additional information from X-ray spectroscopic measurements, the development of theoretical methods for the calculation of X-ray spectra is essential [@carravetta_computational_2011].
For EXAFS spectra, approaches based on scattering theory are well established and make it possible to extract structural parameters such as distances and coordination numbers [@rehr_theoretical_2000; @rehr_progress_2005]. In contrast, for describing prepeaks and the XANES region in XAS spectroscopy and for predicting XES spectra, quantum-chemical approaches are usually required. To this end, a wide range of quantum-chemical methods have been developed for describing excitations from core orbitals (for reviews, see, e.g., Refs [@agren-rixs; @carravetta_computational_2011; @besley_time-dependent_2010]). Widely used are the static-exchange approximation (STEX) [@gren_direct_1994; @gren_direct_1997; @ekstrm_relativistic_2006], approaches based on transition potential density-functional theory (DFT) [@triguero_calculations_1998; @leetmaa_theoretical_2010], and time-dependent density-functional theory (TD-DFT) [@besley_time-dependent_2010]. Within TD-DFT, core excitations are accessible by restricting the space of occupied–virtual orbital excitations (restricted-channel approximation) [@stener_time_2003; @ray_description_2007], by selectively targeting excitations within a specific energy window [@tsuchimochi_application_2008; @schmidt_assignment_2010; @kovyrshin_state-selective_2010; @liang_energy-specific_2011], by using a complex polarization propagator [@ekstrm_polarization_2006; @ekstrm_x-ray_2006], or with real-time TD-DFT methods [@lopata_linear-response_2012]. Recently, coupled-cluster response theory has also been extended to X-ray spectroscopy [@coriani_coupled-cluster_2012; @coriani_asymmetric_2012].
By combining X-ray spectroscopy with quantum-chemical calculations, it becomes possible to extract information on the electronic structure of molecular systems. For instance, the analysis of the prepeak intensities in ligand K-edge XAS spectra of transition metal complexes (i.e., excitations from the ligand $1s$ to metal $d$ orbitals) provides insights into the covalent contributions to metal–ligand bonding [@shadle_ligand_1995; @glaser_ligand_2000; @nslund_direct_2003; @solomon_ligand_2005; @debeer_george_metal_2005; @debeer_george_calibration_2010; @dey_s_2011]. Another example is metal K-edge XAS, probing excitations from metal $1s$ to $d$ orbitals, which can be used to assign coordination numbers [@westre_multiplet_1997; @debeer_george_prediction_2008; @hocking_fe_2009] and to probe details of the metal–ligand bonding mechanisms [@debeer_george_metal_2005; @scarborough_electronic_2011; @roemelt_manganese_2012]. Recently, we have demonstrated that the prepeaks in Fe K-edge XAS spectra of ferrocene derivatives are sensitive to subtle differences in the electronic structure at the iron atom, which are induced by substituents at the cyclopentadienyl rings, i.e., beyond the first coordination shell of the metal center [@atkins_probing_2012]. Such studies are facilitated by high-energy resolution fluorescence detection (HERFD) techniques, which can resolve the prepeaks with a much higher resolution than conventional XAS measurements [@hmlinen_elimination_1991; @de_groot_spectral_2002; @glatzel_high_2005].
However, beside the challenges posed by the accurate quantum-chemical prediction of the absolute or relative energies of core excitations, for the prepeaks in K-edge XAS spectra, theoretical X-ray spectroscopy faces an additional problem. For the calculation of XAS intensities for hard X-rays, the well-known dipole approximation, in which the oscillator strengths are proportional to the square of the electric-dipole transition moments is not sufficient. The dipole approximation is based on the assumption that the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation is large compared to the size of the core orbital. For the high-energy radiation used in hard X-ray spectroscopy, this is not the case anymore. This is particularly important for the prepeaks in metal K-edge XAS spectra of transition metal complexes, which are usually dipole forbidden or have a very low dipole intensity due to symmetry. Thus, the intensity of these prepeaks is due to contributions that are not included in the dipole approximation [@shulman_observations_1976; @drger_multipole_1988; @yamamoto_assignment_2008].
Currently, contributions to XAS or XES intensities beyond the dipole approximation, so-called quadrupole intensities, are calculated by including additional contributions that are proportional to the squares of the electric-quadrupole and the magnetic-dipole transition moments [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008; @lee_probing_2010]. However, these additional contributions depend on the choice of the origin of the coordinate system. This situation is not satisfactory, as a physical observable should be origin independent. To rectify this, Neese and coworkers suggested to choose the origin differently for each excitation such that these additional contributions are minimized [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008]. Usually, this is equivalent to placing the origin on the atom at which the excitation takes place. However, in cases where the dipole intensities are very small compared to the quadrupole intensities, this scheme sometimes places the origin far away from the excited core orbital [@atkins_probing_2012], which seems unphysical and affects the resulting intensities significantly. Moreover, the scheme will also fail for excitations from core orbitals that are delocalized over different atomic centers, a situation which occurs for ligand-edge XAS spectra or for metal K-edge spectra in polynuclear transition metal clusters.
Thus, a theoretical framework for the origin-independent calculation of quadrupole intensities in X-ray spectroscopy would be desirable. Here, we show that such a formulation can be obtained if all contributions to the oscillator strengths that are of the same order in the wave vector are included consistently.
This work is organized as follows. The theory is presented in Section \[sec:theory\]. After introducing the theoretical framework in Sections \[sec:radiation\] and \[sec:qm\], we revisit the multipole expansion of the transition moments in Section \[sec:multipole\]. Subsequently, in Section \[sec:osc-strengths\] this expansion is applied for the calculation of the oscillator strengths and we demonstrate that these become origin-independent if all terms that are of the same order are included consistently. The final equations for the isotropically averaged quadrupole intensities are then derived in Section \[sec:average\]. This is followed by a description of our implementation of the resulting formalism within TD-DFT in Section \[sec:compdet\], before we illustrate its usefulness for two test cases in Section \[sec:results\]. Finally a summary and concluding remarks are given in Sect. \[sec:conclusion\]
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
For the theoretical description of spectroscopic processes, quantum chemistry commonly employs a semi-classical theory. In this framework, the molecules are described with (nonrelativistic) quantum-mechanics, whereas the electromagnetic radiation is treated classically (for a discussion, see also Ref. [@reiher_relativistic_2009]). This theoretical framework is also appropriate for absorption and emission processes in X-ray spectroscopy. Here, we will focus on the case of absorption, but the results can be transferred to other types of experiments.
Electromagnetic Radiation {#sec:radiation}
-------------------------
Within the Coulomb gauge (i.e., if one chooses the vector potential such that $\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\boldsymbol{A}=0$), a monochromatic, linearly-polarized electromagnetic wave is defined by the scalar and vector potentials [@jackson_classical_1998; @cohen-tannoudji-2; @schatz_quantum_2002], $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\boldsymbol{r},t) &= 0 \\
\label{eq:em-wave-a}
\boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r},t) &= - A_0 \, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cos(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r} - \omega t),\end{aligned}$$ where the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$ points in the direction of propagation and its magnitude is related to the wavelength by $\lambda = 2\pi / k$, where $k=|\boldsymbol{k}|$. The angular frequency $\omega$ is $\omega=2\pi\nu$ with the frequency $\nu$, and frequency and wavelength are related by $c=\lambda\nu=\omega/k$, where $c$ is the speed of light. Finally, the polarization vector ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a real unit vector that is perpendicular to the direction of propagation (i.e., ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot\boldsymbol{k} = 0$).
From these scalar and vector potentials, one obtains for the electric and magnetic fields, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:em-wave-e}
\boldsymbol{E}(\boldsymbol{r},t)
&= -\boldsymbol{\nabla}\phi(\boldsymbol{r},t) - \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial\boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r},t)}{\partial t}
= A_0 k \, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\sin(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r} - \omega t)
\\
\label{eq:em-wave-b}
\boldsymbol{B}(\boldsymbol{r},t)
&= \boldsymbol{\nabla}\times\boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r},t)
= A_0 (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \sin(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r} - \omega t).\end{aligned}$$ Here and in the following, we are using the Gaussian system of units. The electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propagation and are oscillating with angular frequency $\omega$ and the wavelength $\lambda$. The amplitudes of the electric and magnetic fields are $E_0 = B_0 = A_0 k$.
The intensity $I(\omega)$ of the electromagnetic radiation is defined as the energy flux per area through a surface perpendicular to the propagation direction. It can be calculated from the Poynting vector [@jackson_classical_1998], $$\boldsymbol{S} = \frac{c}{4\pi} (\boldsymbol{E}\times\boldsymbol{B}),$$ by taking the absolute value and averaging over one period of the oscillations, $$\label{eq:em-wave-int}
I(\omega) = \int_0^{1/\nu} |{\boldsymbol{S}}| \, {\rm d}t = \frac{1}{8\pi} \frac{\omega^2}{c} A_0^2 = \frac{c}{8\pi} k^2 A_0^2.$$
Molecules in an Electromagnetic Field {#sec:qm}
-------------------------------------
In the absence of an external electromagnetic field, a molecular system within the Born–Oppenheimer approximation is described by the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mol-hamiltonian}
\hat{H}_0
= \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i^2}{2m_e} + V(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{r}_N),\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum operator is given by $\hat{p}=-{\rm i}\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}$, $m_e$ and $e$ are the mass and the charge of the electron, respectively, and the potential energy $V(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{r}_N)$ contains the electron-nuclei attraction as well as the electron–electron repulsion. Here and in the following, the index $i$ is used to label the electrons.
An external vector potential can be included in this Hamiltonian via [@schwabl; @cohen-tannoudji-2; @schatz_quantum_2002], $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}
&= \sum_i \frac{1}{2m_e} \Big[ \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i - \frac{e}{c} \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \Big]^2
- \frac{ge}{2m_ec} \sum_i \boldsymbol{B}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i
+ V(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{r}_N)
\nonumber \\
&= \sum_i \bigg[ \frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i^2}{2m_e}
- \frac{e}{m_ec} \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i
+ \frac{e^2}{2m_ec^2} \boldsymbol{A}^2(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \bigg]
\nonumber \\
&\hspace{3cm} - \frac{ge}{2m_ec} \sum_i \boldsymbol{B}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i
+ V(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{r}_N),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the electron $g$-factor. In the second line we used that in the Coulomb gauge, $\boldsymbol{p}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{A} = \boldsymbol{A}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i$. After neglecting the term that is quadratic in $\boldsymbol{A}$, which is justified for weak electromagnetic fields, this can be expressed as $$\hat{H} = \hat{H}_0 + \hat{U}(t),$$ where the time-dependent perturbation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(t)
&= - \frac{e}{m_ec} \sum_i \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i
- \frac{ge}{2m_ec} \sum_i \boldsymbol{B}(\boldsymbol{r}_i,t) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{eA_0 }{m_ec} \sum_i \Big[ \cos(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i - \omega t) ({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)
- \frac{g}{2} \sin(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i - \omega t) \, (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \Big].\end{aligned}$$ Here, we inserted the vector potential and the magnetic field of an electromagnetic wave given in Eqs. and . Using $\sin(x)=\dfrac{1}{2{\rm i}} [\exp({\rm i}x) - \exp(-{\rm i}x)]$, this can be expressed in the form $$\hat{U}(t) = \hat{U} \exp(-{\rm i}\omega t) + \hat{U}^* \exp({\rm i}\omega t),$$ with the time-independent perturbation operator, $$\hat{U} = \frac{eA_0 }{2m_ec} \sum_i \Big[ \exp({\rm i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) ({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)
+{\rm i} \, \frac{g}{2} \exp({\rm i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \, (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i
\Big].$$
With this form of the perturbation, we can apply Fermi’s golden rule to obtain the transition rate (i.e., the rate of change in the probability of finding the molecule in the $n$-th excited state) [@cohen-tannoudji-2; @schatz_quantum_2002; @atkins_molecular_2010] $$\Gamma_{0n}(\omega)
= \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \big|{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{U} \big| n \big\rangle}\big|^2 \ \delta(\omega-\omega_{0n})
= \frac{\pi A_0^2}{2 \hbar c^2} \, |T_{0n}|^2 \ \delta(\omega-\omega_{0n}),$$ where we introduced the transition moments $$\label{eq:t-full}
T_{0n} = \frac{e}{m_e} \sum_i
{\big\langle 0 \big| \exp(\text{i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)\,(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
+\text{i} \, \frac{g}{2} \, \exp(\text{i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)
\, (\boldsymbol{k}\times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \, \big| n \big\rangle}.$$ Here, $|0\rangle$ and $|n\rangle$ are the eigenfunctions of the time-independent Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$ with $\hat{H}_0 |n\rangle = E_n |n\rangle$, and transitions only occur if the frequency of the perturbation matches the energy differences between eigenstates of the unperturbed molecule, i.e., for $\omega = \omega_{0n} = (E_n - E_0)/\hbar$.
Now, Eq. can be used to eliminate $A_0^2$ from the equation for the transition rate to arrive at, $$\Gamma_{0n}(\omega)
= \frac{4\pi^2}{c\hbar \omega^2} \, |T_{0n}|^2 I(\omega) \ \delta(\omega-\omega_{0n}).$$ The absorption cross section, describing the rate of energy transfer from the electromagnetic radiation to the molecule, is defined as $$\sigma_{0n} = \int \frac{\Gamma_{0n}(\omega) \hbar\omega}{I(\omega)} \, {\rm d}\omega = \frac{4\pi^2\hbar}{cE_{0n}} \, |T_{0n}|^2,$$ where $E_{0n}=E_n-E_0$. Finally, one usually introduces the dimensionless oscillator strengths, $$\label{eq:osci}
f_{0n} = \frac{m_ec}{2\pi^2 e^2 \hbar} \sigma_{0n}
= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, |T_{0n}|^2.$$ These are defined as transition rates relative to a harmonic oscillator model [@schatz_quantum_2002; @atkins_molecular_2010], which fixes the prefactor connecting the absorption cross section and the oscillator strengths.
Multipole Expansion {#sec:multipole}
-------------------
Calculating the oscillator strengths via the matrix elements of Eq. would in principle be possible, but is cumbersome and in general not feasible. The required integrals are difficult to compute analytically (for a possible approach, see Ref. [@lehtola_erkalea_2012]), and because of its dependence on the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$, the operator in $T_{0n}$ is different for each excitation. Therefore, one usually performs a multipole expansion. The starting point for this expansion is a development of the exponential in a Taylor series, $$\exp(\text{i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) = 1 + {\rm i} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) - \frac{1}{2}(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)^2 + \dotsb$$ This is substituted into Eq. and, subsequently, one collects the terms of different orders in the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$, i.e., $$T_{0n} = T_{0n}^{(0)} + T_{0n}^{(1)} + T_{0n}^{(2)} + \dotsb$$ In the following, we will consider terms up to second order in $\boldsymbol{k}$. Here, $|\boldsymbol{k}| = {2\pi}/{\lambda}$ acts as the expansion parameter, and we note that for larger wavelengths $\lambda$, the convergence of the Taylor expansion will be faster. For typical molecules and wavelengths in the ultraviolet or visible range, the wavelength is large compared to the molecular size, and it is sufficient to include only the first (zeroth-order) term in this expansion. This corresponds to assuming that the oscillating electric field is constant over the whole molecule. However, for the short wavelengths used in hard X-ray spectroscopy this approximation is not adequate and higher-order terms need to be included.
### Zeroth order: Electric-dipole moment
In zeroth order in the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$, we have $$\label{eq:t-0th-order}
T^{(0)}_{0n} = \frac{e}{m_e}\sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\big| n \big\rangle}
= {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^p \big| n \big\rangle},$$ where we have introduced the electric-dipole moment operator in the velocity representation $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^p = \frac{e}{m_e} \sum_i \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i$$
By using the relations given in Appendix \[app:comm\], the matrix elements of the electric-dipole moment operator in the velocity representation can be related to those in the conventional length representation as $${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^p \big| n \big\rangle} = - \frac{\rm i}{\hbar} E_{0n} \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}} \big| n \big\rangle},$$ where we introduced the electric-dipole moment operator in the length representation $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}} = e \sum_i \hat{\boldsymbol{r}}_i.$$
Thus, for the zeroth-order contribution, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(0)}_{0n} = T^{(\mu)}_{0n}
= - \text{i} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} \, \Big( {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}} \big| n \big\rangle} \Big).\end{aligned}$$
### First order: Electric-quadrupole and magnetic-dipole moments
In the first order in $\boldsymbol{k}$, we find $$\label{eq:t-1st-order}
T_{0n}^{(1)} = \frac{{\rm i} \, e}{m_e}\sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) (\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}
+ \frac{{\rm i} \, e g}{2 m_e} \sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \big| n \big\rangle}.$$ The matrix elements in the first term can be split into one term that is symmetric and one that is antisymmetric with respect to interchanging the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$ and the polarization vector $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) (\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}
=& \frac{1}{2} {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) (\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
+ (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) (\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) (\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) (\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}. \end{aligned}$$
From the symmetric first term and using Einstein’s convention of implicit summation over repeated Greek indices, which we use to label the Cartesian components $x$, $y$, and $z$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(Q)} =& \ \frac{{\rm i} \, e}{2m_e}\sum_i
k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| r_{i,\alpha} \hat{p}_{i,\beta} + \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}
= \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \, k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}^p_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the electric-quadrupole moment operator in the velocity representation $$\hat{Q}^p_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{e}{m_e} \sum_i \big( r_{i,\alpha} \hat{p}_{i,\beta} + \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} \big).$$
Again, with the help of the relations given in Appendix \[app:comm\], the matrix elements in the velocity representation can be related to those in the conventional length representation, and one arrives at $$T_{0n}^{(Q)} = \frac{E_{0n}}{2 \hbar} \, k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle},$$ where $$\label{eq:op-quad-length-def}
\hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} = e \sum_i r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta}$$ is the operator of the electric-quadrupole moment in the length representation. Note that, in contrast to most other authors [@barron-book; @debeer_george_time-dependent_2008], we do not introduce a traceless version of the quadrupole tensor here. The traceless definition arises from the expansion of $1/|\boldsymbol{r}|$ that is often introduced in the context of intermolecular interactions, whereas in the case of an expansion of the exponential $\exp({\rm i}\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r})$ considered here the definition of Eq. is more natural. Nevertheless, because the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$ and the polarization vector ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}$ are orthogonal, the diagonal elements of the electric-quadrupole transition moments do not enter here and it would, therefore, be possible to alter their trace without consequences.
For the antisymmetric second term, we can use that $(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)$ and $(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})$ commute because $\boldsymbol{k}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}$ are orthogonal and then apply the vector identity $$\label{eq:vectid}
(\boldsymbol{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{c})(\boldsymbol{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{d}) - (\boldsymbol{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{c})(\boldsymbol{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{d})
= (\boldsymbol{a}\times\boldsymbol{b})(\boldsymbol{c}\times\boldsymbol{d})$$ to obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(m')}
&= \frac{{\rm i} \, e}{2m_e}\sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) (\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) (\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= {\rm i} \frac{e}{2m_e}\sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})(\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) \big| n \big\rangle}
= {\rm i} c \, (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{m}}' \big| n \big\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ with the (spin-independent) orbital magnetic-dipole moment operator $$\hat{\boldsymbol{m}}' = \frac{e}{2m_ec} \sum_i (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i).$$ Thus, this antisymmetric term $T_{0n}^{(m')}$ adopts the same form as the last, spin-dependent term in Eq. , $$T_{0n}^{(m^s)}
= {\rm i} \frac{e}{2m_e}\sum_i (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| g \, \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \big| n \big\rangle}
= {\rm i} c \, (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{m}}^s \big| n \big\rangle},$$ with the spin magnetic-dipole operator $$\hat{\boldsymbol{m}}^s = \frac{e}{2m_ec} \sum_i g \, \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i.$$ Combining the two contributions, we arrive at the magnetic-dipole transition moment, $$T_{0n}^{(m)}
= {\rm i} \frac{e}{2m_e}\sum_i (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) + g \, \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \big| n \big\rangle}
= {\rm i} c \, (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{m}} \big| n \big\rangle},$$ and the total magnetic-dipole moment operator, $$\hat{\boldsymbol{m}} = \frac{e}{2m_ec} \sum_i \bigg[ (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i) + g \, \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \bigg].$$ Altogether, the first-order transition moments consist of an electric-quadrupole and a magnetic-dipole contribution, i.e., $$T_{0n}^{(1)} = T_{0n}^{(Q)} + T_{0n}^{(m')} + T_{0n}^{(m^s)} = T_{0n}^{(Q)} + T_{0n}^{(m)}.$$
### Second order: Electric-octupole and magnetic-quadrupole moments
In second order in $\boldsymbol{k}$, we find, $$\label{eq:t-2nd-order}
T_{0n}^{(2)} = - \frac{e}{2m_e}\sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}
- \frac{eg}{2m_e} \sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \big| n \big\rangle}.$$ In a similar fashion as for the first-order term above, the matrix elements in the first term are split into a part that is symmetric and one that is antisymmetric with respect to interchanging the polarization vector ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}$ with one of the wave vectors $\boldsymbol{k}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:second-order-matrixelements}
&{\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&\qquad= \frac{1}{3} \, {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
\nonumber \\[-1ex]
& \hspace{4cm}
+ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
+ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\[1ex]
&\qquad +\frac{1}{3} \, {\big\langle 0 \big| 2(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
\nonumber \\[-1ex]
& \hspace{4cm}
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$
For the symmetric first term, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(O)} &= - \frac{e}{6m_e}\sum_i k_\alpha k_\beta \mathcal{E}_\gamma \,
{\big\langle 0 \big| r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} \hat{p}_{i,\gamma} + r_{i,\alpha} \hat{p}_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma} + \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= - \frac{1}{6} \sum_i k_\alpha k_\beta \mathcal{E}_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}^p_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ with the operator of the electric-octupole moment in velocity representation $$\hat{O}^p_{\alpha\beta\gamma} = \frac{e}{m_e} \sum_i \big( r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} \hat{p}_{i,\gamma}
+ r_{i,\alpha} \hat{p}_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma} + \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma}\big).$$ Using the relations given in Appendix \[app:comm\], these matrix elements in the velocity representation can be converted to those in the conventional length representation, $$T_{0n}^{(O)} = {\rm i} \frac{E_{0n}}{6\hbar} k_\alpha k_\beta \mathcal{E}_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle},$$ with the octupole operator in length representation given by $$\hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} = e \sum_i r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma}.$$ Again, note that our definition differs from the one given elsewhere [@barron-book], as we do not introduce a traceless form here. In fact, for the Cartesian expansion of the exponential it turns out that introducing such a traceless definition here is not possible because only the terms depending on the trace of the octupole moments, $\hat{O}_{\alpha\alpha\beta}$ will contribute to the isotropically-averaged oscillator strengths later on. In contrast, when describing intermolecular interactions starting from an expansion of $1/|\boldsymbol{r}|$, these terms are zero and do not appear.
After some algebra (see Appendix \[app:antisymm-2nd-order\]), the antisymmetric part of Eq. can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}')} &= - \frac{e}{6m_e} \sum_i (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \cdot (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)
+ (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= - \frac{e}{6m_e} \sum_i (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ {\big\langle 0 \big| r_{i,\beta} \, (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)_\alpha
+ (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)_\alpha \, r_{i,\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= - \frac{c}{2} \ (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}'}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}, \end{aligned}$$ with the (spin-independent) orbital magnetic-quadrupole operator [@barron-book; @graham_light_1990], $$\hat{\mathcal{M}}'_{\alpha\beta}
= \frac{e}{2m_ec} \sum_i \frac{2}{3} \, \Big(r_{i,\beta}(\boldsymbol{r}_i\times\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)_\alpha + (\boldsymbol{r}_i\times\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)_\alpha r_{i,\beta}\Big).$$ Note that this operator is not symmetric with respect to interchanging $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
The remaining spin-dependent part of Eq. is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}^s)}
&= - \frac{eg}{2m_e} \sum_i (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{s}}_i \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= - \frac{c}{2} \sum_i (\boldsymbol{k}\times{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}^s_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ with the spin contribution to the magnetic-quadrupole operator $$\hat{\mathcal{M}}^s_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{e}{2m_ec} \sum_i g \Big( r_{i,\beta} \, \hat{s}_{i,\alpha} \Big).$$ Finally, the full magnetic-quadrupole contribution is obtained by adding the orbital and spin contributions to obtain $$T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})} = T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}')} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}^s)}
= - \frac{c}{2} \ (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}'}_{\alpha\beta} + \hat{\mathcal{M}}^s_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}.$$ Altogether, the second-order transition moments consist of an electric-octupole and a magnetic-quadrupole contribution, i.e., $$T_{0n}^{(2)} = T_{0n}^{(O)} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}')} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M}^s)} = T_{0n}^{(O)} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})}.$$
### Summary of the multipole transition moments
In summary, the multipole expansion of the transition moments of Eq. up to second order results in five different contributions, $$T_{0n} = T_{0n}^{(\mu)} + T_{0n}^{(Q)} + T_{0n}^{(m)} + T_{0n}^{(O)} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})} + \dotsb$$ The expressions for these contributions are summarized in Table \[tab:trans-moments\]. In zeroth order, one encounters the well-known electric-dipole transition moments. Starting from first order, an electric and a magnetic contribution appear. In first order, these are the electric-quadrupole and magnetic-dipole transition moments, whereas in second order one has the electric-octupole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments.
[cll]{} order & &\
\
0 & $T^{(\mu)}_{0n} = -\text{i} \dfrac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} \displaystyle\sum_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} $ &\
1 & $T_{0n}^{(Q)} = \dfrac{E_{0n}}{2 \hbar} \displaystyle\sum_{\alpha\beta} k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}$ & $T_{0n}^{(m)} = {\rm i} c \displaystyle\sum_\alpha (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}$\
2 & $T_{0n}^{(O)} = {\rm i} \dfrac{E_{0n}}{6\hbar} \displaystyle\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma} k_\alpha k_\beta \mathcal{E}_\gamma \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}$ & $T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})} = - \dfrac{c}{2} \displaystyle\sum_{\alpha\beta} (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}$\
If we restrict our considerations to a spin–orbit coupling free framework in the absence of static external magnetic fields, the wavefunction can always be chosen as a real function. In this case, the electric transition integrals, ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}$, ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}$, and ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}$, as defined here are always real. Moreover, for the magnetic transition moments, the spin contributions can be neglected because for states with a multiplicity larger than zero (i.e., for $S > 0$) the different $M_S$-components of the multiplet will be degenerate [@mcweeny_spins_2004; @jacob_spin_2012] and the components with $+M_S$ and $-M_S$ provide spin contributions to the magnetic transition moments that cancel each other. Therefore, these spin contributions, ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}^s_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}$ and ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}^s_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}$, will not be considered further in the following. The remaining orbital contribution to the magnetic transition integrals, ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}$ and ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}$, are then purely imaginary. As a consequence, we notice that the zeroth-order and second-order transition moments are purely imaginary, whereas the first-order transition moments are purely real. This holds both for the electric and for the magnetic contributions.
### Origin dependence of the multipole transition moments {#sec:shift-equation}
While the electric-dipole transition moments are independent of the choice of the origin of the coordinate systems, the higher-order transition moments are origin dependent [@barron-book]. We give derivations of the expressions for the change of the electric-quadrupole and electic-octupole transition moments and of the magnetic-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments upon shifting the origin from $\boldsymbol{O}$ to $\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}$ in the Supplementary Material [@jcp-suppmat]. Here, we only present the final results as required for the following discussions.
For the electric-quadrupole transition moments, one has $${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}) \big| n \big\rangle}
= {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} - a_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} - a_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\beta \big| n \big\rangle},$$ whereas for the electric-octupole transition moments, the corresponding expression becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}) \big| n \big\rangle}
=& \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&- a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} - a_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\gamma}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} - a_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\beta\gamma}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&+ a_\alpha a_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\gamma \big| n \big\rangle} + a_\alpha a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\beta \big| n \big\rangle} + a_\beta a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the electric-quadrupole and octupole moments are only origin independent if all lower-order electric transition moments vanish. The above expressions hold both for the length and for the velocity representation.
For the magnetic-dipole transition moment, a shift of the origin of the coordinate systems results in, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:origin-dep-mdip}
{\big\langle 0 \big| m'_\alpha(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}) \big| n \big\rangle}
&= {\big\langle 0 \big| m'_\alpha(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} - \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} a_\beta \frac{1}{2c} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}^p_{\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&= {\big\langle 0 \big| m'_\alpha(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} + \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \, \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} a_\beta \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar c} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_{\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is the Levi-Civita tensor. Thus, a term depending on the electric-dipole moment in the velocity representation arises. This can be converted into the length representation using the relation from Appendix \[app:comm\]. The origin dependence of the magnetic-dipole transition moments vanishes if the electric-dipole transition moment is zero.
Finally, for the magnetic-quadrupole transition moment the origin dependence is given by [@graham_light_1990; @graham_multipole_2000] $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}'_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}) \big| n \big\rangle}
=& \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}'_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&- \frac{1}{3c} \, \varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta} a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}^p_{\beta\delta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle}
+ \frac{2}{3c} \varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta} \, a_\beta a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}^p_{\delta} \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&+ \frac{2}{3} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \, \Big( \boldsymbol{a} \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \boldsymbol{m}'(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)
- 2 a_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| m'_\alpha(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, the electric-dipole and electric-quadrupole transition moments in the velocity representation can be converted to the length representation to finally arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:origin-dep-mquad}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}'_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a}) \big| n \big\rangle}
=& \ {\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}'_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{{\rm i}}{3} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar c} \, \varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta} a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\beta\delta}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle}
- \frac{2{\rm i}}{3} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar c} \, \varepsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta} \, a_\beta a_\gamma {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_{\delta} \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&+ \frac{2}{3} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \, \Big( \boldsymbol{a} \cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \boldsymbol{m}'(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)
- 2 a_\beta {\big\langle 0 \big| m'_\alpha(\boldsymbol{O}) \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we notice that upon shifting the origin, the magnetic-quadrupole transition moment generates all lower-order contributions, i.e., terms depending on the electric-dipole and electric-quadrupole transition moments as well as on the magnetic-dipole transition moments.
Oscillator Strengths {#sec:osc-strengths}
--------------------
The multipole expansion of the full transition moments $T_{0n}$ can now be inserted into Eq. to obtain an expression for calculating the oscillator strengths, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:osc-strengths-full}
f_{0n}
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \big|T_{0n}^{(0)} + T_{0n}^{(1)} + T_{0n}^{(2)} + \dotsb \big|^2 \nonumber \\
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \big|T_{0n}^{(\mu)} + T_{0n}^{(Q)} + T_{0n}^{(m)} + T_{0n}^{(O)} + T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})} + \dotsb \big|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here, different truncations of the expansion can be employed. In the *dipole approximation*, only the zeroth-order term is retained, and for the oscillator strengths one arrives at the well-known expression in which the oscillator strengths are proportional to the squared absolute value of the electric-dipole transition moments. This approximation is commonly employed in electronic spectroscopy in the ultraviolet and visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here, we are interested in cases where the dipole approximation breaks down, such as K-edge XAS spectroscopy of transition metal complexes. In such situations, higher-order terms in the multipole expansion have to be included. In the currently used approximation, the multipole expansion of the transition moments is truncated after the first order, i.e., the oscillator strengths are approximated as [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] $$\label{eq:osc-neese}
f_{0n} \approx \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \big|T_{0n}^{(0)} + T_{0n}^{(1)} \big|^2.$$ However, it turns out that the resulting expressions depend on the choice of the origin of the coordinate system (see Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] for details).
![Schematic illustration of the different terms arising from the squared absolute value in Eq. . The entries in the table indicate the order of the different terms in the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$. We retain all terms up to second order, as indicated by the red line.[]{data-label="fig:orders"}](figure1)
To obtain an origin-independent formulation, we return to Eq. and realize that the squared absolute value results in a sum of products of multipole transition moments. These products are of different orders in the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$, as is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:orders\]. Hence, it seems logical to retain all terms up to a given order in $\boldsymbol{k}$ in the expression for the oscillator strengths instead of truncating the multipole expansion of the transition moments. By collecting terms that are of the same order, the oscillator strengths can be expressed as $$f_{0n} = f_{0n}^{(0)} + f_{0n}^{(1)} + f_{0n}^{(2)} + \dotsb$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(0)} &= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \big|T_{0n}^{(0)}\big|^2 \\
f_{0n}^{(1)} &= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, 2\text{Re}\big(T_{0n}^{(0),*} \, T_{0n}^{(1)}\big) = 0\\
f_{0n}^{(2)} &= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \Big[ \big|T_{0n}^{(1)}\big|^2 + 2\text{Re}\big( T_{0n}^{(0),*} \, T_{0n}^{(2)} \big) \Big],\end{aligned}$$ where the star denotes complex conjugation. Because $T_{0n}^{(0)}$ is purely imaginary and $T_{0n}^{(1)}$ is real, their product is also purely imaginary and the first-order contribution $f_{0n}^{(1)}$ vanishes. In the following, we will retain all terms up to second order and it turns out that the resulting approximation for the oscillator strengths is independent of the choice of the origin.
### Origin independence of oscillator strengths {#sec:osc-origin-indep}
Starting from the definitions of $T_{0n}^{(0)}$, $T_{0n}^{(1)}$, and $T_{0n}^{(2)}$ in Eqs. , , and , respectively, one can easily see that their origin dependence is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a}) &= T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O}), \\
T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
&= T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O}) + {\rm i} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a}) \, T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O}), \\
T_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
&= T_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O}) + {\rm i} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a}) \, T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O})
- \frac{1}{2} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a})^2 \, T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O}). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the zeroth-order contribution to the oscillator strengths $f_{0n}^{(0)}$, i.e., the expression obtained in the dipole approximation, is obviously origin independent. For the second-order contribution, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
=& \ \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \bigg[ \big|T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})\big|^2
+ 2\text{Re}\Big( T_{0n}^{(0),*}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, T_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a}) \Big) \bigg]\nonumber \\
=& \ \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \bigg[ \big|T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O})\big|^2
+ 2\text{Re}\Big({\rm i} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a}) T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O}) T_{0n}^{(1),*}(\boldsymbol{O})\Big)
+ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a})^2 \, \big|T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O})\big|^2
\nonumber \\
&\hspace{1.5cm}+ \text{Re} \Big( T_{0n}^{(0),*}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, \big[2T_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O})
+ 2{\rm i} (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a}) \, T_{0n}^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{O})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{a})^2 \, T_{0n}^{(0)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big] \Big) \bigg]
\nonumber \\
=& \ f_{0n}^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \end{aligned}$$ and find that this contribution is indeed independent of the choice of the origin. In fact, it can be shown that for each order, the higher-order contributions to the oscillator strengths are origin independent if all terms that are of the same order in the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$ are included. This is demonstrated in Appendix \[app:origin-higher-order\].
### Dipole and quadrupole oscillator strengths
After having established an origin-independent definition of the different approximations to the oscillator strengths, we will now turn to deriving explicit expressions. Considering only the zeroth-order contribution corresponds to the dipole approximation, in which the *dipole oscillator strengths* are given by $$f_{0n} \approx f_{0n}^{(0)} = f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}
= \frac{2m_e}{e^2\hbar^2} \, E_{0n} \, \big| {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}} \big| n \big\rangle} \big|^2
= \frac{2m_e}{e^2\hbar^2} \, E_{0n} \, \Big( \mathcal{E}_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)^2.$$
Since the first-order contributions vanish, the next step to go beyond the dipole approximation is to include all second-order contributions. Thus, the oscillator strengths can be approximated as the sum of the dipole (zeroth-order) oscillator strengths and the *quadrupole (second-order) oscillator strengths*, $$\label{eq:osc-full}
f_{0n} \approx f_{0n}^{(0)} + f_{0n}^{(2)} = \big|T_{0n}^{(0)}\big|^2 + \big|T_{0n}^{(1)}\big|^2 + 2\text{Re}\big(T_{0n}^{(0),*}T_{0n}^{(2)}\big).$$ We will refer to this approximation as the *quadrupole approximation*. For the quadrupole oscillator strengths, we can insert the individual multipole transition moments, and obtain five different terms, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(2)} &= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}}\, \Big[ \big|T_{0n}^{(Q)}\big|^2 + \big|T_{0n}^{(m)}\big|^2
+ 2 \text{Re}\big( T_{0n}^{(Q),*} T_{0n}^{(m)} \big)
+ 2 \text{Re}\big( T_{0n}^{(\mu),*} T_{0n}^{(O)} \big) + 2 \text{Re}\big( T_{0n}^{(\mu),*} T_{0n}^{(\mathcal{M})} \big) \Big] \nonumber \\
&= f_{0n}^{(Q^2)} + f_{0n}^{(m^2)} + f_{0n}^{(Qm)} + f_{0n}^{(\mu O )} + f_{0n}^{(\mu \mathcal{M})}.\end{aligned}$$ First, there are three contributions arising from products of first-order transition moments, an electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(Q^2)} = \frac{m_e}{2 e^2\hbar^2} E_{0n} \, \Big( k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$ a magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(m^2)} = \frac{2m_ec^2 }{e^2E_{0n}} \, \Big| (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big|^2
= \frac{2m_ec^2 }{e^2E_{0n}} \, \Big( (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$ and a cross-term, the electric-quadrupole–magnetic-dipole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(Qm)} &= -\frac{2m_ec}{e^2 \hbar} \, \Big( k_\alpha \mathcal{E}_\beta \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)
\Big( (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ These three contributions have been considered previously in the calculation of the quadrupole oscillator strengths in Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008]. In addition, two additional contributions have to be included in order to collect all terms that are of second order and to arrive at an origin-independent approximation. These are the electric-dipole–electric-octupole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(\mu O)} &= - \frac{2m_e}{3 \hbar^2 e^2} E_{0n} \, \Big(\mathcal{E}_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)
\Big(k_\alpha k_\beta \mathcal{E}_\gamma \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ and the electric-dipole–magnetic-quadrupole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(\mu \mathcal{M})} &= \frac{2m_ec}{e^2\hbar} \, \Big(\mathcal{E}_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)
\Big( (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})_\alpha \, k_\beta \ \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
Now we choose the wave vector as $\boldsymbol{k}=k\boldsymbol{e}_x$ along the $x$-axis and the polarization vector as ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}= \boldsymbol{e}_y$ along the $y$-axis. Consequently, $(\boldsymbol{e}_x \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})$ becomes the unit vector $\boldsymbol{e}_z$ along the $z$-axis. This is no loss of generality, as the molecule can still have an arbitrary orientation in the coordinate system. Using $$k = \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar c},$$ the different contributions to the oscillator strengths become $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2\hbar^2} \, E_{0n} \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_y \big| n \big\rangle}^2
\displaybreak[3] \\[1ex]
f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}
&= \frac{m_e}{2 e^2\hbar^4 c^2} E_{0n}^3 \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{xy} \big| n \big\rangle}^2
\displaybreak[3] \\[1ex]
f_{0n}^{(m^2)}
&= \frac{2m_e }{e^2\hbar^2} E_{0n} \, \Big[ \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_z \big| n \big\rangle} \Big]^2
\displaybreak[3] \\[1ex]
f_{0n}^{(Qm)}
&= - \frac{2m_e}{e^2 \hbar^3 c} E_{0n}^2 \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{xy} \big| n \big\rangle} \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_z \big| n \big\rangle}
\displaybreak[3] \\[1ex]
f_{0n}^{(\mu O)}
&= - \frac{2m_e}{3 e^2 \hbar^4c^2} E_{0n}^3 \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_y \big| n \big\rangle} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{xxy} \big| n \big\rangle}
\displaybreak[3] \\[1ex]
f_{0n}^{(\mu \mathcal{M})}
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2\hbar^3 c} E_{0n}^2\, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_y \big| n \big\rangle} \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}_{zx} \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ These oscillator strengths refer to an experimental setup in which the incident radiation has a well-defined polarization and in which the molecules have a fixed orientation with respect to the radiation. Using the expressions for the origin dependence of the different multipole transition moments given in Section \[sec:shift-equation\], it can be verified that the total second-order oscillator strengths calculated using the above equations are origin-independent (see Supplementary Material [@jcp-suppmat]).
Isotropic Averaging {#sec:average}
-------------------
Often, the molecules are not oriented with respect to the incident radiation in experiments, but the measurement is performed in solution where the molecules can freely rotate. Thus, to arrive at final expressions for the oscillator strengths in such experiments, we have to perform an averaging over all possible orientations of the molecule.
The expressions for performing this averaging are derived, for instance, in Ref. [@barron-book] (see in particular chapter 4.2). For the isotropic averages of tensors with two, three, and four Cartesian indices, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{xx} \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \sum_{\alpha\beta} \langle i_\alpha i_\beta \rangle_\text{iso} \, T_{\alpha\beta} \\
\langle T_{xyz} \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \langle i_\alpha j_\beta k_\gamma \rangle_\text{iso} \, T_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \\
\langle T_{xxyy} \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \langle i_\alpha i_\beta j_\gamma j_\delta \rangle_\text{iso} \, T_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta},\end{aligned}$$ where the isotropic averages of the Cartesian unit vector $\boldsymbol{i}=\boldsymbol{e}_x$, $\boldsymbol{j}=\boldsymbol{e}_y$, and $\boldsymbol{k}=\boldsymbol{e}_z$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle i_\alpha i_\beta \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \frac{1}{3}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,, \\
\langle i_\alpha j_\beta k_\gamma \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \frac{1}{6}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\,, \\
\langle i_\alpha i_\beta j_\gamma j_\delta \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \frac{1}{30}\left(4\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\gamma\delta}
-\delta_{\alpha\gamma}\delta_{\beta\delta}-\delta_{\alpha\delta}\delta_{\beta\gamma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For all other tensor components, such as, e.g., $ \langle T_{xy} \rangle_\text{iso}$ or $\langle T_{xxy} \rangle_\text{iso}$, the isotropic averages are zero.
Using these expressions, we obtain for the isotropically averaged electric-dipole–electric-dipole contribution to the oscillator strengths, $$\label{eq:osc-avg-dipole}
\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)} \rangle_\text{iso}
= \frac{2m_e}{3e^2\hbar^2} \, E_{0n} \, \sum_\alpha {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}^2
= \frac{2m_e}{3e^2\hbar^2} \, E_{0n} \, {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}} \big| n \big\rangle} ^2.$$
Similarly, for the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole contribution, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_{0n}^{(Q^2)} \rangle_\text{iso} &= \frac{m_e}{60 e^2\hbar^4 c^2} E_{0n}^3 \,
\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \big( 4 \delta_{\alpha\gamma}\delta_{\beta\delta}
- \delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\gamma\delta} - \delta_{\alpha\delta}\delta_{\beta\gamma} \big)
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\gamma\delta} \big| n \big\rangle} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{m_e}{20 e^2\hbar^4 c^2} E_{0n}^3 \, \bigg[ \sum_{\alpha\beta} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}^2
- \frac{1}{3} \Big( \sum_{\alpha} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)^2 \bigg]. \end{aligned}$$ We note that this is identical to the expression in Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008], where a traceless definition of the quadrupole moment is used. For the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contribution, the isotropic average is, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_{0n}^{(m^2)} \rangle_\text{iso}
= \frac{2m_e }{3e^2\hbar^2} E_{0n} \, \sum_\alpha \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}^2
= \frac{2m_e }{3e^2\hbar^2} E_{0n} \, \Big( \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\boldsymbol{m}} \big| n \big\rangle} \Big)^2.\end{aligned}$$ The isotropic average of the electric-quadrupole–magnetic-dipole contribution to the oscillator strengths, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_{0n}^{(Qm)} \rangle_\text{iso}
&= -\frac{m_e}{3e^2 \hbar^3 c} E_{0n}^2 \, \sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{m}_\gamma \big| n \big\rangle} = 0
$$ turns out to be zero because ${\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} = {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\beta\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}$. Finally, for the electric-dipole–electric-octupole contribution to the oscillator strengths, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu O)} \rangle_\text{iso} &= - \frac{m_e}{45 e^2 \hbar^4c^2} E_{0n}^3 \,
\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \big( 4 \delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\gamma\delta}
- \delta_{\alpha\gamma}\delta_{\beta\delta} - \delta_{\alpha\delta}\delta_{\beta\gamma} \big) {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\delta \big| n \big\rangle} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}
\nonumber \\
&= - \frac{2m_e}{45 e^2 \hbar^4c^2} E_{0n}^3 \, \sum_{\alpha\beta} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\beta \big| n \big\rangle} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle}, \end{aligned}$$ where we used the symmetry of the octupole moments with respect to the exchange of indices, and for the electric-dipole–magnetic-quadrupole contribution, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:osc-avg-mquad}
\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu \mathcal{M})} \rangle_\text{iso}
&= \frac{m_e}{3 e^2\hbar^3 c} E_{0n}^2\,
\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\beta \big| n \big\rangle} \, \text{Im}{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mathcal{M}}_{\gamma\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}.
$$ Note again that the magnetic-quadrupole transition moments are in general not symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to the interchange of the two Cartesian indices, i.e., ${\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} \ne \pm {\big\langle 0 \big| \mathcal{M}_{\beta\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}$.
In summary, there are five contributions to the isotropically averaged oscillator strengths up to second order. Also at this stage it can be verified that the resulting total oscillator strengths are independent of the choice of the origin, which is shown in the Supplementary Material [@jcp-suppmat]. Note that the individual contributions are still origin dependent. Therefore, a separation into electric and magnetic contributions will also depend on the choice of the origin.
Computational Methodology and Implementation {#sec:compdet}
============================================
The theory presented here for the origin-independent calculation of quadrupole oscillator strengths is applicable in combination with any quantum-chemical method that is capable of providing excited states, either via a time-independent formulation or with response theory (for a review, see, e.g., Ref. [@gomes_quantum-chemical_2012]). Here, we select TD-DFT which has become an important tool in computational X-ray spectroscopy in the past years [@besley_time-dependent_2009; @besley_time-dependent_2010; @roemelt_manganese_2012; @neese_prediction_2009].
We have implemented the calculation of the second-order oscillator strengths into the TD-DFT module [@adf-tddft; @autschbach_calculating_2002; @autschbach_chiroptical_2002] of the Amsterdam density functional (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adf</span>) program package [@adf; @chem-with-adf]. Within TD-DFT, the required electric and magnetic transition moments are calculated as products of the solution vectors $(\boldsymbol{X}+\boldsymbol{Y})$ and $(\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{Y})$, respectively, with the corresponding matrix elements in the basis of Kohn-Sham molecular orbitals (for details, see, e.g., Refs. [@tddft-3; @furche_density_2001; @autschbach_calculating_2002]). The required electric-octupole and magnetic-quadrupole integrals are provided by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adf</span>’s <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AOResponse</span> module [@krykunov_calculation_2005; @krykunov_calculation_2007].
So far, we have only shown that the theory presented here is origin-independent for the exact eigenfunctions of $\hat{H}_0$. However, an additional difficulty arises in approximate calculations. For deriving the equations for the origin-dependence of the magnetic-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments \[Eqs. and \], we have converted the occurring electric-dipole and electric-quadrupole transition moments from the velocity to the length representation. However, this is only exact in the case of a complete, infinite basis set. Thus, in calculations using a finite basis set, the magnetic-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments do not show the exact origin dependence of Eqs. and .
Therefore, we calculate the electric-dipole, electric-quadrupole, and electric-octupole transition moments in the velocity representation for the second-order contributions to the oscillator strengths (see also Refs [@escf-4; @autschbach_calculating_2002] for the calculation of transition moments in the velocity representation with TD-DFT). It can be easily verified that this results in second-order oscillator strengths that are origin-independent also in finite basis-set calculations. Note that the electric multipole transition moments in the length and in the velocity representation are only equal in the basis set limit. However, the calculation of higher-order transition moments requires sufficiently large basis sets anyway, so that the values in the length and in the velocity representation are usually in very good agreement.
For the calculation of X-ray absorption spectra in the following, we have employed the scheme of Stener *et al.*[@stener_time_2003] to allow only excitations from the relevant core orbital (see also Refs. [@ray_description_2007; @tsuchimochi_application_2008; @schmidt_assignment_2010; @kovyrshin_state-selective_2010; @liang_energy-specific_2011; @lopata_linear-response_2012] for related schemes). For the Cl K-edge in TiCl$_4$, only excitations from the $1s$ orbital of one of the chlorine atoms were considered, while a frozen core was used for the other three chlorine atoms in order to obtain a localized core hole [@ray_description_2007]. For the Fe K-edge in vinylferrocene, only excitations from the iron $1s$ orbital were included. All molecular structures were optimized using the BP86 exchange–correlation functional [@B88; @Perdew86] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adf</span>’s TZP basis set. The TD-DFT calculations were performed using the BP86 functional and the TZ2P basis set and employed a fine numerical integration grid (integration accuracy 8). All calculations were performed with the scalar-relativistic zeroth-order regular approximation (ZORA) [@zora-1; @zora-2; @zora-3; @zora-4].
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
To illustrate the origin-independent calculation of quadrupole intensities in X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) using the theory derived above and to verify our implementation, we consider two test cases. As the first example, we use titaniumtetrachloride TiCl$_4$ (see Fig. \[fig:Mol\]a for the molecular structure) and calculate the Cl K-edge XAS spectrum. This example was considered earlier in Refs. [@stener_time_2003; @debeer_george_metal_2005; @debeer_george_time-dependent_2008]. For such ligand K-edge spectra, the prepeak transitions are dipole-allowed, and the second-order contribution to the oscillator strength should be small compared to the dipole contribution.
For the lowest-energy Cl K-edge excitation, the different contributions to the isotropically averaged oscillator strengths are calculated using Eqs –, and are listed in Table \[tab:Cl\] for different choices of the origin. In addition, we included the oscillator strengths calculated using the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008], i.e., considering only the electric-dipole–electric-dipole, electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole, and the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contributions \[cf. Eq. \] as well as the full second-order oscillator strengths $f_{0n}^{(0)}+ f_{0n}^{(2)}$ \[cf. Eq. \].
The most natural choice for the origin is the chlorine atom from which the $1s$-electron is excited. In this case, the electric-dipole–electric-dipole contribution $f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}$ to the oscillator strength is several orders of magnitude larger than all the second-order contributions, and the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] gives results that are identical to the full second-order oscillator strengths. In this example, the scheme suggested in Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] to choose the origin such that the sum of the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contributions $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$ is minimized leads to an almost identical choice of the origin. Thus, this scheme is appropriate here.
The situation changes if the origin is not placed at the chlorine atom. To demonstrate this, we moved the origin to the titanium atom. Now, the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contributions $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$ increase significantly and become several times larger than the dipole oscillator strength $f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}$. As a consequence, within the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] the oscillator strength increases by more than a factor of two when shifting the origin from the chlorine to the titanium atom. However, also the magnitudes of electric-dipole–electric-octupole and the electric-dipole–magnetic-quadrupole contributions, $f_{0n}^{(\mu O)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(\mu\mathcal{M})}$, increase and since these have a negative sign, they exactly cancel the increase of $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$. Thus, the full second-order oscillator strength remains unchanged.
In addition, we also shifted the origin away from the molecule by larger amounts. In particular, we used shifts of 10 Å, 50 Å, and 100 [Å]{} along the negative $x$-direction. Here, a similar observation can be made. The electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole, $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$, and the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole, $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$, contributions increase substantially, and for a shift of 100 Å, the oscillator strength within the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] is four orders of magnitude larger than for the origin at the chlorine atom. On the other hand, when including the electric-dipole–electric-octupole and the electric-dipole–magnetic-quadrupole contributions, the full second-order oscillator strengths are unchanged, even though the individual contributions differ.
[cggggg]{} origin & & & & &\
& & & & &\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 4.57 10\^[-4]{} & 4.57 10\^[-4]{} & 4.58 10\^[-4]{} & 4.57 10\^[-4]{} & 4.58 10\^[-4]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(Q^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 6.04 10\^[-10]{} & 7.24 10\^[-4]{} & 1.09 10\^[-2]{} & 3.65 10\^[-1]{} & 1.35\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(m^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 6.61 10\^[-13]{} & 1.21 10\^[-3]{} & 1.80 10\^[-2]{} & 3.58 10\^[-1]{} & 2.23\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu O)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & -8.94 10\^[-7]{} & -3.23 10\^[-4]{} & -4.89 10\^[-3]{} & -2.46 10\^[-1]{} & -6.03 10\^[-1]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu\mathcal{M})} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & -9.88 10\^[-7]{} & -1.61 10\^[-3]{} & -2.40 10\^[-2]{} & -4.77 10\^[-1]{} & -2.97\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}
+f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}
+f_{0n}^{(m^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 4.57 10\^[-4]{} & 2.39 10\^[-3]{} & 2.94 10\^[-2]{} & 7.24 10\^[-1]{} & 3.58\
Full $\langle f_{0n}^{(0)} + f_{0n}^{(2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 4.55 10\^[-4]{} & 4.55 10\^[-4]{} & 4.55 10\^[-4]{} & 4.55 10\^[-4]{} & 4.55 10\^[-4]{}\
As a second example, we consider vinylferrocene, which is a ferrocene molecule bearing a vinyl substituent at one of the cyclopentadienyl rings (see Fig. \[fig:Mol\]b for the molecular structure). Here, we consider the Fe K-edge XAS spectrum and specifically the lowest-energy (prepeak) excitation, which is a $1s\rightarrow3d$ transition. In unsubstituted ferrocene, this prepeak excitation is dipole-forbidden for symmetry reasons, and its oscillator strength is solely due to the second-order contributions. In this case, the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole and the magnetic-dipole-magnetic-dipole contributions become origin independent (see Section \[sec:shift-equation\]), whereas the remaining second-order contributions $f_{0n}^{(\mu O)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(\mu\mathcal{M})}$ vanish. However, in vinylferrocene this symmetry is lost and the lowest-energy transition gains a small dipole oscillator strength (for a detailed discussion, see Ref. [@atkins_probing_2012]).
The oscillator strengths and their contributions calculated for the lowest-energy Fe K-edge excitation using different choices of the origin are shown in Table \[tab:Fe\]. First, the most natural choice for the origin is the iron atom. In this case, the electric-dipole–electric-dipole and the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole contributions to the oscillator strength are comparable in size. The remaining contributions are orders of magnitude smaller. Therefore, the oscillator strength calculated with the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] is identical to the full second-order oscillator strength.
To investigate the dependence on the origin, we shifted the origin far away from the molecule using a shift of 100 [Å]{} in the negative $x$-direction, a shift of 100 [Å]{} in the negative $z$-direction, and a shift of 50 [Å]{} in both the negative $x$-direction and the negative $z$-direction. In all three cases, the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole and the magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contributions, $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$, increase by several orders of magnitude compared to the calculation in which the origin is placed at the iron atom. As a result, the oscillator strengths calculated with the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] also increase by up to five orders of magnitude. However, at the same time the two remaining second-order contributions, i.e., the electric-dipole–electric-octupole contribution $f_{0n}^{(\mu O)}$ and the electric-dipole–magnetic-quadrupole contribution $f_{0n}^{(\mu\mathcal{M})}$, assume large negative values and exactly cancel the increase of $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$ such that the total second-order oscillator strength remains origin independent.
Finally, we used the scheme suggested in Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] for fixing the origin of the coordinate system, i.e., we chose the origin such that the sum of $f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}$ and $f_{0n}^{(m^2)}$ is minimized. In the situation considered here, where the electric-dipole–electric-dipole and the electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole contributions to the oscillator strengths are of similar size, this scheme moves the origin away from the iron atom. The resulting shift is given in the caption of the last column of Table \[tab:Fe\]. As a consequence, the oscillator strength within the approximation of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] decreases by ca. 30 %. Again, this decrease is compensated if the remaining second-order contributions are included. Thus, the scheme of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] can lead to a spurious decrease of the oscillator strength in some cases. Previously, we found that this problem is even more severe in cases where the electric-dipole–electric-dipole contribution to the oscillator strength is significantly smaller than the quadrupole oscillator strength [@atkins_probing_2012]. However, if all second-order terms are included consistently the quadrupole oscillator strengths become origin-independent and no special placement of the origin is necessary.
[cggggg]{} origin & & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 2.55 10\^[-6]{} & 2.55 10\^[-6]{} & 2.55 10\^[-6]{} & 2.55 10\^[-6]{} & 2.55 10\^[-6]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(Q^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 3.09 10\^[-6]{} & 8.63 10\^[-2]{} & 7.30 10\^[-2]{} & 4.47 10\^[-2]{} & 1.28 10\^[-6]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(m^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 1.14 10\^[-12]{} & 2.29 10\^[-2]{} & 9.04 10\^[-2]{} & 5.87 10\^[-3]{} & 1.56 10\^[-7]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu O)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & -1.71 10\^[-8]{} & -7.83 10\^[-2]{} & -4.24 10\^[-2]{} & -4.23 10\^[-2]{} & 6.33 10\^[-7 ]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu\mathcal{M})} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & -1.52 10\^[-8]{} & -3.09 10\^[-2]{} & -1.21 10\^[-1]{} & -8.19 10\^[-3]{} & 9.83 10\^[-7]{}\
$\langle f_{0n}^{(\mu^2)}
+f_{0n}^{(Q^2)}
+f_{0n}^{(m^2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 5.64 10\^[-6]{} & 1.0910\^[-1]{} &1.63 10\^[-1]{} & 5.05 10\^[-2]{} & 3.99 10\^[-6]{}\
Full $\langle f_{0n}^{(0)}+ f_{0n}^{(2)} \rangle_{\text{iso}}$ & 5.61 10\^[-6]{} & 5.61 10\^[-6]{} & 5.61 10\^[-6]{} & 5.61 10\^[-6]{} & 5.61 10\^[-6]{}\
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have derived origin-independent expressions for calculating XAS intensities beyond the dipole approximation. In particular, we have shown that for a consistent formulation, it is necessary to retain all contributions to the oscillator strengths that are of the same order in the wave vector. This differs from the previous approach [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008], in which the multipole expansion was truncated for the transition moments. Here, two additional contributions to the second-order (quadrupole) oscillator strengths arise, which are cross-terms depending on products of electric-dipole and electric-octupole transition moments and of electric-dipole and magnetic-quadrupole transition moments, respectively.
Thus, the origin dependence of the sum of electric-quadrupole–electric-quadrupole and magnetic-dipole–magnetic-dipole contributions pointed out earlier [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] is not a fundamental limitation of the use of the multipole expansion. In fact, we could show that to arbitrary order in the wave vector, origin-independent expressions for the oscillator strengths are obtained if all terms of the same order are included consistently. Consequently, within the multipole expansion it should always be possible to derive origin-independent expressions for physical observables.
An origin-independent formalism for calculating quadrupole intensities is particularly important for studying ligand and metal K-edge XAS spectra of transition metal complexes. To this end, we have implemented our theory for calculating XAS spectra with TD-DFT, and applied it to two simple test cases. Here, we want to stress that our results do not invalidate any previous results obtained with the formalism of Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008]. On the contrary, our test calculations showed that the two additional contributions are negligible as long as the origin of the coordinate system is placed at the atom where the core excitation occurs. However, with our origin-independent theory, it is no longer necessary to make sure that the origin is chosen appropriately. This is particularly important for cases where the quadrupole intensity is larger than or comparable to the dipole contribution, where the scheme proposed in Ref. [@debeer_george_time-dependent_2008] might place the origin far away from the relevant core orbital. Moreover, it makes it possible to treat excitations from core orbitals that are delocalized over several atoms (e.g., for calculating ligand K-edge spectra or metal K-edge spectra in polynuclear transition metal complexes) without the need to perform a transformation to localized core orbitals.
Of course, the theory presented here is not limited to TD-DFT, but can be employed for the calculation of quadrupole intensities in combination with any quantum-chemical method capable of providing the required transition moments. Moreover, it is not restricted to XAS spectroscopy, but is also applicable for calculating XES intensities, for instance using the approach of Ref. [@lee_probing_2010]. Finally, we note that it becomes necessary to go beyond the dipole approximation, not only for short wavelengths, such as those employed in hard X-ray spectroscopy, but also for extended molecular systems. For describing the optical response of an extended nanostructure in the visible spectrum, it becomes necessary to go beyond the dipole approximation as well. Thus, the origin-independent formalism derived here will also be essential for predicting optical properties of nanostructured materials, such as, for instance, metamaterials [@merlin_metamaterials_2009].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Prof. Wim Klopper (KIT) for inspiring this work and for helpful discussions. Funding from the DFG-Center for Functional Nanostructures is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Length and velocity representation {#app:comm}
==================================
To show how the electric-multipole moments in the velocity representation can be converted to those in the conventional length representation, we use the following commutators of (products of) the Cartesian components of the position operator with the molecular Hamiltonian given in Eq. , $$\begin{aligned}
[r_{i,\alpha},\hat{H}_0] &= \frac{\text{i}\hbar}{m} \, \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} \,,\label{eq:comm1} \\[1ex]
[r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta},\hat{H}_0] &= \frac{\text{i}\hbar}{m} (\hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} + r_{i,\alpha}\hat{p}_{i,\beta})\,, \label{eq:comm2} \\[1ex]
[r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma}, \hat{H}_0]
&= \frac{\text{i}\hbar}{m} (\hat{p}_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma} + r_{i,\alpha} \hat{p}_{i,\beta} r_{i,\gamma}
+ r_{i,\alpha} r_{i,\beta} \hat{p}_{i,\gamma})\,. \label{eq:comm3}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we employ that the matrix elements of the commutator of an operator $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{H}_0$ are given by $${\big\langle 0 \big| [\hat{A},\hat{H}_0] \big| n \big\rangle}
= {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{A}\hat{H}_0 - \hat{H}_0\hat{A} \big| n \big\rangle}
= E_n {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{A} \big| n \big\rangle} - E_0 {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{A} \big| n \big\rangle} = E_{0n} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{A} \big| n \big\rangle}$$ Here, it is important to point out that this relation is only valid for the exact eigenfunctions of $\hat{H}_0$ and that it only holds approximately for approximate wavefunctions.
Now, we can use these results to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}
= \frac{m}{\text{i}\hbar} {\big\langle 0 \big| [r_{i,\alpha},\hat{H}_0] \big| n \big\rangle}
= - \text{i} E_{0n} \frac{m}{\hbar} {\big\langle 0 \big| r_{i,\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ and get for the electric-dipole transition moments $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha^p \big| n \big\rangle}
= \sum_i \frac{e}{m} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{p}_{i,\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}
= - \text{i} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} e \sum_i {\big\langle 0 \big| r_{i,\alpha} \big| n \big\rangle}
= - \text{i} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{\mu}_\alpha \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we find for the electric-quadrupole transition moments $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta}^p \big| n \big\rangle}
= - \text{i} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{Q}_{\alpha\beta} \big| n \big\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ and for the electric-octupole transition moments $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}^p \big| n \big\rangle}
= - \text{i} \frac{E_{0n}}{\hbar} {\big\langle 0 \big| \hat{O}_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \big| n \big\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$
Antisymmetric second-order term {#app:antisymm-2nd-order}
===============================
First, the matrix elements in the antisymmetric term in Eq. , can be split as $$\begin{aligned}
&2(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \nonumber \\
=&\ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \nonumber \\
&+ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}). \end{aligned}$$ For both terms, we can employ that both $(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)$ and $(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i \cdot {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})$ commute because $\boldsymbol{k}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}$ are orthogonal, and subsequently use the vector identity of Eq. . In the same fashion as for the antisymmetric first-order contribution, we then obtain for the first term, $$\begin{aligned}
&(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \big[ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \big]
\nonumber \\
&\qquad= (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)
= (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \,(\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i),\end{aligned}$$ and for the second term, we get, $$\begin{aligned}
&(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
\nonumber \\
&\qquad = (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)
\nonumber \\
&\qquad = \big[(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})\big](\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)
\nonumber \\
&\qquad = (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i).\end{aligned}$$ Altogether, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&2(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}})
- (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i)(\boldsymbol{r}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \nonumber \\
=&\ (\boldsymbol{k} \times {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}}) \cdot \big[ (\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \cdot (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)
+ (\boldsymbol{r}_i \times \hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_i)(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_i) \big].\end{aligned}$$
Origin independence in arbitrary order {#app:origin-higher-order}
======================================
In Section \[sec:osc-origin-indep\], we showed explicitly that the second-order oscillator strengths are independent of the choice of the origin. Here, we prove that this still holds for an arbitrary order. From the definition of the full transition moments \[Eq. \], we find for its change upon shifting the origin from $\boldsymbol{O}$ to $\boldsymbol{O}
+\boldsymbol{a}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a})
= \exp({\rm i}\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a}) T(\boldsymbol{O})
= \Big( \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{{\rm i}^n}{n!} (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^n \Big) \Big( \sum_{n=0}^\infty T^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Big),\end{aligned}$$ and can identify the terms that are of order $m$ in the wave vector, $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O}+\boldsymbol{a})
= \sum_{n=0}^m \frac{{\rm i}^n}{n!} (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^n \ T^{(m-n)}(\boldsymbol{O}).\end{aligned}$$ For the oscillator strengths, the terms that are of order $m$ in the wave vector are, $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O}) = \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \sum_{n=0}^m T^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \big[T^{(m-n)}(\boldsymbol{O})\big]^*,\end{aligned}$$ and when the origin of the coordinate system is shifted, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \,
\sum_{n=0}^m T^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a}) \big[T^{(m-n)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})\big]^* \nonumber \\
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \,
\sum_{n=0}^m \Bigg[ \sum_{p=0}^n \frac{{\rm i}^p}{p!}(\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^p \ T^{(n-p)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Bigg]
\Bigg[\sum_{q=0}^{m-n} \frac{(-{\rm i})^q}{q!} (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^q \ \big[T^{(m-n-q)}(\boldsymbol{O})
\Big]^*\Bigg] \nonumber \\
&= \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \,
\sum_{n=0}^m \ \sum_{p=0}^n\sum_{q=0}^{m-n} \ (-1)^q \frac{{\rm i}^{p+q}}{p!q!} \
(\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^{p+q} \ T^{(n-p)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, \big[T^{(m-n-q)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Big]^*.\end{aligned}$$ Now we eliminate $p$ and $q$ by introducing the new indices $r=p+q$ and $s=n-p$ to arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum1}
f^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
=& \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \sum_{n=0}^m \ \sum_{s=0}^n\sum_{r=n-s}^{m-s} \ \frac{(-1)^{r-n+s} \, {\rm i}^r}{(n-s)!(r-n+s)!} \
(\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^{r} \ T^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, \big[T^{(m-r-s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Big]^* \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ The three sums can be rewritten and put in a different order, which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O} + \boldsymbol{a})
=& \ \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \sum_{r=0}^m (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^{r} \
\sum_{s=0}^{m-r} T^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, \big[T^{(m-r-s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Big]^* \
\sum_{n=s}^{s+r} \frac{(-1)^{r-n+s} \ {\rm i}^r}{(n-s)!(r-n+s)!}
\nonumber \\
=& \ f^{(m)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{2m_e}{e^2E_{0n}} \, \sum_{r=1}^m (\boldsymbol{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^{r} \
\sum_{s=0}^{m-r} T^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \, \big[T^{(m-r-s)}(\boldsymbol{O}) \Big]^* \
\sum_{t=0}^{r} \frac{(-1)^{r-t} \ {\rm i}^r}{t!(r-t)!} \end{aligned}$$ That the summation here is equivalent to the one in Eq. can be seen easily by considering the six inequalities corresponding to the sums in the two cases and showing that these are equivalent. In the second line above, we have taken the term $m=0$ out for the first sum and introduced the new index $t=n-s$.
Finally, we can use the binomial theorem to realize that, $$0 = ({\rm i} - {\rm i})^r = \sum_{t=0}^r \frac{r!}{t!(r-t)!} \, {\rm i}^{t} (-{\rm i})^{r-t}
= r! \sum_{t=0}^r \frac{(-1)^{r-t} \ {\rm i}^r }{t!(r-t)!},$$ that is, the last term in the above equation is zero and, thus, we have shown that in any order $k$, the oscillator strengths are origin-independent.
[10]{}
D. C. Koningsberger and R. Prins, editors, , Wiley, New York, 1988.
J. Stöhr, , Springer, Berlin, 1992.
J. Singh, C. Lamberti, and J. A. v. Bokhoven, Chem. Soc. Rev. [**39**]{}, 4754 (2010).
Q. X. Guo et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. [**98**]{}, 181901 (2011).
R. Schuber, P. R. Ganz, F. Wilhelm, A. Rogalev, and D. M. Schaadt, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 155206 (2011).
S. Gross and M. Bauer, Adv. Funct. Mater. [**20**]{}, 40264047 (2010).
M. Bauer and C. Gastl, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**12**]{}, 5575 (2010).
E. I. Solomon, R. K. Szilagyi, S. DeBeer George, and L. Basumallick, Chem. Rev. [**104**]{}, 419 (2004).
C. J. Pollock and S. DeBeer, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**133**]{}, 5594 (2011).
J. Singh, R. C. Nelson, B. C. Vicente, S. L. Scott, and J. A. v. Bokhoven, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**12**]{}, 5668 (2010).
E. Kleymenov, J. Sa, J. Abu-Dahrieh, D. Rooney, J. A. v. Bokhoven, E. Troussard, J. Szlachetko, O. V. Safonova, and M. Nachtegaal, Catal. Sci. Technol. [**2**]{}, 373 (2012).
K. Ray, T. Petrenko, K. Wieghardt, and F. Neese, Dalton Trans. [**2007**]{}, 1552 (2007).
J. F. Berry, S. D. George, and F. Neese, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**10**]{}, 4361 (2008).
P. Chandrasekaran, S. C. E. Stieber, T. J. Collins, J. Lawrence Que, F. Neese, and S. DeBeer, Dalton Trans. [**40**]{}, 11070 (2011).
N. Sun, L. V. Liu, A. Dey, G. Villar-Acevedo, J. A. Kovacs, M. Y. Darensbourg, K. O. Hodgson, B. Hedman, and E. I. Solomon, Inorg. Chem. [**50**]{}, 427 (2011).
K. M. Lancaster, M. Roemelt, P. Ettenhuber, Y. Hu, M. W. Ribbe, F. Neese, U. Bergmann, and S. DeBeer, Science [**334**]{}, 974 (2011).
M. A. Beckwith, M. Roemelt, M.-N. Collomb, C. DuBoc, T.-C. Weng, U. Bergmann, P. Glatzel, F. Neese, and S. DeBeer, Inorg. Chem. [**50**]{}, 8397 (2011).
M. Roemelt, M. A. Beckwith, C. Duboc, M.-N. Collomb, F. Neese, and S. DeBeer, Inorg. Chem. [**51**]{}, 680 (2012).
V. Carravetta, H. [Å]{}gren, and V. Barone, omputational [X]{}-[R]{}ay [S]{}pectroscopy, in [*Computational Strategies for Spectroscopy: from Small Molecules to Nano Systems*]{}, pages 137–205, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011.
J. J. Rehr and R. C. Albers, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 621 (2000).
J. J. Rehr and A. L. Ankudinov, Coord. Chem. Rev. [**249**]{}, 131 (2005).
F. Gel’mukhanov and H. [Å]{}gren, Phys. Rep. [**312**]{}, 87 (1999).
N. A. Besley and F. A. Asmuruf, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**12**]{}, 12024 (2010).
H. [Å]{}gren, V. Carravetta, O. Vahtras, and L. G. M. Pettersson, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**222**]{}, 75 (1994).
H. [Å]{}gren, V. Carravetta, O. Vahtras, and L. G. M. Pettersson, Theor. Chem. Acc. [**97**]{}, 14 (1997).
U. Ekström, P. Norman, and V. Carravetta, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 022501 (2006).
L. Triguero, L. G. M. Pettersson, and H. [Å]{}gren, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 8097 (1998).
M. Leetmaa, M. P. Ljungberg, A. Lyubartsev, A. Nilsson, and L. G. M. Pettersson, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. [**177**]{}, 135 (2010).
M. Stener, G. Fronzoni, and M. de Simone, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**373**]{}, 115 (2003).
K. Ray, S. DeBeer George, E. I. Solomon, K. Wieghardt, and F. Neese, Chem.–Eur. J. [**13**]{}, 27832797 (2007).
T. Tsuchimochi, M. Kobayashi, A. Nakata, Y. Imamura, and H. Nakai, J. Comput. Chem. [**29**]{}, 23112316 (2008).
N. Schmidt, R. Fink, and W. Hieringer, J. Chem. Phys. [**133**]{}, 054703 (2010).
A. Kovyrshin and J. Neugebauer, J. Chem. Phys. [**133**]{}, 174114 (2010).
W. Liang, S. A. Fischer, M. J. Frisch, and X. Li, J. Chem. Theory Comput. [**7**]{}, 3540 (2011).
U. Ekström, P. Norman, V. Carravetta, and H. [Å]{}gren, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 143001 (2006).
U. Ekström and P. Norman, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 042722 (2006).
K. Lopata, B. E. Van Kuiken, M. Khalil, and N. Govind, J. Chem. Theory Comput. [**8**]{}, 3284 (2012).
S. Coriani, O. Christiansen, T. Fransson, and P. Norman, Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 022507 (2012).
S. Coriani, T. Fransson, O. Christiansen, and P. Norman, J. Chem. Theory Comput. [**8**]{}, 1616 (2012).
S. E. Shadle, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, and E. I. Solomon, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**117**]{}, 2259 (1995).
T. Glaser, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, and E. I. Solomon, Acc. Chem. Res. [**33**]{}, 859 (2000).
L.-[Å]{}. Näslund, M. Cavalleri, H. Ogasawara, A. Nilsson, L. G. M. Pettersson, P. Wernet, D. C. Edwards, M. Sandström, and S. Myneni, J. Phys. Chem. A [**107**]{}, 6869 (2003).
E. I. Solomon, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, A. Dey, and R. K. Szilagyi, Coord. Chem. Rev. [**249**]{}, 97 (2005).
S. DeBeer George, P. Brant, and E. I. Solomon, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**127**]{}, 667 (2005).
S. DeBeer George and F. Neese, Inorg. Chem. [**49**]{}, 1849 (2010).
A. Dey, Y. Peng, W. E. Broderick, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, J. B. Broderick, and E. I. Solomon, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**133**]{}, 18656 (2011).
T. E. Westre, P. Kennepohl, J. G. DeWitt, B. Hedman, K. O. Hodgson, and E. I. Solomon, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**119**]{}, 6297 (1997).
S. DeBeer George, T. Petrenko, and F. Neese, J. Phys. Chem. A [**112**]{}, 12936 (2008).
R. K. Hocking, S. D. George, Z. Gross, F. A. Walker, K. O. Hodgson, B. Hedman, and E. I. Solomon, Inorg. Chem. [**48**]{}, 1678 (2009).
C. C. Scarborough, S. Sproules, T. Weyhermüller, S. DeBeer, and K. Wieghardt, Inorg. Chem. [**50**]{}, 12446 (2011).
A. J. Atkins, [Ch]{}. R. Jacob, and M. Bauer, Chem.–Eur. J. [**18**]{}, 70217025 (2012).
K. Hämäläinen, D. P. Siddons, J. B. Hastings, and L. E. Berman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2850 (1991).
F. M. F. de Groot, M. H. Krisch, and J. Vogel, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 195112 (2002).
P. Glatzel and U. Bergmann, Coord. Chem. Rev. [**249**]{}, 65 (2005).
G. R. Shulman, Y. Yafet, P. Eisenberger, and W. E. Blumberg, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. [**73**]{}, 1384 (1976).
G. Dräger, R. Frahm, G. Materlik, and O. Brümmer, Phys. Status Solidi B [**146**]{}, 287294 (1988).
T. Yamamoto, X-Ray Spectrom. [**37**]{}, 572584 (2008).
S. DeBeer George, T. Petrenko, and F. Neese, Inorg. Chim. Acta [**361**]{}, 965 (2008).
N. Lee, T. Petrenko, U. Bergmann, F. Neese, and S. DeBeer, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**132**]{}, 9715 (2010).
M. Reiher and A. Wolf, , Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2009.
J. D. Jackson, , Wiley, New York, 3rd edition, 1998.
C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, , Wiley, New York, 1978.
G. C. Schatz and M. A. Ratner, , Dover Publications, Mineola, N.Y., 2002.
F. Schwabl, , Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 6th edition, 2002.
P. W. Atkins and R. S. Friedman, , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 5th edition, 2010.
J. Lehtola, M. Hakala, A. Sakko, and K. Hämäläinen, J. Comput. Chem. [**33**]{}, 15721585 (2012).
L. D. Barron, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2004.
E. B. Graham and R. E. Raab, Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A [**430**]{}, 593 (1990).
R. McWeeny, , Dover Publications, Mineola, N.Y., 2004.
. R. Jacob and M. Reiher, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**112**]{}, 3661 (2012).
See supplementary material at <http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4766359> for derivation of the equations for the origin dependence of the multipole transition moments and of the second-order oscillator strengths.
E. B. Graham and R. E. Raab, Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A [**456**]{}, 1193 (2000).
A. S. P. Gomes and [Ch]{}. R. Jacob, Annu. Rep. Prog. Chem. C [**108**]{}, 222 (2012).
N. A. Besley, M. J. G. Peach, and D. J. Tozer, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**11**]{}, 10350 (2009).
F. Neese, Coord. Chem. Rev. [**253**]{}, 526 (2009).
S. J. A. van Gisbergen, J. G. Snijders, and E. J. Baerends, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**118**]{}, 119 (1999).
J. Autschbach and T. Ziegler, J. Chem. Phys. [**116**]{}, 891 (2002).
J. Autschbach, T. Ziegler, S. J. A. van Gisbergen, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**116**]{}, 6930 (2002).
, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[A]{}df</span>, [A]{}msterdam density functional program, : http://www.scm.com.
G. te Velde, F. M. Bickelhaupt, E. J. Baerends, C. Fonseca Guerra, S. J. A. van Gisbergen, J. G. Snijders, and T. Ziegler, J. Comput. Chem. [**22**]{}, 931 (2001).
M. E. Casida, ime-[D]{}ependent [D]{}ensity [F]{}unctional [R]{}esponse [T]{}heory for [M]{}olecules, in [*Recent Advances in Density-Functional Methods*]{}, edited by D. P. Chong, pages 155–192, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
F. Furche, J. Chem. Phys. [**114**]{}, 5982 (2001).
M. Krykunov, A. Banerjee, T. Ziegler, and J. Autschbach, J. Chem. Phys. [**122**]{}, 074105 (2005).
M. Krykunov and J. Autschbach, J. Chem. Phys. [**126**]{}, 024101 (2007).
S. Grimme, F. Furche, and R. Ahlrichs, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**361**]{}, 321 (2002).
A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A [**38**]{}, 3098 (1988).
J. P. Perdew, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 8822 (1986).
E. van Lenthe, E. J. Baerends, and J. G. Snijders, J. Chem. Phys. [**99**]{}, 4597 (1993).
E. van Lenthe, E. J. Baerends, and J. G. Snijders, J. Chem. Phys. [**101**]{}, 9783 (1994).
E. van Lenthe, J. G. Snijders, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**105**]{}, 6505 (1996).
E. van Lenthe, A. Ehlers, and E.-J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**110**]{}, 8943 (1999).
R. Merlin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. [**106**]{}, 1693 (2009).
[^1]: E-Mail: christoph.jacob@kit.edu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Fusion of heterogeneous extroceptive sensors is the most effient and effective way to representing the environment precisely, as it overcomes various defects of each homogeneous sensor. The rigid transformation (aka. extrinsic parameters) of heterogeneous sensory systems should be available before precisely fusing the multisensor information. Researchers have proposed several approaches to estimating the extrinsic parameters. These approaches require either auxiliary objects, like chessboards, or extra help from human to select correspondences. In this paper, we proposed a novel extrinsic calibration approach for the extrinsic calibration of range and image sensors. As far as we know, it is the first automatic approach with no requirement of auxiliary objects or any human interventions.
First, we estimate the initial extrinsic parameters from the individual motion of the range finder and the camera. Then we extract lines in the image and point-cloud pairs, to refine the line feature associations by the initial extrinsic parameters.
At the end, we discussed the degenerate case which may lead to the algorithm failure and validate our approach by simulation. The results indicate high-precision extrinsic calibration results against the ground-truth.
author:
- 'Qinghai Liao$^{1}$, Ming Liu$^{1}$, Lei Tai$^{2}$, Haoyang Ye$^{2}$ [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'exCalibration.bib'
title: '**Extrinsic Calibration of 3D Range Finder and Camera without Auxiliary Object or Human Intervention** '
---
=4
Introduction
============
Heterogeneous extroceptive sensory. Why and What? {#sec:heter}
-------------------------------------------------
In recent years, 3D reconstruction and mapping system have got increasing attention since these techniques have wide potential applications, such as in robotic (SLAM, navigation), autonomous driving vehicle, gaming (VR) and so on. These tasks have demands on the environment model which contains rich information and strong describing ability.
However, it is either imprecise or requires high computation power to model the environment with homogeneous sensing modalities like cameras. Cameras are so far the most widely used sensors which offer a wealth of information on color, but it is heavily affected by the light and is not able to work in many scenes. People are aware of that vision sensor’s flaw has indeed caused bit problems such as some autonomous driving accidents [@tesla]. An important solution is to combine various sensing modalities to enhance the model. The common practice is to use the 3D range finder and camera together to make complementarity. To efficiently use the information from heterogeneous modalities, we have to fuse the information and present them in a single reference frame. The goal is to compute the rigid transformation including the relative rotation and translation of different sensor coordinate systems. The 6-DoF rigid transformation is called *extrinsic parameters* and the process to estimate the extrinsic parameters is called *extrinsic calibration*.
The extrinsic calibration of range-image sensors was introduced by Zhang [@Zhang2004] with a 2D range finder and a camera. As the cost decreasing and the development of technique, 3D range finder has become popular and more extrinsic calibration research has been focusing on the 3D range finder and camera recently.
Challenges {#sec:ve}
----------
We indeed believe most fundamental theoretical problems have been solved for the extrinsic calibration, along with the development of theories in multi-view geometry [@hartley2003multiple] and optimization [@kummerle2011g], However, the integration of algorithms and automated calibration in practical cases persists problematic and still highly challenging. In these cases, the demands to facilities or human interventions should be minimized. By this work, we would like to tackle several last-mile problems to enable automatic *feature association* and *robust regression*, leading to high-precision extrinsic calibration over heterogeneous sensors.
Feature association is to find the correspondences from image pixels captured by cameras to the point-cloud captured by range finders. If we have the correspondences, this problem will be further solved as a PnP problem [@lepetit2009epnp], optimization problem [@kummerle2011g] or even active calibration [@xie2015online] which have been already well-studied. However, images and point-cloud are hard to be matched due to the inherent representation difference: The images captured from cameras are *dense* representations, for which each pixel has a proper definition. Point clouds are *sparse* representation. Regardless the density, the space between any two observed points has no definition at all. Thereby, there are no such generic feature descriptions across heterogeneous sensors that we can directly use to match the features from images with that from point-clouds. Researchers have proposed many methods to find the correspondence and derived extrinsic calibration approaches. We categorize these methods into two categories:
**With auxiliary objects.** Firstly, extrinsic calibration techniques can rely on the external artificial calibration objects which should be observed simultaneously from the camera and camera. More than one views from different poses are necessary to perform the extrinsic calibration. The most-used calibration object is the checkerboard which is also widely used for camera intrinsic calibration [@Zhang2000]. Zhang[@Zhang2004] first published the extrinsic calibration approach which used the checkerboard to calibrate the 2D range finder and camera. Barreto *et al.* [@Barreto2012] presented another approach by freely moving the checkerboard. They convert the problem to registering a set of planes and lines in the 3D space and get the solution by solving a standard p3p problem with a linear system. Unnikrishnan *et al.*[@Unnikrishnan2005] extended Zhang’s approach to 3D range finder with a checkerboard and their approach is the first method for a 3D range finder and camera. Pandey *et al.*[@Pandey2010] further extended above approach to omnidirectional Camera. Rodriguez *et al.*[@RodriguezF.2008] presented an extrinsic and intrinsic calibration approach by circle based calibration target. Beside, Choi[@Choi2016] used two orthogonal planes; Aliakbarpour[@Aliakbarpour] used a pattern and IMU sensor together to jointly reduce the needed number of points. Gong*et al.*[@s130201902] used an arbitrary trihedron to assist the calibration. Since an auxiliary object is required, it is hard to perform on-line recalibration for a working system.
**With human interventions.** The second category is to get the feature correspondences by manual selection but provide primary filtering to narrow down the candidates. These methods don’t require artificial calibration target any more but used the features from the natural scene. Scaramuzza *et al.*[@Scaramuzza2007] first try this way by converting the visually ambiguous 3D range information into a 2D map where natural features of a scene are highlighted. After manually selecting the correspondences the problem is a standard PnP problem. Moghadam *et al.* [@Moghadam2013] selected all 3D lines and 2D lines as candidates for human selection which makes the algorithm more robust and precise since it largely reduces the chances that human makes a wrong decision. These methods require massive human attention for feature associate and not suitable for an on-line system as well.
The methods in the first category are easy to find constraints and get a precise solution. Nevertheless, the weakness is also obvious that placing the calibration object will modify the scene and limit the application scope. The second category makes the problem much easier to find the constraints. But with the human intervention, the algorithms lose the automation ability and the precision drops very fast due to imprecise guidance from humans. Furthermore, these existing approaches share a common drawback that they cannot work on-the-fly for on-line systems. Note that it is easy to cause variant extrinsic parameters during the test course in a real environment, such as vibration and non-rigid sensors system (typically for the autonomous driving system). It is not easy for these methods to adapt.
Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey2012] proposed a calibration object-free extrinsic calibration method for a 3D range finder and camera by using the mutual information framework. Their approach owns the ability to do calibration during working process. However, they require the laser range finder reflectivity values which are not always reliable in practical scenes according to our tests [@pomerleau2012noise].
Contributions
-------------
In this paper, we propose a novel automated extrinsic calibration algorithm for a 3D range finder and a camera without auxiliary objects. Our proposed algorithm separates the calibration process into two steps: initial coarse extrinsic parameter calculation and extrinsic parameter refinement. Our approach requires the sensor system to move around (rotation is required) to several poses to acquire information which can be used to figure out the initial coarse extrinsic parameter. The second step we exploit the lines in both the 2D and 3D space and find correspondences across the two representations aided by the initial parameters. These line correspondences are used to refine the extrinsic parameter. Besides, an open-ware library including the code and test scenarios has been released with the publication of the paper at `http://ram-lab.com/download`.
We address the following contributions of this work:
- We present a novel extrinsic calibration algorithm for camera images and 3D point-clouds without requirements of auxiliary objects or human intervention.
- A robust weighted least square solution is proposed for the problem, which can be used as a generic solution for similar problems with sensory outliers.
- Principles of filtration and degenerated cases were studied for the proposed framework as hints for the application of the algorithms.
Organization {#sec:orgnize}
------------
The rest of paper is organized as follows. Section presents the methodology of our proposed algorithm including above mentioned two steps. Section shows the calibration results. Finally, we make conclusion and discussion in Section .
methodology
===========
The proposed algorithm includes initial extrinsic parameter calculation and extrinsic parameter refinement. In the first step, we make the sensor system random move (rotation required) to several poses to acquire information, based on which we calculate a set of coarse extrinsic parameters. Then we exploit the line feature in two observation space to get good matches which are the constraint to refine the extrinsic parameters. We will discuss these two steps in the following subsection.
Initial parameter calculation
-----------------------------
Cameras are bearing sensors. Considering laser range finder can be also regarded as a superior bearing sensor, which is enhanced by depth measurements, we adopt the similar approach for multi-camera rig calibration without overlapping, as described in [@Esquivel2007; @heng2013camodocal]. We assume that the collected pairs of data are taken with $N$ poses. We define the extrinsic parameters as transformation $T$: $$T=
\begin{bmatrix}
R &t\\
0 &1
\end{bmatrix}$$ $R$ is the rotation 3x3 matrix and $t$ is the translation 3x1 vector. We denote the local reference transformation from reference frame to target frame as $\mathbf{S}^{target}_{reference}$, where $\mathbf{S}:=\{L,C\}$ is the sensor type. e.g., $L^0_1$ represents the transformation from lidar’s pose \#1 to pose \#0 and $C^0_1$ for that of camera. We can get at most $\mathbf{C}^N_2$ pairs [^4] as shown in Fig. \[fig:rotation chain\] from $N$ poses. For a perspective camera, lots of pairs will be invalid since in these pairs camera does not share much overlapped field of view, which makes it difficult to get reliable relative transformation. Every pair has two poses as shown in Fig. \[fig:rotation chain\].
### Relative-pose estimation
To calculate the extrinsic parameters, we first estimate the transformation of the lidar and the camera for each paired data, respectively.
For point-cloud data we use our previously proposed library `libpointmatcher` [@Pomerleau12comp], which includes a fast and reliable ICP implementation with point-to-plane error formulations. The ICP output indicates the rotation and translation between to consequent point-cloud scans. For image pairs, we use ORB[@1302] feature and g2o [@5979949] to perform a local two-view bundle-adjustment optimization to get the transformation up to scale. Thereby, we can compute a full transformation matrix of the lidar by point-clouds, but for camera we obtain $$T=
\begin{bmatrix}
R & \lambda t\\
0 &1
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\lambda$ is the scale factor.
### Rotation and Translation
In every pair the transformation between a camera pose $j$ and lidar with pose $i$ can be computed as routes in two alternative paths along the quadrilateral edges. Either by first transforming to lidar at the same pose (red curve), where $$T^1 = L^i_jT$$ or alternatively by first changing to previous camera reference frame (green curve), where $$T^2 = TC^i_j$$
$T^1$ and $T^2$ are ideally the same, i.e.
![Transformation between lidar and camera. $L_j^i$ is the relative transform computed from ICP; $C_j^i$ is the transform optimized by local bundle adjustment.[]{data-label="fig:rotation chain"}](rotation_chain){width="3.5in"}
by Eq. 2 and Eq. 3, the geometrical constraint is: $$L^i_jT = TC^i_j$$ and it must hold for every pair ($\mathbf{C}^2_N$). In Eq. 4, only the extrinsic parameter $T$ is unknown and $L^i_j$ and $C^i_j$ have been computed. Eq. 4 can be decomposed into two parts. The first part contains only rotation: $${_rL}^i_jR = R\,({_rC}^i)_j$$ The second part contains both rotation and translation: $${_rL}^i_jt + {_tL}^i_j =\lambda^i_j R\,({_tC}^i)_j+t$$
Here the scale factor $\lambda$ of camera is unknown yet. $_rL$ is the rotation matrix within $L$ and $_tL$ denotes the translation in $L$; $_rC$ is the rotation matrix within $C$ and $_tC$ denotes the translation in $C$.
The common practice to solve Eq. 4 is to solve the Eq. 5 first and solve Eq. 6 with the result $R$ from Eq. 5. For Eq. 5, Chou *at el.* [@Chou1991] have presented the rotation with quaternion which reduce the variable number from 9 to 4. The Eq. 5 can be re-written as: $$q_lq=qq_c$$ or equivalently $$(T_{q_l}-T^*_{q_c})q=0$$ where $T_q$and $T^*_q$ are defined as follows. By letting $q=(w, x, y, z)^T$, $$T_{q}=
\begin{bmatrix}
w & -x & -y &-z \\
x & w & -z& y \\
y & z & w& -x \\
z & -y & x& w
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$T^*_{q}=
\begin{bmatrix}
w & -x & -y &-z \\
x & w & z& -y \\
y & -z & w& x \\
z & y & -x& w
\end{bmatrix}$$
Hence we will get the linear equation system with $N$ pairs for the rotation $q$ subject to $|q|=1$. $$A
\begin{bmatrix}
w \\
x \\
y \\
z
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $A$ is (4N)x4 coefficient matrix $$\footnotesize
\arraycolsep=3pt
A=
\begin{bmatrix}
w^0_l - w^0_c & -x^0_l + x^0_c & -y^0_l + y^0_c &-z^0_l + z^0_c \\
x^0_l - x^0_c & w^0_l - w^0_c & z^0_l - z^0_c & -y^0_l + y^0_c \\
y^0_l - y^0_c & -z^0_l +z^0_c & w^0_l - w^0_c & -x^0_l - x^0_c\\
z^0_l - z^0_c & y^0_l - y^0_c & -x^0_l + x^0_c & w^0_l -w^0_c\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
w^{4N}_l - w^{4N}_c & -x^{4N}_l + x^{4N}_c & -y^{4N}_l + y^{4N}_c &-z^{4N}_l + z^{4N}_c \\
x^{4N}_l - x^{4N}_c & w^{4N}_l - w^{4N}_c & z^{4N}_l - z^{4N}_c & -y^{4N}_l + y^{4N}_c \\
y^{4N}_l - y^{4N}_c & -z^{4N}_l +z^{4N}_c & w^{4N}_l - w^{4N}_c & -x^{4N}_l - x^{4N}_c\\
z^{4N}_l - z^{4N}_c & y^{4N}_l - y^{4N}_c & -x^{4N}_l + x^{4N}_c & w^{4N}_l -w^{4N}_c
\end{bmatrix}$$ Eq. 9 subjects to $|q|=1$ and SVD is an efficient tool to get the $q$.
After recovery the rotation, Eq. 6 could be re-formulated as $$\begin{bmatrix}
I-_rL^i_j & R\,(_tC^i_j)
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
t\\
\lambda^i_j
\end{bmatrix}
=_tL^i_j$$ The fully expansion of above equation will be $$\footnotesize
\arraycolsep=3pt
\begin{bmatrix}
I-_rL^0 & R(_tC^0)&0&\hdots&0\\
I-_rL^1 & 0 &R(_tC^1)&\hdots&0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\vdots \\
I-_rL^N & 0 &0 &\hdots&R(_tC^N)
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
t\\
\lambda^0\\
\vdots\\
\lambda^N
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
_tL^0\\
_tL^1\\
\vdots\\
_tL^N
\end{bmatrix}$$ Here we replace the index $i,j$ with pair index to make it clear. Eq. 11 has 3+N variable and 3N constraints which means it can be solved with at least two pairs (three poses).
### Filtration of big error pairs
If we have accurate transformation of camera and lidar above proposed algorithm is enough to get the extrinsic parameter of this system. However, the accurate transformation is hard to recover, especially for camera. Due to the limited filed of view (FOV), intrinsic parameter error, feature extraction and mismatching and so on, compared with $360^{\circ}$ FOV lidar the camera transformation estimation usually has low quality. As shown in Fig. \[fig:pair\_rotation\_error\], camera rotation estimation has maximum 7% error[^5] and lidar’s error is less than 1%.
![Rotation error of camera(blue) and lidar(green), quaternion rotation angle between camera and lidar of estimation(cyan) and ground truth(red) []{data-label="fig:pair_rotation_error"}](pair_rotation_error.pdf){width="3.5in"}
Inaccurate and unreliable camera transformation makes the initial parameter fragile. To improve the accuracy of initial parameter we have to filter out some pairs which introduce big errors that usually caused by camera transformation. Hence, we need the principle of filtration for this purpose. As we represent Eq. 5 in quaternion format $$\label{eq:1}
\begin{aligned}
p^lq &= qp^c \\
w^l &= w^c
\end{aligned}$$ we can get $\theta^l=\theta^c$ where $\theta$ is the quaternion rotation angle which means that no matter what the extrinsic parameter is the ration angles of lidar and camera are always identity in every motion. And as shown in Fig. \[fig:pair\_rotation\_error\] the ground truth of rotation angle between lidar and camera is zeros but estimated data instead. The rotation angle between lidar and camera from estimated transformation(cyan) nearly follows the camera transformation error line(blue) which proves the above assertion. Hence, we can take the rotation angle as principle of filtration and set the threshold.
### Degenerate cases
Above proposed algorithm has two degenerate cases. The first one is easy to realize that the sensor system’s motion must include rotation. When the sensor system does purely translation motion Eq. 5 will degenerate and has no constraint on rotation.
The second case occurs when the sensor system rotates against the same one axis. In this case, Eq. 7 is an identical equation and the solution of $q$ is arbitrary.
Both cases will cause the rotation failure and consequently, make Eq. 6 unsolvable and break off the algorithm. However, it is not hard to avoid these two cases in practices.
parameter refinement
--------------------
The previous step gets the initial extrinsic parameter which has high quality estimation of rotation. But the translation of camera estimated from image often has poor accuracy and the scale factor helps the error-propagation. The final result is the unacceptable translation error and this is the purpose of this step.
In this paper we propose to use the natural scene line feature to do refinement. $Line^{3D}-line^{2D}$ correspondence could derive strong constraint on direction and line-to-line distance which correspondingly refine the rotation and translation, respectively.
### 2D line extraction
We utilize Akinlar *at el.*[@Akinlar:2011:ERL:2027478.2027695] proposed EDlines lines detection approach for image lines extraction. According to the configuration of line length, anchor, gradient threshold, fit error threshold we can easily find the all lines candidate. Fig.\[fig:2d line\] shows the result in one pose.
![2D lines detection[]{data-label="fig:2d line"}](2d_lines){width="3.5in"}
### 3D line extraction
3D arbitrarily lines detection in point cloud is difficult and slow especially for unorganized point cloud. To make the proposed algorithm work on-the-fly we focus more on the 3D lines detection speed. We accept certain false detected result since initial extrinsic estimation could help remove them during matching process.
Our proposed algorithm uses simple vertical lines whose direction vector is $[0 \quad 1 \quad 0]^T$(vertical axis is Y-axis in our experiment). We propose a speed and simple vertical line detection that projects all point to floor surface and the number of points is regard as the image intensity. Later we apply line detection method on the projection intensity image to find all end-points which we think has great chance to be the vertical line. As shown in Fig.\[fig:3d line\] second figure, we highlight the detected lines with different color and their end-points.
![3D lines detection,end points(color dots), filtration result(big red dot)[]{data-label="fig:3d line"}](pc_lines_filtering){width="3.4in"}
### Line matching
3D line and 2D line matching are based on the initial extrinsic parameter estimation. We find the correspondences by two threshold of angle error and point-to-line distance. Since we use the vertical lines in lidar space hence all desired lines should have constant direction. Let vector $dz$ be the third column of $R^{-1}$ and project it into image coordinate by camera intrinsic parameter K. The new 2D line’s direction should be the truth value. We filter the 2D lines according to this value and the example is shown in Fig.\[fig:2d line\] second figure. For 3D lines, we mainly remove points that are not in the FoV of camera and the remaining (big red dot in Fig.\[fig:3d line\]) end-point are the candidate 3D line features.
We present 2D line as $w_0u+w_1v+w_2=0$. End-point $[x \quad 1 \quad z]^T$ corresponding to 3D line can be prjected to image as $$z\begin{bmatrix}
u' \\
v' \\
1
\end{bmatrix}
=K(R^{-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
x \\
1 \\
z
\end{bmatrix}-R^{-1}t)$$ The error can be define as format of normal point-to-line distance without normalization $$err = \begin{bmatrix}
w_0 & w_1 &w_2
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u' \\
v' \\
1
\end{bmatrix}$$ When $err$ is smaller than the threshold we classify them as valid correspondences.
### Robust Least Square Solution with Huber Weights
Since outliers and noise are ubiquitous for the observation of 2D line, 3D line, and corners. Proper rectification of the result is necessary. We aim to minimize a global penalty function, which is a sum of the re-projection error. A generic form of the penalty function is: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{minimize} &\phi(r_1) + \phi(r_2) + \cdots + \phi(r_m)\\
&\text{subject to} & \vec{r} = Ax-b\end{aligned}$$ where $A\in \mathbf{R}^{mxn}$ is the configuration matrix, which in this case the collections of matching constraints, $\phi: \mathbf{R} \rightarrow \mathbf{R}$ is a convex penalty function. $r$ is the remainder. Note that $\phi(\cdot)$ is often taking a quadratic form, i.e. $\phi(u) = u^2$, namely Ordinary Linear Square (OLS) as used by most g2o implementations. However, such a quadratic form will introduce high sensitivity to outliers. Regularization can partially solve the over-fitting caused by the outliers, but the strength of the error introduced by the outliers persist [@kolter2009regularization]. The problem can also be partially solved by quartile regression [@koenker2005quantile] but with high computational and sampling cost. In this work, we use a weighted robust least square (RLS) with Huber weights, as: $$\label{eq:huber}
\phi_{hub}(u) =
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
1\cdot u^2, &\, \text{for} |u|\le M\\
\frac{|u|}{M} \cdot u^2, &\, \text{for} |u|>M
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ It results in a new convex penalty function $\sum_I \phi_{hub}^i(u_i)$, where $i$ is the index of the observation. $M$ is empirically selected as 3. Note that this weighting function highlights the supporting data which can fit the computed $x$, while the effect of the outliers drops from quadratic to linear form. It leads to enhanced performance in pose estimation.
Experiment
==========
We validate the proposed algorithm in V-rep simulation environment [@vrep] which offers the out-of-box sensors and models. In addition, simulation environment gives out precise ground truth which is hard to measure in real environment. However, it also has drawbacks like the vision sensor gets information of the scene with much less texture than real environment.
![V-rep simulation scene[]{data-label="fig:vrep scene"}](vrep){width="2.6in"}
Fig.\[fig:vrep scene\] shows our experiment simulation scene. It’s a quite complex scene but has great resemblance with mobile robot working place. Sensor configuration is shown in Fig.\[fig:vrep sensor\]. We attach the vision sensor and 3D range finder to the omnidirectional car with fixed extrinsic parameter. The car randomly moves (including rotation and translation) in the room and sensors acquire the information simultaneously. During this process we keep the system’s motion away from the degenerate cases.
![sensor configuration, blue is vision sensor, grey is 3D range finder[]{data-label="fig:vrep sensor"}](sensor){width="3in"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig:error\_initial\] and Fig. \[fig:line\_match\], our initial calculation algorithm works very well, especially for rotation estimation. In Fig. \[fig:error\_initial\_rotation\], big rotation error exists when pose number is lower than 10 since we set the threshold for the pose number for launching the algorithm. For the translation, we may note the error increment in y-axis as $pose number \in [60,80]$. In this paper, we take the lidar frame as world frame and the y-axis is the lidar’s vertical direction which relatively has lower resolution than horizontal plane. From Fig. \[fig:line\_match\] we can see that the initial calculation algorithm result is accurate enough for the line matching algorithm which is able to lead fewer mismatching.
![Line re-projection, image 2D lines (red), projected 3D lines with extrinsic parameter of ground truth (green) and initial process (blue). []{data-label="fig:line_match"}](line_match){width="3.2in"}
Rotation Error(deg)
----------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------ -- --
Ground Truth \[-0.0394 -0.4220 0.0764 -0.9025\] -
Initial(no filtering) \[-0.8955 0.0438 0.4399 0.0514\] 1.5680
Initial(filtering) \[-0.0394 -0.4220 0.0764 -0.9025\] 0.0034
: Experiment results in rotation[]{data-label="tab:result rotation"}
Translation Error (m) Ratio
----------------------- ----------------------------- ----------- -------- --
Ground Truth \[0.4224 0.6745 -0.4616\] - 0%
Initial(no filtering) \[ 0.3992 0.1861 -0.3964 \] 0.4932 53.60%
Initial(filtering) \[0.4082 0.5168 -0.4470 \] 0.1589 17.27%
Refinement(OLS) \[0.4203 0.6238 -0.4536\] 0.05129 5.57%
Refinement(proposed) \[0.4322 0.6734 -0.4675\] 0.0115 1.25%
: Experiment results in translation[]{data-label="tab:result translation"}
Table \[tab:result rotation\] and Table \[tab:result translation\] shows the experiment result. Rotation and translation are both validated. Especially, the filtering and refinement process largely improve the accuracy of the proposed algorithm.
Note that the error of the resulted calibrated translation and rotation is comparatively lower than state-of-the-art approaches, even for cases with auxiliary objects [@xie2015online], even with highly drifted initial conditions. Due to limited space, he full comparison results will be presented in a separate report in <http://ram-lab.com/file/report_extrinsic.pdf>.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we presented an extrinsic calibration approach for heterogeneous extroceptive sensors. It is independent of auxiliary objects or human interventions, which largely relief the requirement comparing with existing approaches. We also provided a validated calibration framework, which is online available at <http://ram-lab.com/download>. Despite the limitation that the method should work in environments with detectable lines, it still by-far the most convenient plug-and-play extrinsic calibration system to the community.
For future work, we will extract more robust 3D lines and refine the rotation and translation simultaneously with close-form solutions. We are also looking into direct association methods between camera images and point-clouds.
[^1]: $^{*}$This work was supported by the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong SAR Government, China, under project No. 16206014 and No. 16212815; National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 6140021318, awarded to Prof. Ming Liu
[^2]: $^{1}$Qinghai Liao and Ming Liu are with Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. [qinghai.liao@connect.ust.hk, eelium@ust.hk]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$ Lei Tai and Haoyang Ye are with Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong. [lei.tai@my.cityu.edu.hk, hy.ye@my.cityu.edu.hk]{}
[^4]: $\mathbf{C}$ is the combination operator.
[^5]: roattion error is defined as $err=\frac{acos(|q_1{\cdot}q_2|)}{pi/2}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
A robust detection of the tidally induced intrinsic alignments of the late-type spiral galaxies with high statistical significance is reported. From the spectroscopic galaxy sample of SDSS DR7 compiled by Huertas-Company et al. which lists each galaxy’s probabilities of being in five Hubble types, $P({\rm E}),\ P({\rm Ell}), \ P({\rm S0}),\ P({\rm Sab}),\
P({\rm Scd})$, we select the nearby large late-type spiral galaxies which have redshifts of $0\le z\le 0.02$, probabilities of $P({\rm Scd})\ge 0.5$ and angular sizes of $D\ge 7.92$ arcsec. The spin axes of the selected nearby large late-type spiral galaxies are determined up to the two-fold ambiguity with the help of the circular thin-disk approximation and their spatial correlations are measured as a function of the separation distance $r$. A clear signal of the intrinsic correlation as high as $3.4\sigma$ and $2.4\sigma$ is found at the separation distance of $r\approx 1\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $r\approx 2\,h^{-1}$Mpc, respectively. The comparison of this observational results with the analytic model based on the tidal torque theory reveals that the spin correlation function for the late-type spiral galaxies follow the quadratic scaling of the linear density correlation and that the intrinsic correlations of the galaxy spin axes are stronger than that of the underlying dark halos. We investigate a local density dependence of the galaxy spin correlations and found that the correlations are stronger for the galaxies located in dense regions having more than $10$ neighbors within $2\,h^{-1}$Mpc. We also attempt to measure a luminosity dependence of the galaxy spin correlations, but find that it is impossible with our magnitude-split samples to disentangle a luminosity from a redshift dependence. We provide the physical explanations for these observational results and also discuss the effects of possible residual systematics on the results.
author:
- Jounghun Lee
title: 'On the Intrinsic Alignments of the Late-Type Spiral Galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The building blocks of the large-scale structure in the universe are the galactic dark halos that are believed to underlie the luminous galaxies. Although the galactic dark halos are not directly observable, their intrinsic properties can be inferred and estimated from the galaxy observables such as luminosity, color, morphology and spatial correlations. For instance, how luminous a given galaxy is related to how massive its underlying dark halo is. The colors and morphologies of the observed galaxies reflect the formation epochs and assembly history of their galactic halos. Finding the hidden relations between the galaxy observables and intrinsic properties of the underlying dark halos is one of the most important tasks in the field of the large-scale structure.
The directions of the galaxy angular momentum (i.e., the galaxy spin axes) are one of those galaxy observables that are believed to have a direct connection with the intrinsic properties of the underlying dark halos. In the standard linear tidal torque theory [@pee69; @dor70; @whi84; @dub92; @CT96], the tidal torques from the surrounding matter originate the angular momentum of the proto-galactic halos in the linear regime [see @sch09 for a recent review]. In consequence, the directions of the angular momentum of the proto-galactic halos come to be aligned with the intermediate principal axes of the local tidal tensors [@LP00; @LP01; @LP02; @por-etal02]. As the tidal fields are spatially correlated, the correlations between the spin axes of the proto-galactic halos and the principal axes of the local tidal tensors would induce the spatial correlations of the spin axes of the proto-galactic halos. A detailed analysis have shown that the spatial correlations of the spin axes of the galactic halos would follow a quadratic scaling with the two point correlation function of the linear density field provided that the linear tidal torque theory is valid [@pen-etal00; @sug-etal00; @LP01; @cri-etal01].
A critical question is whether or not the tidally induced initial correlations between the spin axes of the galactic halos have been retained to a detectable level and how strong the retained correlations are. If the intrinsic correlations of the spiral galaxies are detected and if we can model them well with the tidal torque theory, it would make it plausible to reconstruct the initial tidal fields from the observable spin fields as proposed by @LP00. Furthermore, it would have a direct impact on the weak lensing community where the intrinsic alignments of the spiral (or blue) galaxies are often assumed to be zero [e.g, @joa-etal10; @man-etal10].
Plenty of observational efforts have so far been made to address this issue. @pen-etal00 measured the spatial correlations of the spin axes of the nearby spiral galaxies from the Tully catalog and reported a tentative detection of $2\sigma$ signals. They claimed that the observed trend of the galaxy spin correlations is consistent with the quadratic scaling of the linear density two-point correlations. @LP02 searched directly for the correlations between the spin axes of the nearby spiral galaxies and the intermediate principal axes of the tidal fields using the data from the Point Source Galaxy catalog [@pscz].
@brown-etal02 demonstrated that the intrinsic shape correlations of the elliptical galaxies from the SuperCOSMOS survey [@supercosmos] are consistent with the quadratic scaling with the linear density correlations under the assumption that the projected minor axes of the observed elliptical galaxies are orthogonal to the projected spin axes of their underlying halos. @nav-etal04 noted that the distribution of the inclination angles of the nearby disk galaxies relative to the Supergalactic plane is consistent with the prediction of the linear tidal torque theory. @tru-etal06 claimed that the observed alignments of the galaxies in the vicinity of large voids are well explained by the tidally induced intrinsic correlations. @LE07 detected a $2\sigma$ signal of the correlations between the spin axes of the nearby spiral galaxies from the Tully catalog and the intermediate principal axes of the local tidal field constructed from the 2MASS redshift survey [@2mass and references therein].
@LP07 measured the two dimensional projected spin correlations of the blue galaxies from the Sloan survey [@sdss] and found a $3\sigma$ signal at one single distance bin of $r\sim 1\,h^{-1}$Mpc. @paz-etal08 found the correlations between the galaxy angular momentum vectors and the large-scale structures from the Sloan survey and claimed that their results are in qualitative agreement with the predictions of the tidal torque theory. @slo-etal09 reported a first detection of the chiral correlations of nearby galaxies. Recently, @jones-etal10 found that the spin axes of the spiral galaxies in the filaments tend to be aligned with the major axes of the filaments and concluded that the observed spin alignments of the filament galaxies provide a fossil evidence for the tidally-induced intrinsic correlations.
In spite of these observational evidences, it is still inconclusive whether or not the present galaxies still retain its initially memory of the tidally induced intrinsic spin correlations for the following two reasons. The first reason is that the reported correlation signals are not strong enough to be confirmed as true signals. For instance, the galaxy spin correlation signals reported by @pen-etal00, @LP01 and @LE07 are significant only at $2-2.5\sigma$ levels. The samples on which the analyses of @nav-etal04 and @tru-etal06 were based are so small that their conclusions suffer from poor number statistics. Furthermore, there have reported some counter evidences against the existence of the intrinsic galaxy alignments. For example, @AS05 searched for the alignments of the spin vectors of the galaxies in Abell clusters but failed in finding any signals.
As for the strong correlations of the projected major axes of the elliptical galaxies measured by @brown-etal02, although it is good number statistics, the signals suffer from large uncertainties associated with regarding the projected major axes of the elliptical galaxies as the directions orthogonal to the spin axes of the underlying dark halos. True as it is that the minor axes of the elliptical galaxies should be more or less aligned with the spin axes of their underlying dark halos [e.g., @bai-etal05; @BS05], their spatial correlations are not so good tracers of the linear tidal fields as the spin correlations of the spiral galaxies, since the shapes of the elliptical galaxies are apt to be affected by the subsequent processes such as the anisotropic merging/infall, galaxy-galaxy interactions and etc [e.g., @ful-etal99]. Thus, the best targets for the measurement of the tidally-induced intrinsic alignments are the spiral galaxies and their spin orientations.
The second reason comes from the concerns about spurious signals that could be produced by systematics. There are three major sources for the systematics in the measurement of the intrinsic correlations of the galaxy spin axes: the weak gravitational lensing effect, presence of thick central bulges and inaccurate measurements of the spin axes in case that the galaxies have small angular sizes. It has been known that the extrinsic alignments of the galaxy shapes due to the weak gravitational lensing effect would create spurious signals of the spin-spin correlations of the spiral galaxies (or ellipticity-ellipticity correlations of the elliptical galaxies) at redshifts $z\ge 0.1$ [e.g., @pen-etal00; @CM00; @hea-etal00; @cat-etal01; @cri-etal01; @cri-etal02; @jin02; @mac-etal02; @HH03; @HS04; @hir-etal04; @man-etal06; @hir-etal07; @JB10]. The presence of thick central bulges in the spiral galaxies could cause significant systematics since it invalidates the circular thin-disk approximation which is almost exclusively used to measure the orientations of the galaxy spin axes. In case that the galaxies have small angular sizes, their position angles and axial ratios would be difficult to measure accurately, which would propagate into the systematic errors in the measurement of the galaxy spin axes.
The errors caused by the above three systematics in the measurement of the intrinsic correlations can be minimized if one selects only the large late-type spiral galaxies (of Hubble types Scd) observed at lowest redshifts. Using only low-$z$ galaxies, one can reduce the weak gravitational lensing effect to a completely negligible level. Selecting only large late-type spiral galaxies which have the smallest central bulges, one can guarantee that the measurements of the spin axes through the circular thin disk approximation are reliable. To select such galaxies from the observational data, however, it is necessary to have information on the spectroscopic redshifts and Hubble types of the observed galaxies. Very recently, @HC-etal10 have released a catalog of the galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 (SDSS DR7), in which such information are all available. Our goal here is to measure the true intrinsic correlations of the nearby large late-type spiral galaxies from this catalog and to study their behaviors and their dependence on the local density and luminosity.
The organization of this Paper is as follows. In §2.1, the sample of the nearby large late-type galaxies selected from the SDSS DR7 is described and the number distributions of the selected galaxies as a function of their magnitude and local density are derived. In §2.2, it is explained how the spin axes of the selected galaxies are determined up to two-fold degeneracy with the help of the circular thin disk approximation. In §3.1, the correlations between the spin axes of the selected nearby large Scd galaxies are measured and the bootstrap error analysis is presented. In §3.2 the dependence of the galaxy spin correlations on local density and luminosity is investigated. In §3.3 the possible residual systematics are discussed and its effect is examined. In §4, the observational results are compared with the analytic models based on the tidal torque theory and the bestfit parameters to quantify the strengths of the correlations are determined.In §5, the results are summarized and a conclusion is drawn.
PROPERTIES OF THE LATE-TYPE SPIRAL GALAXIES FROM SDSS DR7
=========================================================
Selection of the Nearby Large Scd Galaxies
------------------------------------------
The galaxy catalog compiled by @HC-etal10 consists of a total of $698420$ galaxies in redshift range of $0\le z\le 0.16$ from the SDSS DR7 [@sdssdr7]. It provides information on spectroscopic redshift ($z$), right ascension ($\alpha$), declination ($\delta$) and the probabilities of being in the five morphological classes (E, Ell, S0, Sab, Scd) for each galaxy. Through private communication with M. Huestra-Company, we obtain additional information on the major and minor axes, position angle ($\vartheta_{P})$ and r-band model magnitude $(m_{r}$) of each galaxy in the catalog.
To minimize the systematics in the measurement of the spatial correlations of the galaxy spin axes, we select only those galaxies which have redshifts in the range of $0\le z\le 0.02$, probability of being in the morphological class of Scd higher than $0.5$, and angular size (given as the major axis length) $D$ larger than $7.92$ arcsec (corresponding to 20 pixels in the SDSS frames). A total of $4065$ galaxies from the catalog are found to satisfy these three conditions. Figure \[fig:dis\_pscd\] plots the number distribution of the galaxies from the catalog as a function of its probability of being in the Scd morphological class, $P({\rm Scd})$. The results shown in each panel is drawn under the condition of $0\le z\le 0.02$ (top left panel); $0\le z\le 0.02$ and $P({\rm E})\le P({\rm S0})\le P({\rm Sab})\le P({\rm Scd})$ (top right panel); $0\le z\le 0.02$ and $P({\rm Scd})\ge 0.5$ (bottom left panel); $0\le z\le 0.02$, $P({\rm Scd})\ge 0.5$ and $D\ge 7.92$ arcsec (bottom right panel). Using information on $z$, $\alpha$ and $\delta$, we determine the comoving distance to each galaxy in unit of $h^{-1}$Mpc assuming a WMAP7 cosmology [@wmap7].
To determine the local density of the selected galaxies, we first construct a volume-limited sample of the galaxies (regardless of their types) in the same redshift range from the SDSS spectroscopic data. Basically, the volume-limited sample includes only those SDSS galaxies whose apparent $r$-band magnitudes would exceed a given flux limit, $m_{r,c}$, if placed at $z=0.02$. Figure \[fig:vcut\] plots the fraction of the SDSS galaxies included in a volume-limited sample as a function of $m_{r,c}$. When the SDSS flux limit value of $m_{r,c}=15.2$ is applied, a total of $12273$ galaxies are found to belong to the constructed volume-limited sample. Now, for each selected nearby Scd galaxy from the catalog provided by @HC-etal10, we count the number of its neighbor galaxies from the volume-limited sample whose separation distance from the given selected Scd galaxy is less than $r_{s}=2\,h^{-1}$Mpc. Figure \[fig:dis\_den\] plots the number distribution of the selected nearby large Scd galaxies as a function of the neighbor galaxies located within separation of $r_{s}$. The distribution has its maximum at $N_{ng}\approx 10$ and only a small fraction of the selected Scd galaxies have indeed more than $100$ neighbor galaxies within $r_{s}$. It indicates that the majority of the selected nearby Scd galaxies are field galaxies, not belonging to galaxy clusters.
With the measured comoving distance to each galaxy, we convert each galaxy’s apparent magnitude $m_{r}$ to the absolute magnitude $M_{r}$ by using the system of the inverse hyperbolic sine magnitudes (asinh) [@lup-etal99]. Figure \[fig:dis\_mag\] plots the number distribution of the selected nearby large Scd galaxies as a function of $M_{r}$. Table \[tab:Scd\] lists the redshift range, the total number, mean absolute r-band magnitude and mean number of the neighbors within $2\,h^{-1}$Mpc, averaged over all the selected nearby large Scd galaxies.
Determination of the Galaxy Spin Axes
-------------------------------------
To determine the spin axes of each selected galaxy, we use information from the SDSS imaging data on galaxy’s axial ratio $q$ and position angle $\vartheta_{P}$ which were extracted by the SDSS team from the coefficients of the Fourier expansion of the 25 magnitudes per square arcsecond isophote measured in the $r$- band. Placeholders for the errors on each of these quantities were not available from the website (http://www.sdss.org/dr7). We calculate the inclination angle, $\xi$, of each selected galaxy as [@HG84] $$\label{eqn:xi}
\cos^{2}\xi = \frac{q^{2}-p^{2}}{1-p^{2}}.$$ where $p$ is the intrinsic flatness parameter that depends on the galaxy morphological type. Here, we adopt the value of $p=0.10$ for the Scd galaxies, given by @HG84. If the inclination angle of a given galaxy in the selected sample is less than the intrinsic flatness parameter (i.e., $q \le p$), then we set it at $\pi/2$ (see §3.3 for discussion on the systematics related to the intrinsic flatness parameter).
With the help of the circular thin-disk approximation and given information on the inclination angle $\xi$ and position angle $\vartheta_{P}$, we determine the unit spin vector, $\hat{\bf L}$, of each selected nearby Scd galaxy in a local spherical-polar coordinate system up to sign-ambiguity of the radial component as [@LE07] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{L}_{r}&=&\pm\cos\xi, \\
\hat{L}_{\theta}&=&(1-\cos^{2}\xi)^{1/2}\sin\vartheta_{P},\\
\hat{L}_{\phi}&=&(1-\cos^{2}\xi)^{1/2}\cos\vartheta_{P} \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{L}_{r},\ \hat{L}_{\theta},\ \hat{L}_{\phi}$ correspond to the radial, polar and azimuthal component of $\hat{\bf L}$, respectively. This sign-ambiguity in the radial components of $\hat{\bf L}$ is due to the fact that one cannot determine whether the rotation of a given galaxy upon its symmetry axis is clock-wise or counter-clock wise [@pen-etal00].
Using information on the equatorial coordinates, $(\alpha,\ \delta)$, we determine the unit spin vector of each selected Scd galaxy in the Cartesian coordinate system up to two-fold degeneracy as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{L}_{a1}&=&\hat{L}_{r}\sin\theta\cos\phi + \hat{L}_{\theta}\cos\theta\cos\phi -
\hat{L}_{\phi}\sin\phi ,\\
\hat{L}_{a2} &=&\hat{L}_{r}\sin\theta\sin\phi + \hat{L}_{\theta}\cos\theta\sin\phi +
\hat{L}_{\phi}\cos\phi ,\\
\hat{L}_{a3} &=& \hat{L}_{r}\cos\theta - \hat{L}_{\theta}\sin\theta , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{L}_{b1}&=&-\hat{L}_{r}\sin\theta\cos\phi + \hat{L}_{\theta}\cos\theta\cos\phi -
\hat{L}_{\phi}\sin\phi ,\\
\hat{L}_{b2} &=&-\hat{L}_{r}\sin\theta\sin\phi + \hat{L}_{\theta}\cos\theta\sin\phi +
\hat{L}_{\phi}\cos\phi ,\\
\hat{L}_{b3} &=& -\hat{L}_{r}\cos\theta - \hat{L}_{\theta}\sin\theta , \end{aligned}$$ where $\theta=\pi/2-\delta$ and $\phi=\alpha$. Finally, to each selected nearby Scd galaxy, we assign a set of two unit spin vectors, $\hat{\bf L}_{a}$ and $\hat{\bf L}_{b}$, which differ from each other by the sign of $\hat{L}_{r}$ [@pen-etal00].
INTRINSIC SPIN CORRELATIONS OF THE LATE-TYPE SPIRAL GALAXIES
============================================================
Measurement of the Galaxy Spin Correlations
-------------------------------------------
The spatial correlation of the galaxy spin axes is defined by @pen-etal00 as $$\label{eqn:eta}
\eta(r) \equiv \langle\vert\hat{\bf L}({\bf x})\cdot
\hat{\bf L}({\bf x + r})\vert^{2}\rangle - \frac{1}{3}.$$ Here the ensemble average is taken over those galaxy pairs whose separation distance is in a differential range of $[r,\ r +d r]$. The value of $1/3$ is subtracted since it is the value of the ensemble average when there is no correlation. In practice, however, due to the two-fold degeneracy in the determination of $\hat{\bf L}$, the correlation $\eta(r)$ can be measured only as [@pen-etal00] $$\label{eqn:prac}
\eta(r) = \frac{1}{4}\left(\langle \vert\hat{\bf L}_{a}\cdot\hat{\bf L}^{\prime}_{a}\vert^{2}\rangle +
\langle \vert\hat{\bf L}_{a}\cdot\hat{\bf L}^{\prime}_{b}\vert^{2}\rangle +
\langle \vert\hat{\bf L}_{b}\cdot\hat{\bf L}^{\prime}_{a}\vert^{2}\rangle +
\langle \vert\hat{\bf L}_{b}\cdot\hat{\bf L}^{\prime}_{b}\vert^{2}\rangle\right) - \frac{1}{3}$$ where $\hat{\bf L}^{\prime}$ represents the unit spin vector measured at ${\bf x}+{\bf r}$.
For all pairs of the galaxies, we calculate the squares of the dot products of their unit spin vectors, taking into account the two-fold degeneracy. Binning the separation distances $r$, we take the ensemble average over those pairs whose separation distances belong to a certain distance bin and subtract $1/3$ to determine $\eta(r)$ in accordance with Equation (\[eqn:prac\]). Although we try to reduce systematic errors as much as possible through constraining the redshift-range, morphology and angular size, there could be some residual systematics. To sort out possible residual systematics, we perform a bootstrap error analysis. The spin correlation functions, $\eta(r)$, are remeasured from each of the $1000$ bootstrap resamples which is constructed through shuffling randomly the positions of the selected galaxies. The bootstrap errors, $\sigma_{b}$, are calculated as $\sigma_{b}\equiv\langle(\eta-\bar{\eta}_{b})^{2}\rangle^{1/2}$ where the ensemble average is taken over the $1000$ resamples and $\bar{\eta}_{b}$ represents the bootstrap mean. If there were no residual systematics in the measurement of the galaxy spin axes, then the bootstrap mean value would be very close to zero. The degree of the deviation of the bootstrap mean from zero would indicate the level of the residual systematics.
Figure \[fig:spincor\_z\] plots the observed galaxy spin correlations for four different cases of the galaxy angular size cut ($D_{c}=0.00,\ 1.98,\ 3.96$ and $7.92$ arcsec in the top-left, top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right panel, respectively). In each panel the error bars represent one standard deviation, $\sigma_{\eta}$, in the measurement of $\eta(r)$. The thin solid and dashed line in Figure \[fig:spincor\_z\] represents the bootstrap mean $\bar{\eta}_{b}$ and bootstrap errors, $\sigma_{b}$, respectively, while the thin dotted line corresponds to the zero signal. As it can be seen, a clear signal as strong as $3.4\sigma_{b}$ is detected for all four cases of $D_{c}$ at the second radial bin corresponding to the distance of $r\approx 1.25 h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. For the cases of $D_{c}=0$ and $1.98$ arcsec, the third radial bins corresponding to $r\approx 2\,h^{-1}$Mpc also exhibit a $3\sigma_{b}$ signal while for the other two cases of $D_{c} =3.96$ and $7.92$, the correlation at $r=2\,h^{-1}$Mpc diminishes down to $2.4\sigma_{b}$ level.
As mentioned in §1, for the galaxies having small angular sizes the spin axes are difficult to measure accurately. As it can be seen from Figure \[fig:spincor\_z\], for the two cases of $D_{c}=0$ and $1.98$ arcsec where the small angular size galaxies are included, the mean bootstrap values (thin solid line) show non-negligible deviations from zero (larger than $10^{-4}$). Thus, the $3\sigma_{b}$ signals detected at $r\approx 2\,h^{-1}$Mpc for these two cases are likely to be contaminated by the systematics. Figure \[fig:booterr\] shows more clearly how the averaged bootstrap mean value changes with $D_{c}$. As it can be seen, the bootstrap mean value decreases as $D_{c}$ increases and drops below $10^{-4}$ (negligible level) when $D_{c}$ reaches up to $7.92$ arcsec, which justify our choice of $D_{c}=7.92$ arcsec for this analysis.
Since the correlation function, $\eta(r)$, is computed as a function of the three dimensional separation, there may be some cross-correlations at different radii. If the cross-correlations between the second and third radial bins are significant, then the signal detection for the second radial bin would have lower significance. To quantify the amount of cross-correlations, we compute the covariance matrix, $C_{ij}$, that is defined $$\label{eqn:cov}
C_{ij}\equiv\langle (\eta_{i}-\bar{\eta}_{bi})(\eta_{j}-\bar{\eta}_{bj})\rangle$$ where the ensemble average is taken over $1000$ bootstrap resamples, $\eta_{i}$ is the correlation at the $i$-th bin from a bootstrap resample, and $\bar{\eta}_{bi}$ is the bootstrap mean at the $i$-th bin. If the cross-correlations between the second and third radial bins are significant, then the off-diagonal component, $C_{23}$, would be comparable in magnitude to the diagonal component, $C_{22}$. It is found that $C_{22}=3.18\times 10^{-6}$ while $C_{23}=-0.17\times 10^{-7}$. This implies that the cross-correlations between the second and third radial bins are order of magnitude smaller (and even negative) than the correlations at the second radial bins, which proves that the signal detected at the second radial bin is robust.
Dependence on Local Number Density and Luminosity
-------------------------------------------------
Now that we have detected non-zero galaxy spin correlations from the SDSS data, we would like to investigate whether or not $\eta(r)$ depends on the local number density $N_{ng}$ of neighbor galaixses. Applying the number density cut, $N_{ng,c}=10$, to the sample, we divide the selected Scd galaxies into two subsamples each of which consists of those nearby large Scd galaxies with $N_{ng}\le N_{ng,c}$ and $N_{ng}>N_{ng,c}$, respectively. Then, we measure $\eta(r)$ from each subsample separately, the results of which are plotted in the top and bottom panel of Figure \[fig:spincor\_den\], respectively.
As it can be seen, for the subsample with $N_{ng}>10$, we find a correlation signal as significant as $3.1\sigma_{b}$ signal at $r\approx 1.25\,h^{-1}$Mpc, while for the subsample with $N_{ng}\le 10$, no correlation signal is detected. The bootstrap mean values are quite close to zero for both of the cases, which indicates that the detected signal is not spurious. This result shows that those Scd galaxies located in denser regions tend to have stronger spin correlations. A possible physical explanation is that the galaxies located in denser regions experience so stronger tidal forces from the surrounding neighbor mass distribution that the tidally-induced intrinsic correlations of their spin axes are better retained, which is consistent with the previous results of @LE07.
Using the galaxy pairs in which one galaxy has $N_{ng}>N_{ng,c}$ and the other has $N_{ng}\le N_{ng,c}$, we also measure the cross-correlations of the spin axes between the two subsamples, the result of which is plotted in Figure \[fig:spincor\_crossden\]. As one can see, the result is consistent with zero cross-correlation, which reveals that the spin axes of the galaxies in less dense regions are not correlated with those of the galaxies in denser regions.
To investigate how the intrinsic correlations depend on the luminosity, we take the median $r$-band absolute magnitude, $-16.67$, as the threshold $M_{r,c}$, and divide the selected galaxies into two subsamples each of which consists of those nearby large Scd galaxies with $M_{r}>-16.67$ and $M_{r}\le -16.67$, respectively. Then, we measure $\eta(r)$ from each subsample separately, which are plotted in the top and bottom panel of Figure \[fig:spincor\_mag\], respectively. As it can be seen, the correlation function, $\eta(r)$, exhibits a $4.9\sigma_{b}$ peak at $r\approx 1.25\,h^{-1}$Mpc and a $2.4\sigma_{b}$ peak at $r\approx 2\,h^{-1}$Mpc in the fainter and brighter galaxy sample, respectively.
This result, however, cannot be interpreted as a clear luminosity dependence of the galaxy spin correlations. In fact, the peaks of $\eta(r)$ detected at $1.25\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $2\,h^{-1}$Mpc (for the fainter and brighter sample, respectively) turn out to correspond to a similar angular separation of galaxy pairs. It indicates the existence of significant residual systematics, which is also manifest from the relatively high degree of the deviation of the bootstrap mean from zero for the fainter sample as shown in the top panel of Figure \[fig:spincor\_mag\]. Furthermore, the redshift distributions of the two subsamples are found to be largely different: the brighter (fainter) sample is biased to relatively higher (lower) redshifts, as shown in Figure \[fig:zdis\]. The mean and median redshifts of the two subsamples are also listed in Table \[tab:zdis\]. Given that there should exist significant systematics and that it is impossible to disentangle a luminosity from a redshift dependence of the galaxy spin correlations, we admit that a luminosity dependence of the galaxy spin correlations cannot be measured with our magnitude-split samples.
In §3.3, we discuss fully the possible sources of this residual systematic errors involved in the measurement of the spin correlations of the fainter galaxies. Before moving on to the discussion on systematics, we also measure the spin cross correlations between the fainter and brighter samples, the result of which is plotted in Figure \[fig:spincor\_crossmag\]. As can be seen, a strong anti-correlation of the spin axes as significant as $3\sigma_{b}$ is found at $r\approx 10\,h^{-1}$Mpc. In other words, the spin axes of the fainter galaxies tend to be orthogonal to that of the brighter galaxies separated by the distance of $\sim 10\,h^{-1}$Mpc. Given the numerical and observational results from the previous works [@bai-etal05; @BS05; @jones-etal10; @hah-etal10], we explain this observational result as follows: The spin axes of the fainter galaxies are aligned with the intermediate principal axes of the local tidal fields as predicted by the linear tidal torque theory. Whereas for the brighter galaxies which are usually located in cosmic filaments, their spin axes tend to be aligned with the longest axes of the local filaments, i.e., the minor principal axes of the local tidal fields [@jones-etal10], as revealed by the recent numerical results from hydrodynamic simulations [@hah-etal10]. In consequence, the two subsamples have strong anti spin-correlations between each other. The separation distance of $10\,h^{-1}$Mpc at which the strong anti-correlations are detected should be the typical separation between the faint isolated and bright wall galaxies.
Discussion on Systematics
-------------------------
For the accurate measurement of the galaxy spin correlations, we have tried to eliminate systematic errors as much as we can by constraining the redshift, morphological type and angular size of the SDSS galaxies. The small bootstrap errors shown in the bottom right panel of Figure \[fig:spincor\_z\] suggests that no severe systematics be existent in our constrained sample, and thus that our detection of the spin correlations be robust. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that our results may not be completely free from systematics.
A possible source of residual systematics could be related to the constant value of the intrinsic flatness parameter, $p=0.1$ in Equation (\[eqn:xi\]) that we adopt in accordance with @HG84 to account for the finite thickness of the Scd galaxies. Given that this value of $p=0.1$ was obtained by @HG84 from a sample of HI 21cm observations and that the shape of the neutral hydrogen distribution does not necessarily coincide with the optical shape of a galaxy, one may suspect that a different value of $p$ should be used for the galaxies from the optical SDSS survey. An ideal way would be to look at the individual images of the optical shapes of the SDSS galaxies and to search for the optimal value to $p$ for the selected Scd galaxies. This task, however, would be extremely time consuming and thus should be beyond the scope of this paper.
Instead, we inspect how the final results would change as we use different values to $p$ in Equation (\[eqn:xi\]). @HG84 explained that unless a galaxy has a well developed bulge like the early type spirals, the intrinsic flatness parameter must have the value in range of $0.1\le p\le 0.15$. Since we select only Scd galaxies which optical shapes must have the thinnest bulges, we expect that the value of $p$ would not differ significantly from $0.1$. Figure \[fig:flat\] plots the same as Figure \[fig:spincor\_z\] but for four different cases of the intrinsic flatness parameter ($p=0.0\,0.05\, 0.1$ and $0.15$). As one can see, the final results change less than $10 \%$ as the value of $p$ changes from $0.$ to $0.15$, which justify our choice of $p=0.1$.
Another possible source of residual systematics is the limitation of the circular disk approximation. The morphology class of Scd from the SDSS catalog includes the irregular galaxies [@HC-etal10], for which the circular thin disk approximation would be invalid. But, through private communication with M.Huertas-Company, we have learned that the fraction of the included irregular galaxies must be small since the irregular galaxies are usually fainter while the targets of the spectroscopic SDSS sample are brighter. The relatively larger bootstrap mean values of $\eta(r)$ for the fainter samples shown in the top panel of Figure \[fig:spincor\_mag\] are most likely to be caused by the inaccurate measurement of the spin axes of the irregular galaxies that are included in the subsample of the fainter galaxies ($M_{r}>-16.67$). An ideal way should be to look at the individual images of the fainter galaxies and sort out the irregular galaxies from the fainter sample. However, it would be also extremely time consuming and thus should be beyond the scope of this paper. Here, we just state explicitly that the residual systematics could cause spurious signals of correlations for the fainter Scd galaxy sample, which is most likely to be due to the limitation of the circular thin disk approximation and that a better algorithm for the measurement of the spin axes of the irregular galaxies would be desirable.
COMPARISON WITH THE THEORETICAL MODEL
=====================================
A Brief Review of the Analytic Model
------------------------------------
According to the linear tidal torque theory, the angular momentum vector of a proto-galactic halo ${\bf L}=(L_{i})$ is expressed in terms of the proto-galaxy inertia momentum tensor ${\bf I}=(I_{ij})$ and the local tidal shear tensor ${\bf T}=(T_{ij})$ [@dor70; @whi84; @CT96; @LP00; @LP01; @cri-etal01; @LP02; @por-etal02; @LE07; @LP08] $$\label{eqn:ang}
L_{i} \propto \epsilon_{ijk}T_{jl}I_{lk},$$ where $\epsilon_{ijk}$ is the fully anti-symmetric tensor. Equations (\[eqn:ang\]) implies that the spin axes of the proto-galaxies (i.e., the direction of the proto-galaxy angular momentum vector) are not random but correlated with the intermediate principal axes of the local tidal field tensors [@CT96; @LP00]. Assuming that the initially generated correlations between ${\bf L}$ and ${\bf T}$ have been retained to some non-negligible degree till present epoch, @LP00 have proposed the following formula to quantify the strength of the correlations: $$\label{eqn:stc}
\langle\hat{L}_{i}\hat{L}_{j}\rangle = \frac{1+a}{3}\delta_{ij} -
a\hat{T}_{ik}\hat{T}_{kj},$$ where $\hat{\bf L}$ is the unit spin vector of a given galaxy, $\hat{\bf T}$ is the unit traceless tidal shear tensor smoothed on the galactic scale, and $a$ is a free parameter to quantify the strength of the correlations between $\hat{\bf L}$ and $\hat{\bf T}$.
A direct application of Equation (\[eqn:stc\]) to the spatial correlations between the spin axes of neighbor galaxies have yielded the following formula for the galaxy spin-spin correlations [@pen-etal00; @LP01; @cri-etal01] $$\label{eqn:1st}
\eta(r) \approx \frac{a^2}{6}\frac{\xi^{2}(r;R)}{\xi^{2}(0;R)},$$ where $\xi(r)$ is the two-point correlations of the linear density field smoothed on the galactic scale ($R\approx 1\,h^{-1}$Mpc) [e.g.,see @BBKS]. According to Equation (\[eqn:1st\]), the spatial correlations between the galaxy spin axes would follow a quadratic scaling of the density correlation, decreasing rapidly to zero as $r$ increases. We fit the observations results obtained in §3.1 and 3.2 to Equation (\[eqn:1st\]) to determine the best-fit correlation parameter, $a$ and examine whether or not the observed spin correlations follow the quadratic scaling with the linear density correlation, $\xi(r)$.
Observed Scaling of the Galaxy Spin-Spin Correlations
-----------------------------------------------------
We minimize the following generalized $\chi^{2}$ to find the bestfit-value of $a$ [@hartlap-etal07]. $$\label{eqn:chi2}
\chi^{2}\equiv \frac{1}{(N_{bin}-1)}[\eta_{i}-\eta(r_{i})]C^{-1}_{ij} [\eta_{j}-\eta(r_{j})],$$ where $C^{-1}_{ij}$ is the inverse of $C_{ij}$ that is defined in Equation (\[eqn:cov\]), $\eta(r_{i})$ represents the theoretical value calculated at the $i$-th distance bin, $\eta_{i}$ is the observed correlation at the same distance bin (with the bootstrap means subtracted) and $N_{bin}$ is the number of radial bins. Note that since there is only one parameter, the degree of freedom for $\chi^{2}$ is given as $N_{bin}-1$. Here, the covariance matrix $C_{ij}$ is computed using the bootstrap resamples as defined in §2.2 and the fitting is done for the distance range of $0.5\le r/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})\le 50$ since at larger distances the numerical flukes tend to contaminate the fitting. If this [*reduced*]{} $\chi^{2}$ have a value close to unity, the theoretical model, Equation (\[eqn:1st\]), would be regarded as a good fit to the observational result.
Figure \[fig:spincor\_theory\] plots the best-fit model as solid line and compares it with the observational results (square dots). The best-fit value of $a$ is found to be $0.25\pm 0.04$ and the corresponding value of $\chi^{2}$ is found to be $0.83$ (see Table \[tab:parameter\]). Here, the error associated with the measurement of $a$ is determined as [@hartlap-etal07] $$\label{eqn:sigma_a}
\sigma^{2}_{a} = \left(\frac{d^{2}\chi^{2}}{da^{2}}\right)^{-1}$$ Now that the reduced $\chi^{2}$ is found to be close to unity and the best-fit value of $a$ is found to be $6\sigma_{a}$ higher than zero, it can be said that the observed spin correlations are indeed tidally induced, having quadratic scaling with the linear density correlations, as predicted by the linear tidal torque theory.
We note here that both of the best-fit value of $a$ are larger than that determined by @LP08 through fitting of the numerical data from the Millennium Run simulations (see Table 3 in Lee & Pen 2008). There are two important implications of this result. First of all, the spin orientations of the luminous galaxies may not be perfectly aligned with those of their dark halos, which is consistent with the previous numerical results [e.g., @bai-etal05; @BS05; @hah-etal10]. Second of all, the luminous galaxies have retained better the initial memory of the tidally induced intrinsic spin-spin correlations than their dark halos. This phenomenon may be explained as follows. The luminous galaxies are located in the inner parts of the galactic halos while the dark matter particles are stretched to the outer parts of the dark halos [e.g., @BS05; @hah-etal10]. Therefore, the spin orientations of the luminous galaxies may be less vulnerable than those of their dark counterparts to the destructive nonlinear effects from the surroundings which would break the tidally induced intrinsic correlations.
The fitting results for the subsamples with $N_{ng}>10$ and $M_{r}>-16.67$ are also plotted in Figures \[fig:spincor\_hden\_theory\] and \[fig:spincor\_dim\_theory\], respectively. The best-fit values of $a$ and the minimum value of $\chi^{2}$ corresponding to these two cases are also listed in the second and third rows of Table \[tab:parameter\]. As one can see, for the case of $N_{ng}>10$, the best-fit value of $a$ has the largest value, approximately $0.34$. As mentioned in §3.2, it may be due to the stronger tidal forces from the surrounding.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
=======================
Selecting those large nearby late-type spiral galaxies which have angular sizes larger than $7.92$ arcsec, low redshifts ($0\le z\le 0.02$), and morphological type of Scd from the SDSS DR7, and we have measured the spatial correlations between their spin axes. The summary of our results is the following.
- A clear signal of the intrinsic correlation as strong as $3.4\sigma_{b}$ and $2.4\sigma_{b}$ (where $\sigma_{b}$ is the bootstrap error) is detected at $r\approx 1.25\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $r\approx 2.0\,h^{-1}$Mpc, respectively. The cross-correlations between the two radial bins are found to be insignificant.
- The galaxies having more than ten neighbors within separation of $2\,h^{-1}$Mpc exhibit higher intrinsic spin correlations (at $3.1\sigma_{b}$ level) than those having ten or less neighbors within the same separation distance. This local density dependence of the galaxy spin correlations may be due to the stronger tidal forces from the denser environments.
- The observed spin correlation functions of the selected Scd galaxies follow the quadractic scaling with the linear density correlations, which is consistent with the prediction of the linear tidal torque theory.
We have also attempted to measure a luminosity dependence of the galaxy spin correlations by splitting the galaxy samples according to their absolute $r$-band magnitudes ($M_{r}$), and noted that the correlation function has a peak at $1.25\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $2\,h^{-1}$Mpc for the fainter ($M_{r}> -16.67$) and brighter sample ($M_{r}\le -16.67$), respectively. However, the two peaks from the two magnitude-split samples turn out to correspond to a similar angular separation, which hints at significant systematics. To make matters worse, the redshift distributions of the two magnitude-split samples are found to be so different that it is impossible with our samples to disentangle a luminosity from a redshift dependence of the galaxy spin correlations. Therefore, we conclude that a luminosity dependence of the galaxy spin correlations cannot not be measured from our samples.
The behaviors of the detected correlations are found to be consistent with the predictions of the tidal torque theory. But, the correlation strength turns out to be greater than predicted by the numerical simulations. This result indicates that the spin orientations of the luminous galaxies are not aligned with those of the underlying dark halos and that the luminous galaxies retain better the initial memory of the tidally induced spin alignments than their dark counterparts. It is physically explained as the spin orientations of the luminous galaxies may be less vulnerable than those of their dark counterparts to the destructive nonlinear effects from the surroundings which tend to break the tidally induced intrinsic correlations. It has to be understood fully in the future how and under what circumstances the spin axes of the late-type spiral galaxies have retained their original orientations.
It is also worth mentioning the apparent inconsistency between our results and the previous studies which claimed that the two dimensional projected shapes of the blue SDSS galaxies show no correlation at higher redshifts, $z\sim 0.1$, [see e.g., @man-etal10]. Given that we have detected $3.4\sigma$ correlation signal at $z\le 0.02$ and that the intrinsic spin correlations of the blue galaxies would be stronger at higher redshifts, one may naturally expect that the shape correlations of the blue galaxies at $z\sim 0.1$ would be strong enough to affect the weak lensing signals, which is inconsistent with the previous results. We think of several reasons for this inconsistency: First, the two dimensional projected shapes of the blue galaxies may not be a good indicator of the tidally induced alignments; Second, there may be considerable uncertainties involved in the accurate measurements of the shape correlations of the blue galaxies at $z\sim 0.1$. As a final conclusion, our results will shed a new light on the study of the galaxy intrinsic alignments and the weak lensing analysis as well.
I thank M. Huertas-Company for providing information on the galaxy position angles and magnitudes. I also thank an anonymous referee for very useful comments which helped me improve significantly the original manuscript. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST, No.2010-0007819). Support for this work was also provided by the National Research Foundation of Korea to the Center for Galaxy Evolution Research.
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermi lab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
Abazajian, K. N., et al. 2009, , 182, 543 Arag[ó]{}n-Calvo, M. A., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & van der Hulst, J. M. 2007, , 655, L5 Aryal, B., & Saurer, W. 2005, , 360, 125 Altay, G., Colberg, J. M., & Croft, R. A. C. 2006, , 370, 1422 Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C., & Hern[á]{}ndez, X. 1998, , 505, 37 Bailin, J., et al. 2005, , 627, L17 Bailin, J. & Steinmetz, M. 2005, , 627, 647 Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, , 304, 15 Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, , 380, 603 Brown, M. L., Taylor, A. N., Hambly, N. C., & Dye, S. 2002, , 333, 501 Catelan, P., Kamionkowski, M., & Blandford, R. D. 2001, , 320, L7 Catelan, P., & Theuns, T. 1996, , 282, 436 Crittenden, R. G., Natarajan, P., Pen, U. L & Theuns, T. 2001, , 559, 552 Crittenden, R. G., Natarajan, P., Pen, U. L & Theuns, T. 2001, , 568, 20 Croft, R. A. C. & Metzler, C. A. 2000, , 545, 561 Doroshkevich, A. G. 1970, Astrofizika, 6, 581 Dubinski, J. 1992, , 401, 441 Erdo[ğ]{}du, P., et al. 2006, , 373, 45 Fan, Z.-H. 2007, , 669, 10 Flin, P., & Godlowski, W. 1986, , 222, 525 Fuller, T. M., West, M. J., & Bridges, T. J. 1999, , 519, 22 :: [**infall/merging**]{} Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., & Dekel, A. 2007, , 375, 489 Hahn, O., Teyssier, R., & Carollo, C. M. 2010, , 405, 274 Hambly, N. C., et al. 2001, , 326, 1279 Haynes, M. P. & Giovanelli, R. 1984, , 89, 758 Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2007, , 464, 399 Heavens, A., Refregier, A., & Heymans, C. 2000, , 319, 649 Heymans, C. & Heavens, A. 2003, , 339, 711 Hirata, C. M. & Seljak, U. 2004, , 70, 063526 Hirata, C. M., et al. 2004, , 353, 529 Hirata, C. M., et al. 2007, , 381, 1197 Huertas-Company, M., Aguerri, J. A. L, Bernardi, M., Mei, S., & S[á]{}nchez Almeida, J. 2010, arXiv:1010.3018 Hui, L. & Zhang Z. 2002, preprint \[astro-ph/0205512\] Hui, L., & Zhang, J. 2008, , 688, 742 Jimenez, R., Padoan, P., Matteucci, F. & Heavens, A. F. 1998, , 299, 123 Jing, Y. 2002, , 335, L89 Joachimi, B., & Bridle, S. L. 2010, , 523, A1 Joachimi, B., Mandelbaum, R., Abdalla, F. B., & Bridle, S. L. 2010, arXiv:1008.3491 Jones, B. J. T., van de Weygaert, R., & Arag[ó]{}n-Calvo, M. A. 2010, , 408, 897 King, L. 2005, , 441, 47 Komatsu, E. et al. 2010, , 192, 18 Lee, J. & Pen, U. L. 2000, , 532, L5 Lee, J. & Pen, U. L. 2001, , 555, 106 Lee, J. & Pen, U. L. 2002, , 567, 111 Lee, J. 2006, , 644, L5 Lee, J. & Erdogdu, P. 2007, 671, 1248 Lee, J., & Pen, U.-L. 2007, , 670, L1 Lee, J., & Pen, U.-L. 2008, , 681, 798 Lee, J., Springel, V., Pen, U.-L., & Lemson, G. 2008, , 389, 1266 Lee, J., Hahn, O., & Porciani, C. 2009, , 707, 761 Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., & Szalay, A. S. 1999, , 118, 1406 Mackey, J., White, M., & Kamionkowski, M. 2002, , 332, 788 Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C. M., Ishak, M., Seljak, U., & Brinkmann, J. 2006, , 367, 611 Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2010, , 1486 Mo, H. J., Mao, S. & White, S. D. M. 1998, , 295, 319 Navarro, J.F., Abadi, M.G., & Steinmetz, M. 2004, , 613, L41 Patiri, S. G., Cuesta, A. J., Prada, F., Betancort-Rijo, J., & Klypin, A. 2006, , 652, 75 Paz, D. J., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N. D. 2008, , 389, 1127 Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, , 155, 393 Pen, U. L., Lee, J., & Seljak, U. 2000, 543, L107 Porciani, C., Dekel, A., & Hoffman, Y. 2002, , 332, 339 Saunders, W., et al. 2000, , 317, 55 Sch[ä]{}fer, B. M. 2009, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 18, 173 Schneider, M. D., & Bridle, S. 2010, , 402, 2127 Slosar, A., et al. 2009, , 392, 1225 Springel, V., et al. 2005, , 435, 629 Sugerman, B., Summers, F. J., & Kamionkowski, M. 2000, , 311, 762 Trujillo, I., Carretero, C., & Patiri, S. 2006, , 610, L111 White, S. D. M. 1984, , 286, 38 York, D. G., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
[cccc]{} $4067$ & $0.01$ & $-16.56$ & $27$ \[tab:Scd\]
[cccc]{} $M_{r}> -16.67$ & $2034$ & $0.007$ & $0.009$\
$M_{r}\le -16.67$ & $2033$ & $0.015$ & $0.014$\
\[tab:zdis\]
[cccc]{} — & $4067$ & $0.25\pm 0.04$ & $0.83$\
$N_{ng}> 10$ & $1945$ & $0.34\pm 0.07$ & $1.10$\
$M_{r}> -16.67$ & $2034$ & $0.27\pm 0.04$ & $1.87$\
\[tab:parameter\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'H. Kamada[^1]$^{,***),****)}$, W. Glöckle$^{***)}$, H. Witała$^{*****)}$, S. Gojuki$^{****)}$'
title: 'A Model for the $^3$He($\vec d$, p)$^4$He Reaction at Intermediate Energies[^2] '
---
Introduction
============
The measurement[@UESAKA] of the $\vec {^3He}$ ($\vec d$, p)$^4He$ reaction at RIKEN aimed at an investigation of the high momentum components of the deuteron wave function and the d-state admixture linked to them. High precision data resulted for the polarization observables $A_y$, $A_{yy},A_{xx},C_{y,y}$ and $C_{x,x}$. Out of them the linear combination $C_\parallel= 1+{1 \over 4} (A_{yy}+A_{xx})+{3 \over 4} (C_{y,y}+C_{x,x}) $ has been formed[@UESAKA]. The Dubna and Saturne groups also obtained the polarization correlation coefficient $C_\parallel$ built in this case from the measurements of $T_{20}$ and $\kappa_0$ in d + p backward scattering[@DPBS] and from the inclusive deuteron breakup process[@DIB]. The polarization correlation coefficient $C_\parallel$ at forward angles of the outgoing proton is directly related to the ratio of deuteron wavefunction components if one uses the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) : $$\begin{aligned}
C_\parallel (PWIA) \equiv { 9 \over 4 } { w ^2 (k_{pn} ) \over { u ^ 2 ( k _{pn} ) + w^2 ( k_{pn}) }}
\label{EQ1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $u$ and $w$ are the S-, D-wave components of the deuteron wavefunction, and $k_{pn}$ a kinematically fixed relative momentum of the $pn$ pair. These PWIA calculations are very poor in relation to the data[@UESAKA]. This is shown in table \[table1\] for $C_\parallel$. There we also exhibit the different D-state probabilities for the modern realistic NN potentials, CD-Bonn[@BONN], AV18[@Argonne] and Nijmegen I,II and 93[@NIJM]. Clearly one needs a better calculation for the analysis of the $^3\vec He$($\vec d $,p)$^4$He reaction.
A theoretical analysis has been reported by the SUT group [@ORYU] based on a $^3$He-n-p and d-d-p three-cluster model. However, the evaluations performed up to now in this model lead only to a tiny deviation from the PWIA calculations just mentioned. Recently, the Hosei group [@HOSEI] analyzed $T_{20}$ and $\kappa_0 $ with the $^3$He-n-p cluster model by an analogy between $^3$He and the proton (T=1/2, S=1/2). They conclude that PWIA describes the global features of the experimental data.
In this letter we would like to introduce again a 3N model, which when evaluated correctly leads to a great similarity of various polarization observables to the ones found in the reaction $^3\vec He$($\vec d $,p)$^4$He.
[c@|c@|c@]{} Potential & $C_\parallel (PWIA) $ & D-state Probability (%)\
CD-Bonn [@BONN]& 0.645 & 4.86\
AV18 [@Argonne] & 0.722 & 5.78\
Nijmegen 93 [@NIJM] & 0.710 & 5.76\
Nijmegen I[@NIJM] & 0.712 & 5.68\
Nijmegen II[@NIJM] & 0.726 & 5.65\
exp. [@UESAKA] & 0.223$\pm$ 0.044(statistical)$\pm$ 0.037(systematic) & -\
Model
=====
For the $^3$He($\vec d$,p)$^4$He reaction we assume a model which is based on a three-body reaction process. This is shown in Fig. \[FIG1\]. The wavefunctions for $^3$He and $^4$He take on maximal values if the momenta of the subclusters are zero in their respective rest systems. These are for $^3$He the momenta of p and d and for $^4$He the momenta of the two deuterons. This means that for the moving nuclei the subcluster momenta should be equal. Therefore to form the $\alpha$-particle with highest probability in the picture of Fig. \[FIG1\] one has to assume that the two deuterons, $d'$ and $\tilde d$, have equal momenta. Likewise for $^3$He one has to assume that the proton and deuteron, $\tilde p$ and $\tilde d$, have equal momenta. This turns out to be kinematically inconsistent. Therefore we make a choice and assume that only the two deuterons forming the $\alpha$ particle have equal momenta. We justify this choice by the larger binding energy of the $\alpha$ particle.
It is easy to see that our basic assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\vec k _{\tilde d} = \vec k _{d '} \end{aligned}$$ fixes the kinematics uniquely. It follows by simple kinematical arguments that $$\begin{aligned}
\vec k_{\tilde p } ^{lab} = { 1 \over 2} \vec k _p ^{cm} - {2 \over 5} \vec k _d ^{lab} = -\vec
k_{\tilde d} ^{lab}\end{aligned}$$ Here the superscripts $lab$ and $cm$ denote the laboratory and 5-body cm systems, respectively. Further the total momentum of the picked up proton and the incoming deuteron in the lab system is $$\begin{aligned}
\vec K = { 1\over 2 } \vec k_p ^{cm} + { 3 \over 5} \vec k_d ^{lab}\end{aligned}$$ Also we get the momentum of the picked up proton in the 3-body center of mass system (3CM) as $$\begin{aligned}
\vec k _{\tilde p} ^ {3CM} = { 1 \over 3 } \vec k _{p}^ {cm} - { 3 \over 5} \vec k_d ^{lab} \end{aligned}$$ and the 3CM energy as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{3CM} = { 3 \over 4 m} ( \vec k _{\tilde p} ^{3CM} ) ^2
\label{E3CM}\end{aligned}$$ We show in Fig. \[FIG2\] the relevant kinematics for the cm and the 3CM systems. From the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\vec k _{\tilde p} ^{3CM} = { 2 \over 5} \vec k _{p} ^{3CM} - { 3 \over 5} \vec k_d ^{lab}\end{aligned}$$ it follows under our condition, that the angles shown in Fig. \[FIG2\] are related as $$\begin{aligned}
\theta ^{3CM} = \theta _p ^{3CM} - \theta _{\tilde p } ^{3CM}
\label{THETA3CM}\end{aligned}$$ (note that $\theta_p \equiv \theta _p ^{3CM} = \theta_p ^{cm}$ ). The dependence of $E_{3CM}$ on $\theta_p ^{cm}$ is illustrated in Fig. \[FIG3\] for 3 deuteron energies. The scattering angle $\theta^{3CM}$ is shown against $\theta_p ^{cm}$ in Fig. \[FIG4\] again for the same 3 deuteron energies.
Our claim is now that $ %\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal O} (E_d, \theta_p ^ {cm} ) \approx {\cal O}_ {pd}( E _{3CM}, \theta ^{3CM})
$ where ${\cal O}_{pd}$ are the elastic pd deuteron polarization observables and $\cal O$ the ones for the reaction $^3\vec He$($\vec d $, p)$^4$He.
Before calculating these 3N observables we introduce one more approximation. Looking at Fig.\[FIG3\] we see that $E_{3CM}$ varies with $\theta_p ^{cm}$ and consequently for each $\theta_p^{cm}$ one would have to solve the 3N Faddeev equation. We avoided that for that qualitative investigation and have chosen available Faddeev results at three energies which lie in the three energy bands for $ 0 < \theta_p ^{cm} < 40 ^\circ $. They are $E_{3CM}$= 66.7, 100, 133 MeV corresponding to $E_d$= 140, 200, 270 MeV, respectively.
Results
=======
As NN potential we used AV18 in the Faddeev calculations. The operator $U$ for elastic scattering has the form (see, for instance, [@GLOECKLE]) $$\begin{aligned}
U = P G_0^{-1} + P T \end{aligned}$$ where $G_0$, $P$ and $T$ are the free 3N propagator, permutation operators and a partial 3N break-up operator, which is determined by a Faddeev equation. The first term, the famous nucleon exchange term, is essentially related to the PWIA mentioned in introduction. In order to see the importance of solving the Faddeev equation correctly and not just replacing $U$ by $P G_0 ^{-1}$ we compare the corresponding predictions for $A_{yy}$, $A_{xx}$ and $A_{xz}$ in Figs. \[FIGAYY2\]-\[FIGAXZ2\]. We see large differences especially above about 15 degrees. Trivially $A_y$ is identically zero using only the real term $P G_o ^{-1}$.
The predictions of the full Faddeev solution are shown in Figs. \[FIGAY\]-\[FIGAXZ\] at $E_{3CM}$=66.7, 100 and 133 MeV, respectively. This should be compared to recent data[@TAIWAN]. We see a behavior qualitatively similar to those data, especially for $A_y$. For the $A_y$ data the minima shift to smaller $\theta_p ^{cm} $ value with increasing energy like in Fig. \[FIGAY\]. Also for $A_{yy}$ the qualitative behavior is similar in our model and the data, especially at the highest energy. For $A_{xx}$ the shapes are again very similar. In Fig. \[FIGAYY\] and \[FIGAXX\] we include one data point from [@UESAKA]. This shows that our absolute values are too high. For $A_{xz}$ shown in Fig. \[FIGAXZ\] there are not yet data.
Summary and Outlook
===================
We assumed that the reaction $^3\vec He$($\vec d$,p)$^4$He at forward angles is mainly driven by elastic pd scattering. In this model the deuteron picks up a proton from $^3$He, scatters elastically and combines then again with the spectator nucleons to an $\alpha$ particle. Our main assumption is that the momentum of the scattered deuteron equals the spectator momentum of the deuteron in $^3$He. This leads to a high probability to form the final $\alpha$-particle. The resulting spin-observables are in astonishingly good qualitative agreement with the data. Important thereby is, that the elastic pd amplitude is a full solution of the 3N Faddeev equation and not only a simple PWIA expression. This model should be generalized by the mechanism that also a neutron from $^3$He can be picked up. In this case one has to use the nd break-up amplitude. Since the polarization of $^3$He is carried by more than 90 % by the neutron this second mechanism is of course mandatory for a description of $C_{x,x}$ and $C_{y,y}$. The proton pick-up alone is too poor for those spin correlation observables. Also we neglected the momentum distributions of the proton in $^3$He and of the deuteron in the $\alpha$ particle. As an additional improvement the spin of the deuteron should be properly rotated for the deuteron polarization observables.
Based on the promising qualitative results achieved it appears worthwhile to improve and enrich the model along the lines mentioned.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This letter is dedicated to Prof. Shinsho Oryu on the occasion of his 60th’s birthday. Authors would like to thank Prof. Hideyuki Sakai, Dr. Tomohiro Uesaka, Mr. Yositeru Satou and Ms. Kimiko Sekiguchi for fruitful discussions in RIKEN. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The numerical calculations have been performed on the CRAY T90 of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany.
[99]{} T. Uesaka, H. Sakai, H. Okamura, T. Ohnishi, Y. Satou, S. Ishida, N. Sakamoto, H. Otsu, T. Wakasa, K. Itoh, K. Sekiguchi, T. Wakui, . L. S. Azhgirey [*et al.*]{}, . L. S. Azhgirey [*et al.*]{}, . R. Machleidt, [*et al.*]{}, . R. B. Wiringa [*et al.* ]{}, . V. G. J. Stoks [*et al.*]{}, . S. Gojuki, H. Kamada, E. Uzu and S. Oryu, Proceedings of the first Asia Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics APFB99, (Noda/Kashiwa 1999), to appear in Few-Body System Suppl. M. Tanifuji, S. Ishikawa, Y. Iseri, T. Uesaka, N. Sakamoto, Y. Satou, K.Itoh, H. Sakai, A. Tamii, T. Ohnishi, K. Sekiguchi, K. Yako, S. Sakoda, H. Okamura, K. Suda, and T. Wakasa, . W. Glöckle, H. Witała, D. Hüber, H. Kamada, J. Golak, Phys. Rep. [**274**]{} (1996) 107. T. Uesaka [*et al.*]{}, Contribution for the XVIth IUPAP International Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics, (Taipei, Taiwan 6-11, March 2000), http://www.phys.ntu.edu.tw/english/fb16/contribution/topic4/Uesaka\_Tomohiro1.ps
[^1]: present address: Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik der Universität Bonn Nussallee 14-16, D-53115 Bonn, Germany, E-mail address: kamada@tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
[^2]: Dedicated to Prof. Shinsho Oryu on the occasion of his 60th birthday
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It was argued recently that conformal invariance in flat spacetime implies Weyl invariance in a general curved background for unitary theories and possible anomalies in the Weyl variation of scalar operators are identified. We argue that generically unitarity alone is not sufficient for a conformal field theory to be Weyl invariant. Furthermore, we show explicitly that when a unitary conformal field theory couples to gravity in a Weyl invariant way, each primary scalar operator that is either relevant or marginal in the unitary conformal field theory corresponds to a Weyl-covariant operator in the curved background.'
author:
- Feng Wu
date:
-
-
title:
---
Introduction and summary
========================
Scale and conformal symmetries are essential concepts in quantum field theory. In particular, the renormalization group evolution of a Poincar$\acute{\rm e}$-invariant quantum field theory, being a primary theme of field theory, is controlled by its dynamical behavior under scale transformations. In the study of this subject, the energy-momentum tensor plays a crucial role. In the specific case where a field theory is scale-invariant, it can be shown that the trace of its energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu}^{\mu} $ must take the form $$T_{\mu}^{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} V^{\mu}, \label{virial}$$ where $V^{\mu}$ is referred to as the “virial current". If, moreover, the virial current is a total derivative, then the theory is not just a scale-invariant field theory, but it is in fact a conformal field theory. In this case, one can further construct an “improved" energy-momentum tensor, which is traceless [@Callan].
Although only been proved in two dimensions [@Polchinski] and perturbatively in four dimensions [@Luty; @Dymarsky; @Dymarsky2], it is believed that a Poincar$\acute{\rm e}$-invariant interacting field theory that is scale-invariant but not conformally invariant must be non-unitary. This means that with unitarity, the spacetime symmetry group of a Poincar$\acute{\rm e}$-invariant quantum field theory with scale invariance is enhanced to the conformal group.
In Ref. [@Farnsworth] it is argued that, for unitary theories, conformal invariance in flat spacetime implies local Weyl invariance in a general curved background spacetime. Because of diffeomorphism invariance, a scale transformation of the coordinates and that of the fields in flat spacetime are equivalent to the global Weyl transformations on the metric and fields in a curved spacetime, and hence a quantum field theory with scale invariance in the flat spacetime is globally Weyl invariant when coupled to a general curved background. Thus, it appears that conformal invariance provides a link between global and local Weyl invariance in unitary theories. Early work on this subject includes Refs. [@Polchinski; @Iorio; @Jackiw; @Edery; @Brust; @Karananas].
Also, the Weyl transformation of local scalar operators that correspond to primary operators in the flat limit are identified in Ref. [@Farnsworth] and the authors find that there are possible “anomalous terms" in the transformation formulas that prevent some of these operators from transforming covariantly. They argued that these anomalous terms cannot be eliminated based on the constraints originating from the Abelian nature of the Weyl transformations.
In this note, with explicit examples provided as demonstration, we show that generally unitarity alone is not sufficient for a conformal field theory to be Weyl invariant. In addition, we show that in the case where a unitary conformal field theory does couple to gravity in a Weyl invariant fashion, each of the relevant and marginal primary scalar operators in the unitary conformal field theory corresponds to a Weyl covariant operator in the curved background. Thus, although the work of this note is highly inspired by Ref. [@Farnsworth], our analysis has reached different conclusions.
It is clear that the existence of the local energy-momentum tensor is essential in our analysis. Thus, we have implicitly assumed the existence of the action. Without this assumption, we do not know how to construct a local energy-momentum tensor, not to mention how to couple the theory to gravity. The conclusions of this work may or may not apply to the context where the energy-momentum tensor is not well defined. We leave it for future investigation.
Conformal vs. Weyl
==================
It is well known that the consequences of symmetries of field theories can be expressed in terms of Ward identities relating Green’s functions. For a conformal field theory, the Ward identity for primary operators $O(x)$ under an infinitesimal conformal transformation takes the form $$\hat{\sigma}(x) \langle T_{\mu}^{\mu}(x) O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle=
\sum_{i}\delta^{(d)}(x-x_{i})\langle O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot( -\Delta \hat{\sigma}(x_{i})O(x_{i})) \cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle
\label{WIC},$$ where $ \hat{\sigma}(x) ={1\over d} \partial_{\mu} \epsilon^{\mu}(x)$ is the restricted local Weyl rescaling factor with the infinitesimal coordinate change $\epsilon^{\mu}(x)$ given by $$\epsilon^{\mu}(x) = a^{\mu} + \omega^{\mu}_{\,\,\nu} x^{\nu}+c x^{\mu} +2(b\cdot x)x^{\mu} -x^2 b^{\mu}$$ for translation, Lorentz transformations, scale and special conformal transformations, respectively, in $d$-dimensional flat spacetime. $\Delta$ is the Weyl dimension of the operator $O(x)$. We recall that in flat spacetime the energy-momentum tensor can be generated by the diffeomorphism. That is, under an infinitesimal diffeomorphism $$x^{\mu'}=x^{\mu} - \xi^{\mu}(x),
\label{diff}$$ the action transforms as $$\delta S= {1\over 2} \int d^{d} x (\partial_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}) T^{\mu\nu}. \label{EM1}$$
On the other hand, when the theory is coupled to a general curved metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, the energy-momentum tensor can also be determined by the response of the action to a local variation of the metric. Explicitly, under the variation $$g_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow g_{\mu\nu} +\delta g_{\mu\nu},$$ we have $$\delta S= -{1\over 2} \int d^{d} x \sqrt{\vert g\vert}\delta g_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}. \label{EM2}$$ This is consistent with the expression of Eq. (\[EM1\]) in flat space by general covariance.
For a Weyl-invariant theory, it is straightforward to show that the response of the $n$-point correlator for $O(x)$ to an infinitesimal Weyl transformation $\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)=2\sigma(x) g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ in odd dimensions contains only contact terms: $$\sigma(x) \langle T_{\mu}^{\mu}(x) O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle=
\sum_{i}\delta^{(d)}(x-x_{i})\langle O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot \delta_{\sigma}O(x_{i}) \cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle
\label{WIW1},$$ where $ \delta_{\sigma}O(x_{i})$ is the variation of the operator $O(x_{i})$ under the infinitesimal Weyl transformation. Meanwhile, due to the Weyl anomaly [@Capper; @Deser], the Weyl Ward identity in even dimensions is modified to take the form $$\sigma(x) \langle T_{\mu}^{\mu}(x) O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle=
\sum_{i}\delta^{(d)}(x-x_{i})\langle O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot \delta_{\sigma}O(x_{i}) \cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle + \sigma(x) \langle \mathcal{A}(x) O(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O(x_{n}) \rangle
\label{WIW2},$$ where the local function $\mathcal{A}(x)$ stands for the Weyl anomaly terms.
In Ref. [@Farnsworth], it is argued that conformal invariance in flat spacetime implies Weyl invariance in a general curved background for unitary theories. Showing that a conformal field theory in flat spacetime is Weyl invariant in a curved background metric is equivalent to showing that Eq. (\[WIC\]) implies Eqs. (\[WIW1\]) and (\[WIW2\]) in odd and even dimensions, respectively. The argument begins with the statement that because the “improved" energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$ vanishes for a unitary conformal field theory in flat spacetime, the theory coupling to gravity in curved spacetime would have $T^{\mu\nu}$ proportional to at least one power of the Riemann curvature tensor $R$. Constraints from unitarity and commutativity of Weyl transformations are then used to eliminate all possible contributions to $T^{\mu\nu}$. If correct, the above argument would imply that a unitary non-Weyl-invariant theory in a curved background cannot be a conformal field theory in the flat space limit.
Now, we discuss the potential loophole in the above argument. First, we should note that if one uses Eq. (\[EM2\]) to calculate the energy-momentum tensor of a theory and find a traceless one, it means that the theory being considered has already coupled to gravity in a Weyl-invariant way. In this case, it is not meaningful to use the argument of Ref. [@Farnsworth] to show that this theory is Weyl invariant, since it would seem that one is attempting to shut a box that is already closed.
The better question is: given a unitary conformal field theory whose energy-momentum tensor is generated by the diffeomorphism in flat space, does conformal invariance along with unitarity implies Weyl invariance in curved space?
Given a conformal field theory in flat space, there is no unique way to couple it to gravity. Indeed, this ambiguity is the origin of the improvement of the energy-momentum tensor. Thus, $T_{\mu}^{\mu}=0$ in flat space does not guarantee $T_{\mu}^{\mu}=\mathrm{O}(R)$ in curved space. For example, there could be terms in the Lagrangian of a conformal field theory that generate nonvanishing contributions to the energy-momentum tensor under the diffeomorphism in flat space, but whose Weyl variations in a curved space are surface terms.
To be more explicit, consider the action of a free massless scalar $\phi$ given by $$S= \int d^{d} x \left({1\over 2} \partial_{\mu}\phi \partial^{\mu} \phi - {d-2 \over 4(d-1)} \partial^{2} \phi^2\right). \label{ex1}$$ This unitary theory is conformally invariant, since the variation of the second term by a diffeomorphism, Eq. (\[diff\]), generates the “improved" contribution to the traceless energy-momentum tensor [@Hill]. Note that although the second term in Eq. (\[ex1\]) is a surface term, and thus not affecting the equation of motion, it varies under the diffeomorphism and produces a nonzero contribution to the energy-momentum tensor.
However, when minimally coupled to a background metric, it is straightforward to show that the action $$S= \int d^{d} x \sqrt{\vert g\vert} \left({1\over 2} g_{\mu\nu}\partial^{\mu}\phi \partial^{\nu} \phi - {d-2 \over 4(d-1)} \nabla_{\mu}\partial^{\mu} \phi^2\right)$$ is not Weyl invariant unless $d=2$. In fact, under an infinitesimal Weyl variation $\delta g_{\mu\nu}=2\sigma g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\delta \phi = -{d-2\over 2}\sigma \phi$, the action transforms as $$\delta_{\sigma} S={d-2\over 4} \int d^{d} x \sqrt{\vert g\vert} (\square \sigma) \phi^{2}.$$ This is an example showing that a non-Weyl invariant theory can reduce to a unitary conformal field theory in the flat space limit. In other words, we can have a unitary conformal field theory that couples to gravity in a non-Weyl-invariant way.
Certainly, there exist other possibilities such that a unitary conformal field theory cannot couple to gravity in a Weyl-invariant way. For example, a theory can fail to be Weyl invariant in the curved background because of the specific symmetry that prevents one from constructing the would-be Weyl-invariant Lagrangian. A free massless scalar with the shift symmetry $\phi\rightarrow \phi +c$ is such an example [@Dymarsky; @Nakayama]. In this case, the well-known “improved" coupling term ${d-2\over 8(d-1)} R\phi^2$ with $R$ being the Ricci scalar is not allowed to be included in the action by symmetry, and thus this theory is not Weyl invariant in curved spacetime unless $d=2$. Therefore, unitarity alone is not sufficient for a conformal field theory to be Weyl invariant.
Contact terms
=============
Having shown that a unitary conformal field theory might not couple to gravity in a Weyl-invariant way, we will now concentrate our attention to the specific situation of interest where a conformal field theory does couple to gravity in a Weyl-invariant way and consider contact terms in Eqs. (\[WIW1\]) and (\[WIW2\]).
As described in Ref. [@Farnsworth], one must have $ \delta_{\sigma}O\rightarrow -\Delta \hat{\sigma} O $ in the flat limit and $ \sigma\rightarrow \hat{\sigma}$, with $\hat{\sigma}$ given below Eq. (\[WIC\]). In the special case where $O$ does not contain the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, $\delta_{\sigma} O$ must transform covariantly, that is, $ \delta_{\sigma} O = -\Delta \sigma O$. The reason that the Weyl variation of the scalar operator $O$ does not contain terms involving the derivatives of $\sigma$ is simply because, without the metric tensor, no scalar operator can be formed out of derivatives of $\sigma$.
Now, let us consider the general case where $O$ consists of matter fields, the metric tensor and their derivatives. As already mentioned above, scale transformations in flat spacetime are equivalent to global Weyl transformations in the curved background. Thus, when $\sigma=c$ with $c$ being a constant, we shall have $$\delta_{\sigma=c} O= -\Delta c O,$$ from which it follows that under a general Weyl transformation, the operator $O$ transforms either covariantly or as $$\delta_{\sigma} O= -\Delta \sigma O + \mathsf{O}(\partial \sigma) \label{variationO}.$$ Note that the first term in the variation Eq. (\[variationO\]) is the only permitted term that is proportional to $\sigma$. Terms that violate Weyl covariance are at least of order $\partial \sigma$. Terms such as $\sigma R^2 U$ or $\sigma W^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}W_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} U$ (where the shorthand notation $R$ stands for the curvature tensor, the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar, $W_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ is the Weyl tensor, and $U$ is a scalar operator with Weyl dimension $\Delta-4$), referred to as the “anomalous terms" in [@Farnsworth], are not allowed unless the operator $O$ is itself proportional to $ R^2 U$ or $ W^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}W_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} U$.
Then, requiring the Wess-Zumino consistency condition [@Wess] for the Weyl variation, that is, $[ \delta_{\sigma_{1}}, \delta_{\sigma_{2}}]O=0$, the most general Weyl variation of $O$ allowed by symmetries and unitarity constraints on the dimensions of operators can be identified. Since we do not know of any example of an interacting conformal theory with spacetime dimension $d>6$, we will restrict our attention to spacetime dimension $d \leq 6$. The calculations are straightforward but not very illuminating. The results for relevant and marginal scalar operators in $d \leq 6$ are presented as follows.
For $\Delta \geq {d+2\over 2}$ and $\Delta \neq 2n$, $n=1,2,3$, we have $$\delta_{\sigma} O= -\Delta \sigma O + A \Box \sigma \label{variationOg},$$ where $A$ is a Weyl covariant scalar with Weyl dimension $\Delta_{A}=\Delta-2$. As shown in [@Farnsworth], the new operator $O'$ defined as $$O'=O+{1\over 2(d-1)} RA$$ transforms covariantly as $\delta_{\sigma} O'= -\Delta \sigma O'$.
Operators with $\Delta=2n$ are special. For $\Delta=2$, the variation reads $$\delta_{\sigma} O_{2}= -2 \sigma O_{2} + c_{1} \Box \sigma. \label{variationO2}$$ For $\Delta=4$, we have $$\delta_{\sigma} O_{4}= -4 \sigma O_{4} +B\Box \sigma+c_{2} R \Box \sigma \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm{in}} \,\,\,d=4,5, \label{variationO41}$$ with the Weyl dimension 2 operator $B$ transforming according to $ \delta_{\sigma} B= -2 \sigma B +c_{1}'\Box \sigma$, whereas $$\delta_{\sigma} O_{4}= -4 \sigma O_{4} +B\Box \sigma+c_{2} R \Box \sigma +c_{3} \Box^2 \sigma \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm{in}} \,\,\,d=6. \label{variationO42}$$ Note that the term involving $\Box^2 \sigma$ is allowed only in $d=6$. This is due to the fact that under the Weyl variation, $$\delta_{\sigma_{2}} \Box^2 \sigma_{1}= -4 \sigma_{2}\Box^2 \sigma_{1}+(d-6)g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu}(\Box \sigma_{1})\nabla_{\mu}\sigma_{2}-2\Box\sigma_{1}\Box\sigma_{2}+(d-2)\Box( g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\sigma_{1}\nabla_{\nu}\sigma_{2} ).$$ Thus, if the variation $\delta_{\sigma} O_{4}$ contains the term involving $\Box^2 \sigma$, the commutativity of Weyl transformations cannot be satisfied unless $d=6$.
Finally, for $\Delta=d=6$, we have $$\delta_{\sigma} O_{6}= -6 \sigma O_{6} +A'\Box \sigma+B' \Box^2 \sigma + B'' R \Box \sigma +c_{4} R^2 \Box \sigma , \label{variationO6}$$ where the Weyl variations of the operators $A'$, $B'$ and $B''$ are given, respectively, by $$\delta_{\sigma} A'= -4 \sigma A' +B'''\Box \sigma+c_{5} R \Box \sigma$$ with $ \delta_{\sigma} B'''= -2 \sigma B''' +c_{1}'''\Box \sigma$, $$\delta_{\sigma} B'= -2 \sigma B',$$ and $$\delta_{\sigma} B''= -2 \sigma B'' +c_{1}''\Box \sigma.$$
Now, let us introduce the operators $$O_{2}'\equiv O_{2}+{c_{1}\over 2(d-1)} R,$$ $$O_{4}'\equiv O_{4}+{1\over 2(d-1)} RB+{1\over 4(d-1)}(c_{2}+{c_{1}' \over 2(d-1)})R^2 \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm{in}} \,\,\,d=4,5,$$ $$O_{4}''\equiv O_{4}+{1\over 10} RB+{1\over 20}(c_{2}+{c_{1}' \over 10}-{c_{3}\over 5})R^2 +{c_{3} \over 10}\Box R \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm{in}} \,\,\,d=6,$$ and $$O_{6}'\equiv O_{6}+{1\over 10}A' R+{1\over 20}\left(-{1\over 5} B'+ B'' +{1\over 10} B'''\right)R^2 + {1 \over 10}B'\Box R+{1\over 30}\left(c_{4}+{c_{5}\over 10}+{c_{1}''\over 20}+{c_{1}'''\over 200}\right)R^3 ,$$ it is straightforward to show that operators $O_{2}'$, $O_{4}'$, $O_{4}''$ and $O_{6}'$ all transform covariantly under an infinitesimal Weyl transformation.
With these results, we conclude that when a conformal field theory in $d\leq 6$ is coupled to a general curved background metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ in a Weyl-invariant way, every primary scalar operator $O(x)$ that is either relevant or marginal corresponds to a Weyl-covariant operator $O'(x)$ such that $O'(x)\rightarrow O(x)$ in the flat limit, and the operators $O'(x)$ obey the infinitesimal form of the Ward identities for Weyl invariance given by $$\sigma(x) \langle T_{\mu}^{\mu}(x) O'(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O'(x_{n}) \rangle=
\sum_{i}\delta^{(d)}(x-x_{i})\langle O'(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot (-\Delta \sigma(x_{i}) O'(x_{i})) \cdot\cdot\cdot O'(x_{n}) \rangle.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x) \langle T_{\mu}^{\mu}(x) O'(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O'(x_{n}) \rangle&=
&\sum_{i}\delta^{(d)}(x-x_{i})\langle O'(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot (-\Delta \sigma(x_{i}) O'(x_{i})) \cdot\cdot\cdot O'(x_{n}) \rangle \nonumber \\
&+& \sigma(x) \langle \mathcal{A}(x) O'(x_1)\cdot\cdot\cdot O'(x_{n}) \rangle\end{aligned}$$ in odd and even dimensions, respectively.
The author is grateful to S. Deser and M. Luty for correspondence. This research was supported in part by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11665016 and 11565019.
[99]{}
C. Callan, S. Coleman and R. Jackiw, Ann. Phys. **59**, 42 (1970).
J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B **303**, 226 (1988).
M. Luty, J. Polchinski and R. Rattazzi, JHEP **1301**, 152 (2013).
A. Dymarsky, Z. Komargodski, A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, JHEP **1510**, 171 (2015).
A. Dymarsky, K. Farnsworth, Z. Komargodski, M. Luty and V. Prilepina, JHEP **1602**, 099 (2016).
K. Farnsworth, M. Luty, and V. Prilepina, arXiv:1702.07079.
A. Iorio, L. O’Raifeartaigh, I. Sachs, and C. Wiesendanger, Nucl. Phys. B **495**, 433 (1997).
R. Jackiw, Theor. Math. Phys. **148**, 941 (2006).
A. Edery and Y. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 043007 (2014).
C. Brust and K. Hinterbichler, arXiv:1607.07439.
G. Karananas and A. Monin, Phys. Lett. B **757**, 257 (2016).
D. Capper and M. Duff, Nuovo. Cim. A **23**, 173 (1974).
S. Deser, M. Duff and C. Isham, Nucl. Phys. B **111**, 45 (1976).
C. Hill, Phys. Rev. D **89**, 073003 (2014).
Y. Nakayama, Phys. Rept. **569**, 1 (2015).
J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B **37**, 95 (1971).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'David Doty[^1]'
- 'Jack H. Lutz[^2]'
- 'Matthew J. Patitz[^3]'
- 'Robert T. Schweller[^4]'
- 'Scott M. Summers[^5]'
- 'Damien Woods[^6]'
bibliography:
- 'tam.bib'
title: The tile assembly model is intrinsically universal
---
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Matthew Cook for pointing out a simplification to our construction.
[^1]: Computing and Mathematical Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. ddoty@caltech.edu. This author’s research was supported by a Computing Innovation Fellowship under NSF grant 1019343.
[^2]: Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA. lutz@cs.iastate.edu. This author’s research was supported by NSF grants 0652569 and 1143830. Part of this work was done during a sabbatical at Caltech and the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge.
[^3]: Computer Science, University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, TX, 78539, USA. mpatitz@cs.panam.edu. This author’s research was supported in part by NSF grant CCF-1117672.
[^4]: Computer Science, University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, TX, 78539, USA. schwellerr@cs.panam.edu. This author’s research was supported in part by NSF grant CCF-1117672.
[^5]: Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Platteville, Platteville, WI 53818, USA. summerss@uwplatt.edu.
[^6]: Computer Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. woods@caltech.edu. This author’s research was supported by NSF grant 0832824, the Molecular Programming Project.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Quantum transitions in Fe-based systems are believed to involve spin, charge and nematic fluctuations. Complex structural phase diagram in these materials often emphasizes importance of covalency in their exotic properties, which is directly linked to the local structural network and barely understood. In order to address this outstanding issue, we investigate the evolution of structural parameters and their implication in unconventional superconductivity of 122 class of materials employing extended $x$-ray absorption fine structure studies. The spectral functions near the Fe $K$- and As $K$-absorption edge of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ and its superconducting composition, CaFe$_{1.9}$Co$_{0.1}$As$_2$ ($T_c$ = 12 K) exhibit evidence of enhancement of Fe contribution with Co-substitution near the Fermi level. As-Fe and Fe-Fe bondlengths derived from the experimental data exhibit interesting changes with temperature across the magneto-structural transition. Curiously, the evolution in Co-doped composition is similar to its parent compound despite absence of magneto-structural transition. In addition, we discover anomalous change of Ca-X (X = Fe, As) bondlengths with temperature in the vicinity of magneto-structural transition and disorder appears to be less important presumably due to screening by the charge reservoir layer. These results reveal evidence of doping induced evolution to the proximity to critical behavior presumably leading to superconductivity in the system.'
author:
- 'Ram Prakash Pandeya$^1$, Arindam Pramanik$^1$, Anup Pradhan Sakhya$^1$, Rajib Mondal$^1$, A. K. Yadav$^2$, S. N. Jha$^2$, A. Thamizhavel$^1$ and Kalobaran Maiti$^1$'
title: 'Structural anomaly in superconductivity of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ class of materials'
---
While high temperature superconductivity continues to be an outstanding puzzle in contemporary condensed matter physics, the Fe-based systems revealed additional complexity in the problem. It appears that complex interplay of spin, orbital, charge and lattice degrees of freedom is responsible for the exoticity of these materials [@HHosono2015]. Parent compound of almost all the Fe-based materials exhibit a structural transition from tetragonal phase possessing C4 symmetry to an orthorhombic phase, where the 4-fold rotational symmetry is broken leading to nematicity in the system [@HHosono2015; @Stewart]. Some studies pointed out importance of charge reservoir layer in the electronic properties [@THGeballe; @Khadiza-DFT]. Electronic properties of these systems have been studied extensively using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES), scanning tunnelling spectroscopy, etc. [@STan; @CLiu; @ACharnukha; @Ganesh-Eu122; @Hoffman-STM]. However, the structural aspects remains to be still illusive, in particular, the role of local structural parameters in the electronic properties.
In order to address this issue, we employed extended $x$-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) studies to probe the evolution of structural parameters of a archetypical compound CaFe$_2$As$_2$ (Ca122), a parent Fe-based superconductor in the 122 class of material and its Co-doped composition, CaFe$_{1.9}$Co$_{0.1}$As$_2$ (CaCo122), which shows superconductivity below 12 K. Ca122 has been studied extensively and shows both structural and magnetic transition from tetragonal paramagnetic phase to orthorhombic-antiferromagnetic phase below 170 K [@NNi]. In addition, it exhibits complex phase diagram as a function of pressure; application of a small pressure ($\sim$0.35 GPa) helps to retain its tetragonal symmetry, which is called a collapsed tetragonal (cT) phase [@Kreyssig; @Goldman; @Pratt; @Ca122-Ram; @Milton]. The cT phase can be obtained by other means too such as chemical substitution at any of three atomic cites and/or quenching from a temperature higher than 700 $^o$C to room temperature [@ARPES-Dhaka]. Even the ambient pressure phase shows signature of cT phase in its electronic structure [@Khadiza-ARPES]. Many studies showed superconductivity on application of pressure and/or doping [@Milton; @YQi; @Saha; @KKudo; @Chen; @KZhao], while some other studies did not find superconductivity in the cT phase [@WYu]. Evidently, superconductivity in this system is complex along with additional complexity arising due to structural and magnetic interactions. Exploiting EXAFS, we found intriguing results in Ca122 and CaCo122 systems revealing an interesting structural link to superconductivity of this material.
Single crystalline samples were grown using Sn flux [@NKumar; @RMittal] and characterized by powder *x*-ray diffraction and energy dispersive analysis of *x*-rays measurements. Magnetic susceptibility measurements [@NNi] exhibit sharp antiferromagnetic transition at 170 K in Ca122. A sharp diamagnetic transition below 12 K is observed in CaCo122 indicating its superconducting phase in the ground state. Temperature dependent EXAFS measurements were carried out in transmission mode at BL-8 beamline at INDUS-2, RRCAT, Indore, India [@BL8_Indus2].
In Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](a), we show Fe $K$-edge and Co $K$-edge $x$-ray absorption spectra of CaCo122 collected at 300 K. The near edge regimes are shown in expanded energy scales in Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](b) and Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](c) exhibiting similar features indicating similarities in the transition metal 4$p$/3$d$ contributions in the unoccupied part of the electronic structure. This also demonstrates extended nature of the electronic states that smeared out disorder due to chemical substitution. The Fe $K$-edge and As $K$-edge spectra of Ca122 and CaCo122 are shown in Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](d) and Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](e), respectively. Fe $K$-edge data reflect the unoccupied part of the Fe 4$p$ partial density of states (PDOS), which also contains Fe 3$d$ PDOS due to finite $pd$ hybridization. On the other hand, As $K$-edge data reflect the unoccupied As 4$p$ states consisting of symmetry adapted Fe 3$d$ contributions due to strong Fe 3$d$-As 4$p$ covalency. The energies of the experimental spectral features appear very close to those found in the EXAFS database for Fe and As elemental metals. This suggests that the effective charge states of Fe and As in these compounds are close to their elemental metallic state as also observed in other Fe-based systems [@Ba122-EXAFS]. Electronic configuration close to neutral Fe and As atoms in Ca122 has also been observed in high resolution hard *x*-ray photoelectron spectroscopic studies [@Ca122-Ram].
We have superimposed the Ca122 and CaCo122 data in Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](d) and Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](e) to investigate the changes due to Co substitution. While the raw data look close to each other, the difference spectra (see solid circles in the lower panel of the figure) exhibit interesting features. The difference spectrum at Fe $K$-edge exhibits an enhancement in intensity with two distinct peaks; a narrower one at the edge and a broader one at higher energy. Co-substitution at the Fe-sites leads to doping of electrons. Therefore, the change at the absorption edge is expected as follows: (i) a shift of Fermi level to higher energy, which will increase the binding energy of the core levels defined with respect to the Fermi level and/or (ii) change in charge states of both the atoms of quasi-2D FeAs layers. In contrast, the feature at the edge in Fig. \[Fig1:XANES\](d) exhibits shift of the Fermi level towards lower energies. The As $K$-edge data exhibits a depletion of intensity at the edge; weaker intensity compared to that at the Fe $K$-edge could be due to weaker contribution of As 4$p$ states near Fermi level [@Khadiza-DFT]. Clearly, the hybridization of As 4$p$ states with Fe 3$d$ gets modified with an effective spectral weight transfer to higher energies. One possible reason of shift of the edge in Fe $K$-edge data to lower energy could be due to stronger $pd$ hybridization leading to an enhancement of Fe 4$p$ population and thereby pulls the 4$p$ contributions towards lower energies. Clearly, Fe PDOS enhances at the Fermi level with the Co-substitution.
The Fourier transform (FT) of the $k^2$-weighted EXAFS oscillations were calculated using a Hanning window of 3 - 15 Å$^{-1}$ in the $k$-axis; due to the presence of Co $K$-edge at Fe $K$-edge spectra of CaCo122, the window kept within 12 Å$^{-1}$. We have verified in Ca122 case that this change in $k$-range does not have significant effect on the results. FTs corresponding to the Fe $K$-edge and As $K$-edge data of Ca122 are shown in Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\](a) and Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\](b) for Fe $K$-edge and As $K$-edge data and the same for CaCo122 sample are shown in Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\](c) and Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\](d), respectively; black to orange lines correspond to the spectrum collected at 300 K to 12 K temperatures. We observe significant decrease in intensity and interesting change in the peak position of the features with the increase in temperature. While the peak position remain almost unchanged at the As $K$-edge data even if the temperature is increased from 12 K to 300 K, the peak at Fe $K$-edge exhibit different scenario. The most intense peak at the Fe $K$-edge of Ca122 sample shifts towards lower values with the increase in temperature indicating compression in contrast to the expected expansion. In addition, Fe $K$-edge data of CaCo122 sample exhibit distinct two peak structure (A and B in the figure) between 2-3 Å; the relative intensity of B with respect to that of A reduces significantly with the increase in temperature.
To extract the parameters related to the local structure, the radial distribution of FT amplitudes shown in Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\], were modeled by the conventional approach based on single scattering approximation. The crystal structure and atomic positions in Ca122 are well studied employing high resolution $x$-ray and neutron diffraction [@NNi; @Kreyssig; @Goldman], which is used as a guide for the analysis of the EXAFS oscillation. As atoms are surrounded by a tetrahedral cage formed by four Fe atoms and FeAs bond length is 2.4 Å. Fe-Fe distances form the next neighbour separations within the Fe layer. Since the distortion due to structural transition is small, we report the results corresponding to effective tetragonal structure for clarity in presentation. The initial parameters for different bonds were calculated using the structural parameters obtained from neutron diffraction technique [@Kreyssig]. The Fe-As and Fe-Fe distances are very close to each other. Thus, the first shell of Fourier transform obtained from Fe $K$-edge EXAFS oscillations is contributed by both Fe-As and Fe-Fe bonds as evident in the Fig. \[Fig2:ChiR\](a) and \[Fig2:ChiR\](c). However, the first shell of As $K$-edge data possesses contribution only from the As-Fe bonds [@BJoseph; @Hacisalihoglu]. Therefore, the local structure information related to the Fe-As bonds is extracted from As $K$-edge, which is used to extract the information about Fe-Fe bonds from FT of Fe $K$-edge EXAFS oscillation’s first shell [@Hacisalihoglu].
Extracted bondlengths are shown in Fig. \[Fig3:bond\] exhibiting intriguing temperature dependence. The results for the parent compound, Ca122 shown by open circles exhibit significant change in bond distances across the magnetic and structural phase transition temperature of 170 K. The As-Fe bondlength gradually decreases from the room temperature across the magneto-structural transition and eventually stabilizes at lower temperatures. Instead, the Fe-Fe distance increases gradually and saturates below the transition temperature. These results reveal decrease in anion height with the decrease in temperature and hence, stronger Fe-As hybridization along with a decrease in Fe-Fe direct overlap within the $xy$-plane. Ca layers exhibit an unusual scenario; while the As-Ca distance marginally increases across the phase transition, Fe-Ca distance reduces significantly with the decrease in temperature indicating stronger overlap of Ca 4$s$ states with the Fe 3$d$ states indicating important role of Ca-sites as found in other systems [@Debdutta-ruthenates]. The thermalization of the bondlengths appears to occur at temperature ($\sim$ 100 K), which is much below the transition temperature.
In CaCo122, the As-Fe distance becomes smaller than that in the parent compound. Although no magnetic transition is observed in this material, we observe a significant dip spreading over a wider temperature range at the low temperature side. Fe-Fe distance also exhibit similar behavior. As-Ca distance is larger in the doped sample than the distance in the pristine one. Below 200 K, the As-Ca distance exhibit a stiff decrease and becomes close to the values in the pristine sample below 100 K. Fe-Ca distance exhibit anomalous evolution - at room temperature, the bondlength is smaller in the doped sample and gradually reduces with the temperature as expected. Below 200 K, it exhibits sudden jump to a higher value and again starts reducing below 100 K. Clearly, onset of magnetic interactions at low temperature induces significant structural reorganization and a new structural order seems sets in below 100 K. The structural transition in Ca122 leads to a reduction of rotational symmetry from C4 (tetragonal) to C2 (orthorhombic) phase which is defined as nematicity. Recent studies revealed signature of hidden C4 phase (collapsed tetragonal phase) even in the parent compound at ambient pressure probably due to strain [@Khadiza-ARPES]. Evidently, Co-substitution in Ca122 brings the system closer to its magneto-structural transition leading to an enhanced nematic fluctuations and absence of magnetic order although magnetic interactions are present as in Ca122 indicating its proximity to quantum criticality. Moreover, Ca appears to play an important role in deriving the electronic properties.
We estimated the Debye-Waller factor (DWF), $\sigma^2$ associated to each pair of atoms; the results (symbols) are shown in Fig. \[Fig4:DWF\]. In every case, DWF gradually reduces with the decrease in temperature and gets saturated at very low temperatures. This typical behavior is in line with the expected behavior arising from thermal contributions. We do not observe any anomaly across the structural and magnetic phase transition temperature indicating little influence of disorder on the phase transitions in this material while other systems show different behavior [@Bindu-PRB]. The DWF for As-Fe is found to be the smallest compared to all other cases. The values for As-Fe and Fe-Fe bonds are quite similar in both the pristine and doped compound. However, DWF for As-Ca bond is smaller in the doped sample and that for Fe-Ca bond becomes higher in the doped sample. In contrast to the expected enhancement of disorder due to chemical substitution, the disorder in this system reduces with Co-substitution except the Fe-Ca case, which is longest bond among the cases discussed here.
Using Einstein model of crystal vibration [@DW-factor], DWF is given by, $\sigma^2 = \sigma_\circ^2 + (\hbar/2 \mu \omega_E) coth[(\hbar \omega_E)/(2 k_B T)]$, where $\mu$, $\omega_ E$ and $\sigma_\circ^2$ are the reduced mass, the Einstein frequency and temperature independent DWF, respectively. For a given pair of atoms of mass $m_1$ and $m_2$, the reduced mass, $\mu$ (= $m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)$) is independent of temperature and $\sigma_\circ^2$ is linked to the lattice disorder. The temperature dependent part is related to the thermodynamic properties of the material and allows us to derive the Einstein temperature, $\Theta_E$ (= $\hbar\omega_E/k_B$) and the effective spring constant, $k_{eff}$ (= $\mu\omega_E^2/2$). The lines passing through the symbols in the Fig. \[Fig4:DWF\] represent the least square error fits and provide an excellent representation of the experimental results within the Einstein model.
Bonds $\Theta_E$ (K) $\omega_{E}$ (meV) $k$ (eV.Å$^{-2}$) $\sigma_\circ^2$ (Å$^2$)
------- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------- --------------------------
Fe-As 310 (337) 25.8 (28.0) 5.1 (6.0) 0.001 (0.001)
Fe-Fe 224 (256) 18.6 (21.3) 2.3 (3.0) 0.003 (0.004)
Fe-Ca 244 (251) 20.3 (20.9) 2.3 (2.4) 0.010 (0.011)
As-Ca 150(167) 12.5 (13.9) 1.0 (1.2) 0.011 (0.011)
: Local structure parameters obtained from temperature dependent of Fe and As $K$-edge EXAFS measurements on CaFe$_2$As$_2$ (CaFe$_{1.9}$Co$_{0.1}$As$_2$).[]{data-label="Ca122"}
\[tab:Ca122\]
The extracted parameters for Ca122 and CaCo122 are given in the Table. \[tab:Ca122\]. In Ca122, the Einstein temperature, $\Theta_E$ is 310 K (215 cm$^{-1}$) for Fe-As bond, which is very close to the measured Raman shift in Ca122 for $E_g$ mode (211 cm$^{-1}$); Fe and As atoms oscillate opposite to each other in respective $ab$ planes [@Raman-Choi]. The Einstein temperature for Fe-Fe is smaller than that for Fe-Ca suggesting weaker Fe-Fe direct overlap relative to Fe-Ca bonding. It is smallest for As-Ca bond (150 K). The Einstein frequency and spring constant is the largest for Fe-As bond; these results once again establish strong covalency between Fe 3$d$ - As 4$p$ states. Bonding with Ca seems to be weaker but significant along with a larger static disorder, $\sigma_\circ^2$.
With Co-substitution, the Einstein temperature, Einstein frequency and spring constant enhances significantly keeping the static disorder close to the values in parent compound. The enhancement of the parameters for Fe-Fe bonds is somewhat larger than the other cases. It appears that the dominance of the spring constant, Einstein frequency, etc associated to the Fe-sites play major role in the superconducting composition. This has also been manifested in the near-edge data, where we observed enhancement of intensity and a shift of the absorption edge to lower energies due to Co-substitution.
The large $\sigma_\circ^2$ value obtained for both As-Ca and Fe-Ca bonds are quite high indicating large disorder at Ca sites. Recent angle-resolved photoemission study [@Khadiza-ARPES] revealed signature of collapsed tetragonal phase hidden even within the ambient band structure, which correspond to a slightly smaller lattice constant, $c$. Thus, one reason for higher $\sigma_\circ^2$ could be this hidden structure. In any case, presence of larger disorder associated to Ca-site maintaining other cases small indicate that the disorder arising due to chemical substitutions are essentially absorbed by the Ca-layer as expected for a charge-reservoir layer in such materials.
In summary, we have studied the role of structural parameters in the electronic properties of Ca122 with an emphasis on their evolution in achieving superconductivity. Fe contribution near Fermi level appear to be larger in superconducting composition relative to the parent compound. In CaFe$_2$As$_2$, the bondlengths gradually changes over a wide temperature range; the change in parameters starts at a temperature much higher than the magneto-structural transition temperature of 170 K providing evidence of a precursor effect [@RSSingh; @Sampath]. A flattening of the bondlengths occurs below 100 K indicating achieving the structural parameters close to its ground state configuration. Curiously, similar behavior is observed in the Co-doped sample too which is superconducting and does not show magneto-structural transition. Disorder appear to be similar in both the cases despite the chemical substitution in the superconducting material. Interestingly, the bond-length involving Ca sites in the superconducting composition exhibit anomalous behavior in the vicinity of magneto-structural transition. While these results reveal complex structural link and importance of charge reservoir layer in superconductivity, we discover evidence of the survival of electronic interactions of the parent compound in the superconducting composition - a key feature of critical behavior.
Authors acknowledge RRCAT, Indore for their support in carrying out experiments and financial support under the project no. 12-R&D-TFR-5.10-0100. KM acknowledges financial assistance from DST, Govt. of India under J. C. Bose Fellowship program and DAE under the DAE-SRC-OI Award program.
[99]{}
H. Hosono *et al.*, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. **16**, 033503 (2015).
G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1589 (2011).
T. H. Geballe and G. Koster, What Tc Can Teach About Superconductivity, pages 325-344, Handbook of High Temperrature Superconductivity, Springer New York, (2007). K. Ali and K. Maiti, Sci. Rep. **7**, 6298 (2017); [*ibid.*]{} The Eur. Phys. J. B **91**, 199 (2018). S. Tan *et al*., Nat. Mater. **12**, 634-640 (2013). C. Liu *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 177005 (2008). A. Charnukha *et al*., Sci. Rep. **5**, 10392 (2015). G. Adhikary *et al*., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **25**, 225701 (2013). J. E. Hoffman, Rep. Prog. Phys. **74**, 124513 (2011).
N. Ni *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **78**, 014523 (2008).
A. Kreyssig *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **78**, 184517 (2008).
A. I. Goldman *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **78**, 100506(R) (2008).
D. K. Pratt *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **79**, 060510(R) (2009).
R. P. Pandeya *et al*., J. Phys: Condens. Matter (Letter) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/ab86f0. M. S. Torikachvili, Sergey L. Bud’ko, Ni Ni, and Paul C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 057006 (2008). R. S. Dhaka *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **89**, 020511 (R) (2014). K. Ali *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **97**, 054505 (2018); G. Adhikary *et al*., J. Appl. Phys. **115**, 123901 (2014); K. Maiti, Pramana - J. Phys. **84**, 947 (2015). Y. Qi *et al.*, EPL **96**, 47005 (2011).
S. R. Saha *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **85**, 024525 (2012).
K. Kudo *et al*., Sci. Rep. **3**, 1478, (2013).
D-Y Chen *et al*., Chin Phys. Lett. **33**, 6 067402 (2016).
Kui Zhao *et al*., PNAS, **113**, 46 12969 (2016).
W. Yu *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **79**, 020511(R) (2009).
N. Kumar *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **79**, 012504 (2009).
R. Mittal *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett., **102**, 217001 (2009).
D. Joseph, A. K. Yadav, S. N. Jha, and D. Bhattacharyya, Bull. Mater. Sci., **36**, 1067 (2013). E. m. Bittar *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 267402 (2011). B. Joseph *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **82**, 020502 (2010). M. Y. Hacisalihoglu *et al*., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., **18**, 9029 (2016). D. Lahiri *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **82**, 094440 (2010); R. S. Singh and K. Maiti, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 085102 (2007). R. Bindu, K. Maiti, S. Khalid, and E. V. Sampathkumaran, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 094103 (2009); R. Bindu, K. Maiti, R. Rawat, and S. Khalid, Appl. Phys. Lett. **92**, 121906 (2008). E. Sevillano, H. Meuth and J. J. Rehr, Phys. Rev. B **20**, 4908 (1979).
K.-Y. Choi *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **78**, 212503 (2008).
K. Maiti *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 016404 (2005). P. L. Paulose, N. Mohapatra, and E. V. Sampathkumaran, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 172403 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The simplest microfluidic network (a loop) comprises two parallel channels with a common inlet and a common outlet. Recent studies, that assumed constant cross-section of the channels along their length, have shown that the sequence of droplets entering left (L) or right (R) arm of the loop can present either a uniform distribution of choices (e.g. RLRLRL...) or long sequences of repeated choices (RRR...LLL), with all the intermediate permutations being dynamically equivalent and virtually equally probable to be observed. We use experiments and computer simulations to show that even small variation of the cross-section along channels completely shifts the dynamics either into the strong preference for highly grouped patterns (RRR...LLL) that generate system-size oscillations in flow, or just the opposite – to patterns that distribute the droplets homogeneously between the arms of the loop. We also show the importance of noise in the process of self-organization of the spatio-temporal patterns of droplets. Our results provide guidelines for rational design of systems that reproducibly produce either grouped or homogeneous sequences of droplets flowing in microfluidic networks.'
author:
- Olgierd Cybulski
- Slawomir Jakiela
- Piotr Garstecki
bibliography:
- 'bibtex.bib'
title: |
Between giant oscillations and uniform distribution of droplets –\
the role of varying lumen of channels in microfluidic networks
---
=1
Introduction
============
Here we demonstrate that *variation of the cross-section of microchannels* along their length in microfluidic networks may determine the type of spatio-temporal patterns of droplets traveling through them. The simplest network is a microfluidic loop with two channels having a common inlet and a common outlet. We show that if these channels widen downstream, the droplets are distributed homogeneously over the loop. In contrast, narrowing of the lumen of the channels toward the exit of the loop produces long trains of drops flowing in alternation into each of the parallel ducts. This observation provides and important insight and addition to the simple one-dimensional models[@schindler:08] that were so far used to model the dynamics of flow of droplets in microfluidic networks. It may also be used to construct simple microfluidic systems that either “homogenize” or “chop” the sequences of drops. Finally, the observation may have biological connotations to the flow of blood in vascular networks.
Sequences of droplets flowing through – even simple – microfluidic networks often produce remarkably complex and beautiful patterns[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @Iranczycy; @JeanneretHamiltonian]. This complexity may root in the interactions at many different length-scales. Local interactions include collisions between neighboring droplets at the T-junction[@BelloulCompetitionSmallLarge; @CollisionPanizza; @KadivarHerminghausLoopSim] and capillary forces caused by a specific geometry of its walls[@Boukellal]. However, the most important mechanism that gives rise to the complex dynamics, is the long-range interaction associated with the changes in the pressure field that the droplets both introduce – by increasing the hydraulic resistance of the channel they occupy – and that the droplets respond to – by choosing branches with higher inflow of the continuous liquid. The general dynamics of the flow of droplets can be analyzed with simple models of motion of point charges of resistance along the network of one dimensional wires, as introduced by Schindler and Ajdari[@schindler:08] and later used by multiple researchers in computer simulations[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @AgentBased; @Iranczycy; @ParthibanFiltering; @JeanneretHamiltonian; @GlawdelRobust] and analytical studies based both directly on the discrete model[@Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @MaddalaVanapalliPRE] and on its continuous generalizations[@AmonSelectionRules; @OlgierdContinuous]
Although simplified, the 1D model captures important aspects of collective interactions between the droplets, caused by the modification of the hydraulic resistance of the channels in which they flow. At diverging junctions droplets of size comparable or larger than the cross-section of the channel can either split[@TjunctionTabeling; @TjunctionAfkhami; @Link2004; @MarioT] – a scenario that we do not consider here – or enter the channel presenting momentarily highest volumetric rate of inflow[@BelloulCompetitionSmallLarge]. Since the rate of flow through a branch of a network is a function of resistance, the inflow of a droplet into a particular microchannel influences the trajectories of subsequent drops. The dynamics of flow of drops in networks has been studied in detail in a spectrum of microfluidic systems, ranging from the simplest, two-channel loops[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL], long series of identical loops[@JeanneretHamiltonian], successively bifurcating cascade of loops[@ChoiWhitesides; @AmonSelectionRules] to a large square grid of short channels[@TrafficJamsBartolo]. Even the simplest non-trivial network, i.e. the simple loop exhibits highly complicated dynamics and complex dependencies on parameters[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @Iranczycy; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @AgentBased; @ParthibanFiltering; @MaddalaVanapalliPRE; @GlawdelRobust; @AmonSelectionRules; @WangVanapaliModular] such as flow rates, intervals between droplets (or, equivalently, frequency of feeding droplets into the system), the additional hydraulic resistance incorporated by droplets, and length of arms of the loop. None of these papers has considered the effects of varying cross-section of the arms along their length on the dynamics of the system. This factor, however, is of practical relevance, both because of the finite precision of microfabrication that introduce undesired variation, and due to simplicity of deliberate introduction of such a variation in prototyping techniques. *As we show below, variation of the lumen along a fluidic branch in a network can have critical influence on the global flow pattern.*
![\[fig:im1\] (color online) (a) A schematic rendering of a symmetric microfluidic loop. The thin gray lines mark the equi-distant points in the parallel channels. (b-e) Exemplary momentary configurations of droplets in the loop for three different patterns: (b) perfectly homogeneous (chopped) sequence, (c) an intermediately chopped, random configuration, and (d–e) perfectly queued sequence at two instants. ](fig1){width="45.00000%"}
Any particular droplet entering the loop (see Fig. \[fig:im1\]) may flow into either the left (L) or the right (R) channel. The sequence of these “choices” is a good descriptor of the dynamics of the system. This sequence can be conveniently encoded as a binary string, composed of these two (L and R) characters. Depending on the parameters, the additional hydraulic resistance carried by the droplets, the volumetric flow rate and the frequency of dripping) this string can either be periodic or not. If it is periodic, there are many possible patterns repeated infinitely[@olgierdLOC]. Which of the many different stable states is selected, depends on the history of the system and on the initial conditions from which the flow started. If we define $N=N_L+N_R$ as the number of droplets in one period of the dynamics of the system, with $N_L$ and $N_R$ coding for the numbers of drops traveling through the left/right arm, the number of distinct spatio-temporal patterns is given by $$\label{eq:kombi}
\Omega\;=\;\frac{(N_L + N_R - 1)!}{N_L !\; N_R !}$$ provided $N_L$ and $N_R$ are relatively prime numbers[@olgierdLOC]. If they are not, the simple combinatorial equation overestimates the number of patterns because it does not exclude redundant cyclic shifts. In that case the correct evaluation of $\Omega$ can be performed using Pólya enumeration, as it was shown by Glawdel at al[@Glawdel].
The theoretical model does not estimate the probability of falling into any single specific pattern when starting from random initial conditions. From computer simulations[@olgierdLOC] we note, that although some patterns are easier to obtain than other ones, the probabilities do not differ significantly. In different words, the basins of attraction of different patterns in the space of all possible initial conditions seem to be of comparable volume. The spectrum of all possible patterns includes interesting limiting cases, i.e. the ones that are maximally “homogenized” \[Fig. \[fig:im1\](b)\], and ones that are maximally “queued” \[Fig. \[fig:im1\](d) and Fig. \[fig:im1\](e)\]. Neither from theory nor from simulations any of these patterns should be privileged over the vast majority of intermediate cases (as in Fig. \[fig:im1\](c)). The probability of any of the limiting sequences to occur in a randomly started experiment should be of the order of $1/\Omega$ – a very small number for large $N$ (for example, for $N=30$, $1/\Omega < 10^{-6}$).
Thus, on the basis of the existing theory one would not expect any of the patterns (including the chopped or queued pattern) to prevail in the experiments. The goal of this article is to explain why this is not necessarily true in a real experiment and how a small modification of the system may enforce or suppress the tendency to either homogenize or queue the distribution of droplets in networks.
Experimental motivation
=======================
Several experimental reports confirm the predictions of the simplest model[@schindler:08] in systems with relatively short parallel channels[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @AmonSelectionRules; @WangVanapaliModular; @MaddalaVanapalliPRE]. The existence (i.e. the appearance and stability) of all predicted patterns for $N_L = N_R = 4$ $(\Omega=10)$ and for smaller $N_L$, $N_R$ was demonstrated in Ref[@olgierdLOC]. Adjacent bands of regular (periodic) and irregular dynamics as well as stepwise dependence of the period on the frequency of dripping were reported in Refs[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @WangVanapaliModular; @MaddalaVanapalliPRE]. All these results agreed with simulations and analysis based on Schindler’s model[@schindler:08]. In all the experiments it was observed that after some number of repetitions the pattern may spontaneously switch into a different one; such a behavior was attributed to fluctuations of experimental conditions, i.e. to the experimental noise.
![\[fig:im3\] (color online) Upper panel: change of the shape and additional resistance of a droplet due to varying cross-section of channels. Lower panel: modifications of the asymmetric loop to be tested with respect to queuing. Thin lines correspond to the segments of modified cross-section – narrower than the other channels. Configurations indicated by solid frames induced queuing, dashed frames – chopping (suppression of queues). ](fig2){width="46.00000%"}
The fundamental assumptions of the ideal model[@schindler:08] should be even better fulfilled in systems comprising long channels – i.e. channels that can accommodate hundreds of droplets – because such systems are closer to the approximation of single lane ducts. Also the role of noise, that should be proportional to the effects associated with the flow of a single droplet, should decrease in relation to the overall dissipation in a large system. From this, and from the fact that the number $\Omega$ of possible trajectories explodes in a factorial fashion with $N$, one can expect that in a large system the chance of observing any particular pattern, as well as the chance of coming back to a pattern once abandoned (due to noises or disturbances) should be vanishingly small.
In order to verify these predictions, we performed an experiment using the same technology as in the recent experiment that confirmed the ideal model[@olgierdLOC]; the only difference was that the two channels forming the loop were much longer (about 180 mm – more than 400 times longer than they were wide). These channels could comprise hundreds of droplets at a time. Quite surprisingly, our predictions proved completely wrong: instead of observing an erratic creeping of the system over the whole space of allowed configurations, the system always settled into the “maximally queued” pattern, as in . This behavior was neither dependent on the frequency of feeding the droplets into the loop nor on the droplet size: as long as droplets were able to pass the junction without breaking-up, the long queues always appeared. We also observed that this behavior did not depend on the method of generation of droplets: we reproduced the same results with i) a well-tuned Droplet On Demand (DOD) system[@Churski2013] that produced a sequence of equally spaced monodisperse droplets, ii) with an improperly vented DOD valves producing droplets with a considerable variation in their size, and even iii) without an active control of the generation of drops, when both their volume and spacing between the drops changed in response to the changing load of the system. Although initially (if starting from the empty channels) the droplets tended to form patterns similar to these from (i.e. “chopped”), the long trains of drops always appeared within minutes and persisted, no matter how long the experiment ran.
Puzzled by this result we considered the following questions: (i) can the observed dynamics be explained within the ideal model? If not, (ii) what kind of nonlinearities or other corrections should be taken into account to find the possible reason in a minimalistic yet plausible way? If yes, (iii) why there was not a single report of this problem in the literature related to a wide range of simulated microfluidic networks?
The last question proved most helpful in searching the literature for aspects that have not been considered. Most reports on modeling flow of drops in microfluidic networks focus on systems with channels of varied lengths yet always of constant cross-section. This seems a natural choice, one for the clarity of analysis, second for that it is typical and experimentally easiest to prepare chips of (nominally) constant height and width of the channels. If the cross-section of the channels were truly constant, it would be necessary to look for the reason of queuing in subtle and little known effects, such as e.g. distance-dependent hydrodynamic interactions between droplets[@SchindlerResistance]. From auxiliary measurements we found that this effect was negligible under the conditions of the experiment described here. Moreover, we observed the queuing dynamics regardless of inter-droplet separation even though the cooperative effects, if any, should be negligible for large intervals between droplets. We thus focused further analysis on the effects of the varied cross-section on the dynamics of flow of drops through networks. An extra reason to follow this path was the fact that both the process of milling long channels and bonding chips in a hot press are prone to systematic deviations of the depth of channels – due to thermal expansion of spindle in milling and due to non uniform temperature and pressure field in a press.
Theory and simulations
======================
In the case of flow of simple, Newtonian fluid, the variation of cross-section of the channel along its length cannot produce any variation in time. Even though the local pressure gradient depends on the local geometry, any given spot along the channel is always filled with the same liquid. Yet, when the fluid is complex and non-homogeneous, such as e.g. a suspension of droplets, the local pressure gradients will depend on the content of the channel at any given point. In consequence also the total hydrodynamic resistance of the channel may depend on the position of droplets along its length, and change in time. Even for a simple liquid the hydrodynamic resistance ($R$) is very sensitive to changes in the transverse dimensions (say $d$) of the channel. According to the Hagen-Poiseuille law, reduction of the diameter of the duct from $d$ to $\gamma d$ ($\gamma<1$) changes the resistance by a factor $\gamma^{-4}$. In the case of an immiscible droplet, this scaling is much more complicated: not only the droplets’ cross-section area decreases by a factor $\gamma^2$, but also its length increases by a factor $\gamma^{-2}$. Further, its linear speed of flow must – by conservation of mass – increase approximately $\gamma^{-2}$ times. In a very rough approximation, the elongated droplet of high viscosity may be described as a slug of Hagen-Poiseuille flow of the length $\Delta l$, with effective viscosity $\eta_\text{eff}$ being the difference between the viscosity of the discrete and the continuous liquids, $\eta_\text{eff}=\eta_\text d-\eta_\text c$. Within this crude approximation, the resistance introduced into the channel by a droplet is proportional to $\Delta l/d^4$, and the change associated with reduction of the diameter of the pipe scales as $\gamma^{-6}$. For example, a mere 10% decrease of the diameter of the pipe results in a 23% increase in the length of the drop and in almost doubling of the resistance the droplet adds to the resistance of the channel. The above estimation is rough – the only important insights that we draw from it are that i) the total resistance to flow in a microfluidic channel increases when droplets move into a narrower segment, and that ii) this effect may be significant. Instead of dealing with unknown dependence of these additional resistances on cross-section of channels, flow rates and size of droplets, we simply assume, that the resistance of a droplet is given by $r_\text{up}$ in the upstream segments, and $r_\text{down}$ in the downstream segment (see Fig. \[fig:im3\]). As the resistances of individual droplets may differ (due to emulated noise in simulations or polydispersity of droplets in experiments), we will rather use the ratio of these resistances: $$\label{eq:alphageneral}
\alpha = \frac{r_\text{down}}{r_\text{up}}\;,$$ having in mind that $\alpha$ may be equal to $r_\text{narrow}/r_\text{wide}>1$ in loops narrowing downstream, or $r_\text{wide}/r_\text{narrow}<1$ in the opposite case.
{width="92.00000%"}
Networks comprising segments of slightly different cross-sections may be simulated without adding new features to the Schindler’s model; it is enough to divide channels into subsections, each having its own geometry and its own resistance multiplier for droplets, and simulate the divided channels as being connected in series. The notion of slightly different cross-sections requires clarification: we use this term to emphasize the fact (or assumption) that the dynamics of the system is dominated by collective effects of additional resistance carried by droplets and not by local effects of passing through the junctions between channels of different cross-section. Presence (and motion) of droplets in such a section involves additional pressure drop due to capillary effects[@JensenClogging]. This transient pressure drop could be taken into account for reliable analysis and simulation, but for the simplicity – since we only want to demonstrate that the queuing phenomenon may be related to a non constant cross-section of channels – we will neglect it.
Therefore, using the simple model and neglecting capillary effects on channel contractions, we tested several simple modifications of a classic asymmetric loop. We introduced narrowed sections of channels equal to either half or the whole length of the single parallel section and we varied their location. Bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:im3\] shows the configurations that we tested. The segments marked with the thin line are narrower than those drawn with the wide solid line.
We observed that these systems varied strongly in their tendency to form long queues: some of the geometries exhibited queuing (...LLLLRRRR...), some seemed to suppress queues (i.e. to prefer frequent switching between L and R), the behavior of others depended strongly on the initial conditions. Specifically, geometries B and C where neutral in the sense, that they exhibited the full range of combinatorial patterns, as in the unmodified case A. Geometries D, K and M tended to suppress queuing – even if the simulation had been started from a “perfect queue”. The cases F and G were difficult to classify; for some specific sets of starting configurations the preferred patterns were “queue-like” yet the length of queues were far from maximum. Finally, L, N, and most of all E, formed queues of the maximum possible length (i.e. longer than half of the length of the channels).
{width="100.00000%"}
The onset of oscillations
-------------------------
In the following analysis we focus on systems with narrowed sections positioned at the downstream half of the parallel channels (as in Fig. \[fig:im3\] (E)). For simplicity we consider a symmetric loop with both parallel sections of equal length and having identical segments of reduced lumen. Examples of the process described here are shown in Fig. \[fig:comp\] – the three snapshots of experiment (details of the experiment are provided in Sect. \[sect:exp\]) and corresponding computer simulation illustrate the evolution of patterns at the beginning (just after first droplets reach the end of the loop that was initially filled solely by the continuous liquid), in an intermediate state (as the queues start grow), and with fully developed queues.
When the first droplet enters the (initially empty) loop, it may flow into any of the arms. In real systems the choice is predetermined by inevitable deviations from the perfect symmetry of channels and T-junctions, and in simulations the decision must result from the details of algorithm and from the finite precision arithmetics. This droplet increases the hydraulic resistance of the chosen channel by $r_\text{wide}$. The subsequent droplet will then choose the opposite branch, and once it flows in, it increases the resistance of the second channel by the same amount, balancing the rates of flow through each of the arms. If the symmetric loop did not comprise the narrowed sections, this simple mechanism would lead to a “chopped” state with alternating L/R trajectories of the droplets. This uniform configuration of droplets can be sustained *ad infinitum*: as a drop leaves a branch and decreases its resistance, the next droplet will flow to the same arm of the loop. Interestingly, the introduction of a narrowing at the downstream termini of the arms destroys the stability of the “chopped” state. When a droplet passes into the narrowed section, the drops’ contribution to the resistance of the channel increases from $r_\text{wide}$ to $r_\text{narrow}$, so that the excess of flowing resistance in this branch is amplified by a factor $\alpha = r_\text{narrow}/r_\text{wide}$ (see Eq. \[eq:alphageneral\]). This increase must be compensated by new droplets entering the opposite branch and since they introduce smaller resistive contributions, one droplet does not balance the inequality of resistances of the two branches. The combination of the change in the resistive charge of the droplets and the delay between a decision taken at the inlet and its amplification at the narrowing, provides for the instability of the chopped states: the perturbation will be larger and larger with each cycle, finally leading to the oscillation of the maximum possible amplitude.
Fig. \[fig:im4\](a) shows an example of development of queues in a simulation with $\alpha=2.44$. In Fig. \[fig:im4\](b) we graphed a zoom on the dynamics of the system in the fully developed queued state. Top panels of these plots show a discrete function taking on two distinct values: $+1$ if a droplet flows to the right arm (R), and $-1$ if to the left (L).
Integrating this signal over time leads to the function $C(t)$ plotted in the second panel of Fig. \[fig:im4\](a). This function may be interpreted as the difference between the numbers $C_\text{R}(t)$ and $C_\text{L}(t)$ of droplets that flew to the right and left channels respectively (from the beginning of the simulation). Due to the symmetry of the loop, both $C_\text{L}(t)$ and $C_\text{R}(t)$ increase with the same average speed, and $C(t)=C_\text{R}(t)-C_\text{L}(t)$ oscillates around zero. However, the amplitude of changes of $C(t)$ provides a measure of queuing. In a perfectly chopped state $C(t)\in(-1,1)$ because droplets enter the channels in alternation. In a queued state $C(t)$ departs far from zero because long trains of droplets follow the same trajectory. We normalized the rates of flow through each of the branches by the total volumetric flow rate – hence the rates of flow through each of the two branches oscillate around the value of 0.5 (third panel of Fig. \[fig:im4\](a) and second panel of Fig. \[fig:im4\](b)). At bottom panels we also plot the numbers of droplets residing in the right/left arm of the loop at any given instant of time, and the corresponding numbers of droplets in the initial (not narrowed) sections.
Since the simulation starts with empty channels, at the beginning droplets enter both channels in an alternating manner; both trains of droplets move downstream their arms at almost the same speed and reach the narrow segments almost in the same time; then, similarly, they reach the end of the loop. In the absence of any noise, this behavior could continue infinitely; locking the system in this metastable state is possible because the loop is symmetric. The onset of queuing requires a small perturbation or a finite level of noise. We will discuss the role of noise in detail in the next section. Interestingly, the growth of queues is not monotonic. Usually two or more shorter chains grow independently to finally combine into the queue of the terminal (maximum) length.
{width="100.00000%"}
At the first sight the fully established queued state in the system comprising the narrowed sections (Fig. \[fig:comp\](c) and Fig. \[fig:comp\](f), Fig. \[fig:im4\](b)–Fig. \[fig:im4\](c)), resembles the queued pattern from in a symmetric loop without any constrictions. There are, however, important differences. First, in the system without constrictions, the queued pattern is solely *one of multiple* degenerated stationary states and it can thus be easily destroyed by a random perturbation. In the system with the narrowed sections the queued state is the *only* stable stationary state and is robust against noise. Second, in the constant cross-section system both the number of droplets and the rates of flow are – to within a single droplet and its effect of the flow rate – constant in each branch. In the narrowing loop both of these quantities change significantly within each cycle. The magnitude of these changes increases with the degree of modification: the narrower is the cross-section of the modified segments, the larger are these deviations. Moreover, exactly these cyclic variations contribute to the stability of the queued state: the large momentary differences of the flow rates determine the trajectories of drops entering the loop. Random perturbations may change the trajectories of the droplets only at the ends of the queues – as only at the moment of switching the flow rates in both arms are of similar value. Third, in the unmodified system, the droplets formed mutually complementary patterns in the two arms: the positions of droplets in one channel matched positions of the gaps in the second (see the thin lines in Fig. \[fig:im1\]). In the modified system this rule no longer holds – the lengths of the queues are substantially longer than half the length of each channel (see Fig. \[fig:comp\](c) and Fig. \[fig:comp\](f), Fig. \[fig:im4\](c)) and are not complementary. For example in configuration II in Fig. \[fig:im4\](c) the queues from the two arms flow into the outlet at the same time, possibly leading to mutual collisions of droplets leaving each of the arms. This lack of complementarity causes both the total number of droplets in the loop and the pressure drop at constant flow rate conditions (or the flow rate in constant pressure) to vary within each cycle.
Suppressing oscillations {#sect:supp}
------------------------
If, on the other hand, narrowed sections are positioned at the upstream half of the parallel channels (as in Fig. \[fig:im3\](D), (K) and (M)), the oscillations not only do not occur, but also will be suppressed (if the queued state is artificially created by the initial configuration). It means that the same loop, traveled by the same sequence of droplets (i.e. with the same flow rate, volumes, and separation between droplets) will behave completely differently after switching the direction of flow. In particular, reversing the direction of flow in the system shown in Fig. \[fig:comp\], will lead to patterns with low number of the same choices (i.e. LL or RR) in order. Mathematically, the reversal of the direction of flow means changing $\alpha$ (see Eq. \[eq:alphageneral\]) from $r_\text{narrow}/r_\text{wide}$ to $r_\text{wide}/r_\text{narrow}$. If $\alpha>1$ corresponds to amplifying fluctuations of “flowing resistance” and growing oscillations to highest available amplitude, reversal of the flow means that the oscillations become damped. Nevertheless, it does not simply mean the reversal of the direction of evolution nor the substitution of the target of the evolution from perfect queuing (...LLLLRRRR...) to perfect chopping (...LRLRLRLR...). For $\alpha>1$ the evolution leads to uniquely defined state of the perfect queues (perhaps with some minor deviations only at the very ends of the queues, caused by high levels of noise). In contrast, reversing the flow ($\alpha<1$) does not lead to a single, unique state, but to a family of microstates that distribute droplets between two arms more or less homogeneously. These microstates can easily mutate into each other bacause (in contrary to the queues for $\alpha>1$) the system is always almost balanced – the difference of flow rates between arms is as small as the effect of single droplets, so that a random permutation may be located in any spot along the sequence. Thus in the case of $\alpha<1$ the evolution seems to escape from queue rather than run towards any particular, highly chopped pattern.
Although the confirmation of this finding in computer simulation is straightforward, as the simulation may be started from any initial configuration of droplets, experimental tests require more caution. Typical experiment starts from empty loop and then continue to more or less uniform distribution of droplets. Therefore, in order to prove that queuing is suppressed, the queue must be created artificially. We did it by freezing the flow in one of the arms (by placing a piece of dry ice above the chip), so that droplets could not enter the blocked channel. After removing the ice and melting the frozen oil, the channel was again open for flow, but the artificially created queue was not stable and evolved to a chopped state after several cycles (see the details in Sect. \[sect:exp\], and in particular in Fig. \[fig:im7\](b)).
Effects of noise and of geometry on formation of queues
-------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the onset of queuing usually requires a random perturbation that may change the “ideal” pattern of L and R choices. In a small experimental systems it is likely that the experimental noise is too small to induce a change of the stationary pattern of trajectories. In a large system, with a large number of droplets, their time of residence in the parallel arms is long enough for small perturbations to accumulate. In simulations, we added artificial noise by randomizing the intervals between subsequent droplets entering the loop and by randomizing the volume and charge of resistance of the droplets. Intervals between the droplets and their resistances were drawn from a symmetric triangular distribution centered at the required mean value with ranges given as a specified percentage of the mean. For example, in the simulations plotted in Fig. \[fig:comp\](d)–Fig. \[fig:comp\](f) and Fig. \[fig:im4\], the emulated noise was $\pm 10\%$ of droplet resistance and $\pm 10\%$ of inter-droplet interval. The standard deviations of the corresponding distributions were $\sqrt{6}$ times smaller, i.e. $4.1\%$ of a mean value.
We used simulations to test the minimum amplitude of noise needed for initiating the process of queuing. In order to quantify how quickly the queues grow, we constructed a quantity reflecting the extent to which the state of the system resembled a “perfect queue” comprising a maximum number of droplets in a row. An exact estimation of this maximum length is not straightforward, but it is of the order of the maximum number of droplets in the whole loop. This number is also difficult to calculate exactly yet using the “mean field approximation” for an unmodified loop, we obtain the following estimation:
$$\begin{gathered}
\bar N_\L=\frac{L_\L \bar f_\L}{\bar v_\L}\quad ,\quad\quad
\bar N_\R=\frac{L_\R \bar f_\R}{\bar v_\R}\end{gathered}$$
where $\bar N_i$ is the average number of droplets, $L_i$ is the length, $\bar f_i$ is the average frequency of entering droplets, and $\bar v_i$ is the average velocity in the $i$-th channel ($i = \L$ or $\R$). For a symmetric, unmodified loop ($L_\L=L_\R=L$) the corresponding values are equal: $$\begin{gathered}
{\bar v_\L} = {\bar v_\R} = \frac{Q}{2 A}\quad ,\quad\quad
{\bar f_\L} = {\bar f_\R} = \frac{f}{2}\\
\label{eq:cyclength}
\bar N_\tot = \bar N_\L + \bar N_\R = \frac{2 A L f}{Q}\end{gathered}$$ where $Q$ is the total volumetric flow rate, $f$ is the frequency of feeding droplets into the loop, and $A$ is the cross section area of the channels. Here we assume that $A=w\cdot h$ is constant along channels while the increase of the hydraulic resistance introduced by the droplets results from modification of the aspect ratio $w/h$ of the width ($w$) and height ($h$) of the channel. This way the resistance of droplets is changed, but their length, separation and velocity are not.
The “perfect queue” should contain at least $\bar N_\tot/2$ droplets flowing one after another into the right channel and the same number of drops then flowing into the left arm. We monitor the interval required for the onset of the oscillations as the interval from the start of simulation until the first occurrence of $\bar N_\tot/2$ subsequent droplets following through the same channel.
Fig. \[fig:im5\] shows the time required for the onset of oscillations as the function of $\alpha$ (defined in Eq. \[eq:alphageneral\]). We run the simulations keeping constant flow rate and varying the frequency of feeding droplets into the loop, the volume of the droplets, and the amplitude of noise (same for the intervals between the drops and the resistance they carried). We note that the time required for the onset of oscillations depends very weakly on the resistance of droplets and on the frequency of drops entering the loop. It is possible, that this dependence, visible especially at low noise level on the left graph in Fig. \[fig:im5\], results mainly from the hidden influence of these quantities on the overall fluctuations in the flux of hydrodynamic resistance through the system. This is because we define the amplitude of the noise in relation to the resistance of droplets or frequency of feeding the droplets; increasing these parameters increases also the amplitude of fluctuations. These effects play a crucial role when the level of noise is small, and $\alpha$ is too small to induce permutation of a pattern without a random perturbation.
![\[fig:im6\] (color online) The amplitude of oscillations and the number of changes of the trajectories of droplets within one cycle as a function of $\alpha$. Data shown for long, randomly initialized simulations of the symmetric loop containing about 120 droplets. The amplitude of oscillations assumes high values in states with long queues, while the number of changes of the trajectories assumes small values in the queued state. From the graphs it is clear that when the downstream halves of the channels induce higher hydrodynamic resistance of droplets ($\alpha>1$) queues form, while the reduction of the resistance of introduced by the droplets in the downstream sections ($\alpha<1$) suppress queues. This behavior is stabilized by a moderate level of noise. ](fig6){width="46.00000%"}
Effects of noise and of geometry on the quality of queues
---------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the onset of oscillations, also the “quality” of queues is of interest. In order to test the stability of the queued states we monitored to what extent the state of the system resembled the perfect queue. We note that the sole number of identical subsequent decisions overlooks states that differ only very slightly from a “perfect queue”. For example for $\bar N_\tot/2=12$ the string LLLLLLLRLLLLLLLL will be rejected despite of more than 12 L choices almost in a row. In order to take into account these imperfections we introduced the following criteria:
\(i) the amplitude of oscillation, defined as the difference between maximum and minimum of value of $C(t)$ within a cycle. To avoid ambiguities in identification of the cycle and calculating its length, we use its rough estimate $\bar N_\tot$.
\(ii) The number of changes from L to R or vice versa during the cycle. Perfect queuing should yield 1 or 2 changes depending on whether the actual length of the cycle is longer or shorter than the estimate $\bar N_\tot$. In contrast, perfectly chopped state (in a symmetric loop) produces maximum possible value, which is equal to the length of the cycle.
{width="99.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:im6\] shows how these two measures of queuing depend on the factor $\alpha$, defined in Eq. \[eq:alphageneral\]. Each point in these graphs represents a data point from a simulation, started from random initial conditions and recorded after a long time (10 000 droplets). In these simulations $\bar N_\tot=116$. We varied the level of noise (0, 10 or 90%) and $\alpha$, all the other parameters held constant. $\alpha<1$ corresponds to loops comprising downstream halves of the two parallel channels wider (less resistant) than the upper ones, and $\alpha>1$ codes for systems with narrowed sections. At moderate level of noise (10%, or 4.1% in terms of the standard deviation) both criteria indicate perfect queuing already for values of $\alpha$ as close to 1 as just $\alpha>1.02$. The slight increase of the amplitude of oscillations is due to the hidden dependence of both $N_\tot$ and the actual length of the queues on the cross-section area of modified sections (changing together with $\alpha$). For the large level of noise (90%) and $\alpha>1$, there are visible imperfections in the queues, increasing for $\alpha\approx 1$ . In a stark contrast, when the downstream sections provide for a lesser resistance introduced by the droplets then the upstream sections of the channels (i.e. for $\alpha<1$), queuing is suppressed, regardless of the level of noise. Interestingly, at a high level of noise the number of changes per cycle is close to half its length, just as if the sequence of L/R choices was random. On the other hand, the amplitude of oscillation measured for real random binary strings (resulted from Bernoulli process, as repeated coin flipping), is higher than that recorded in the simulation. We attribute this fact to the mechanism of suppression of long queues (see Sect. \[sect:supp\]).
It is also very interesting to note, that in the absence of noise (0%) all the above regularities become less evident. For example, for $\alpha>1$ queuing may be overcome by regular memorized patterns[@olgierdLOC] (notice the characteristic structure of bands in the dependence on $\alpha$). Locking the system in a “perfectly chopped” state is still possible, although it requires very special initial conditions, as starting from the empty loop. Interestingly, suppression of long queues in widening channels ($\alpha<1$) is still efficient in the absence of noise: even if simulation starts from perfect queues, they disappear. This is because the imbalance needed for changing a pattern comes collectively from all droplets, if starting from a queue, and from one droplet only (plus fluctuations / noise), if starting from the chopped pattern (as well as from the empty loop).
Experimental results {#sect:exp}
====================
Our predictions have been fully confirmed in experiments. We manufactured four different microfluidic chips, each comprising two kinds of channels: “narrow” and “wide”. Despite these names, used for the consistency, the channels, milled in a slab of polycarbonate and sealed thermally[@DominikaBonding], are of the same width of 370 ${\mu}$m and differ only in height: 340 ${\mu}$m for the “narrow” channels and 400 ${\mu}$m for the “wide”, with smooth, 1 mm long, transitions between them. As working liquids we used hexadecane with 0.5% (w/w) of Span80 surfactant and water dyed by 8% (w/w) of red ink (Encre Rouge / Waterman, Paris). For these liquids and channel geometries we estimate the corresponding value of $\alpha$ for droplets of the volume of 60 nl to be $\alpha\approx 2$ – for the linear velocity of droplets close to 5 mm/s, as used in the presented experiments. The smooth (1 mm long) transitions between the wide and narrow segments of the channels produce very small changes in the curvature of the droplet and the capillary pressure (of the order of tens Pa). The chips comprised one or two symmetric loops and one or two T-junctions for generating droplets. Using two generators placed on opposite ends of the loop enabled us to invert the flow direction so that droplets could enter the loop starting from shallowed segments as well as from the deepened ones. Droplets could be created passively by introducing constant rates of flow of the two liquids, yet in order to increase the range of frequencies and sizes of droplets we used DOD (droplet on demand) technique based on pressurized containers equipped with valves and long capillaries between the valves and the chip[@Churski2013].
The chip presented in Fig. \[fig:im7\](a)–Fig. \[fig:im7\](b) (microphotographs) and in the graph in Fig. \[fig:im7\](d), comprises a long loop with arms 48 cm long, each including 25 cm of deepened segment and 23 cm shallowed. As long as droplet separation was large enough to avoid mutual collisions at the inlet bifurcation[@CollisionPanizza], this chip always behaved in agreement with our predictions: droplets flowing towards shallower segments formed perfect queues, as in Fig. \[fig:im7\](a), whereas in the opposite direction the patterns were quasi-random, avoiding long queues – typical example is shown in Fig. \[fig:im7\](b). Regardless of the initial state, the time of formation of the perfect queues was not longer than 10 cycles.
Fig. \[fig:im7\](d) shows cyclic changes in the flow rates and in occupation of channels in the system from Fig. \[fig:im7\](a), with a fully developed queue. These experimental data can be qualitatively compared with the plots in Fig. \[fig:im4\].
Fig. \[fig:im7\](c) presents queuing in a symmetric loop (the same as in Fig. \[fig:comp\](a)–Fig. \[fig:comp\](c)) with arms of length of 66 mm (33 mm shallowed and 33 deepened). In Fig. \[fig:comp\](a)–Fig. \[fig:comp\](c) the center–to–center separation of droplets at the inlet was set to 1.47 mm – as closely as possible to the limit of the collision regime[@CollisionPanizza], and in Fig. \[fig:im7\](c) it is 10 mm. Supporting video[^1] shows the evolution of this system from the empty loop up to the fully developed queues.
Fig. \[fig:im7\](e)–Fig. \[fig:im7\](f) exemplify the use of the understanding of what geometries promote / suppress queuing in constructing microfluidic systems. Each of the systems comprises two identical loops connected in series. In Fig. \[fig:im7\](f) both loops are traversed from the deepened to the shallowed segments, so that the queues are visible in both the loops. In Fig. \[fig:im7\](e) only the second loop is oriented for queuing; the first loop is oriented so that the flow proceeds from the shallowed segments towards the deeper ones, so that queuing is suppressed. Unlike the long and moderate loops from Fig. \[fig:im7\](a)–Fig. \[fig:im7\](c), these from Fig. \[fig:im7\](f) could present also patterns other than perfect queuing; it is clear that noise is required to induce transitions in loops of such a small size. Notice that the effective margin of noise in the second loop is elevated by varying intervals between droplets at the output of the first loop.
Conclusions
===========
We believe that our work may shed new light on the dynamics of the flow of droplets through microfluidic networks. We demonstrated that a theoretical description[@olgierdLOC; @Glawdel; @PanizzaComplexPRL; @JeanneretHamiltonian; @AgentBased; @Iranczycy] built on the ideal model[@schindler:08] does not describe the effects caused by varying cross-section of channel and the noise that is always present in real experiments. Adding a small *intentional* modification of channels may be used for turning a chaotic system into a device that reproducibly either distributes droplets uniformly between the parallel channels, or forms long queues of droplets. The experiments confirmed our numerical predictions. We found that droplets flowing through a microfluidic loop comprising two channels that narrow towards the outlet, group themselves spontaneously into queues of maximum possible length. This behavior is independent on any parameters of flow, provided the droplets neither break at the bifurcation nor collide there. Although the mechanism of formation of queues is related to noise, once established, the queues cannot be destroyed even by large amplitude of random perturbations in the intervals or volumes of droplets. We also demonstrated in simulation and experiments that after reversing the flow direction (i.e. when droplets flow from narrow channels into widened sections), the queues are suppressed – resulting in uniform distribution of droplets in the loop.
Our results can be used for further studies on the dynamics of flow in microfluidic networks. They can be also directly applied for randomizing flow of droplets through branches (with channels that widen in the downstream direction), for alternate directioning long queues to one of two outputs (with narrowing channels), and for simple, low-cost generation of periodically changing difference of flow between branches. The latter may be used for example for scanning the processes of splitting or collisions of droplets in a T-junction as a function of the difference of flow rates.
The results described here may be also helpful in understanding the flow of blood in branched systems of vascular capillaries. Interestingly, the smallest capillaries are equipped with a mechanism of regulated constrictions at the initial section of the capillary: the regulation of lumen is provided by smooth muscles called precapillary sphincters, or possibly by other mechanisms called precapillary resistance[@rhoades2009medical]. Could these constrictions be the evolutionarily developed mechanism of suppressing oscillations and promoting uniform distribution of red blood cells? In fact, giant oscillations were recently found in artificial microvascular networks[@ForouzanBloodOsc] and earlier in theoretical models of blood capillary network[@carr2005osc], although they were never observed in real microvascular networks.
Oscillations similar to our finding were recently discovered in a stratified flow of two *miscible* liquids in a narrowing loop[@GeddesWaterGlycerolOsc]. It suggests a possible existence of a common mechanism of oscillations caused by flow of complex fluids through parallel, narrowing ducts.
This project was operated within the Foundation for Polish Science Team Programme co-financed by the EU European Regional Development Fund and within the European Research Council Starting Grant 279647. S.J. and O.C. acknowledge financial support from the Polish Ministry of Science under the grant Iuventus Plus nr IP2012 015172. The authors thank Jakub Checinski, Tomasz Smolka, Szymon Bacher and Michal Dabrowski for valuable help during their student practices.
[^1]: See the supplementary material
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Symmetry breaking surface fields give rise to nontrivial and long-ranged order parameter profiles for critical systems such as fluids, alloys or magnets confined to wedges. We discuss the properties of the corresponding universal scaling functions of the order parameter profile and the two-point correlation function and determine the critical exponents $\eta_{\parallel}$ and $\eta_{\perp}$ for the so-called normal transition.'
address:
- |
$^{1}$Fachbereich Physik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal,\
D-42097 Wuppertal, Federal Republic of Germany
- |
$^{2}$Institut für Theoretische Physik, RWTH Aachen,\
D-52056 Aachen, Federal Republic of Germany
author:
- 'A. Hanke$^{1}$, M. Krech$^{2}$, F. Schlesener$^{1}$, and S. Dietrich$^{1}$'
title: Critical adsorption near edges
---
Introduction {#secI}
============
Advanced experimental techniques have emerged which allow one to endow solid surfaces with stable geometrical structures which display a well-defined design on the scale of nanometers or micrometers. Lateral geometric structures can be formed by using various lithographic techniques such as, e.g., holographic [@HKM92], X-ray (LIGA) [@Tol98], soft [@XW98], and nanosphere lithography [@Bur98]. These microfabrication techniques provide routes to high-quality patterns and structures with lateral dimensions down to tens of nm. These structures are either periodic in one lateral direction consisting of grooves with various shapes of the cross section (e.g., wedgelike) or they display periodicity in both lateral dimensions.
These man-made surfaces offer a wide range of possible applications if they are exposed to fluids. In that case the surfaces act as a template with designed topography which imposes specified lateral structures on a fluid. For example in the context of microfluidics [@Kni98; @Gru99] these geometrical structures can be used as guiding systems in order to deliver tiny amounts of valuable liquids to designated analysis centers on a solid surface as part of microscopic chemical factories [@Ser98]. Besides the numerous experimental challenges associated with these systems there is also the theoretical challenge to understand the corresponding highly inhomogeneous fluid structures (and ultimately the flow dynamics) as well as to guide the design on the basis of this insight [@Diet99].
In view of this goal the study of the fluid structures in a single wedgelike groove with opening angle $\alpha$ serves as a paradigmatic first step. For $\alpha=\pi$ the geometry reduces to the well studied case of a planar substrate. For decreasing values of $\alpha$ the fluid is squeezed whereas for $\alpha>\pi$ a ridgelike solid perturbation is projected into the fluid. Due to the unbound accessible space for all values of $\alpha$ the bulk properties of the fluid are unchanged by the presence of the wedge. (This is an important difference as compared with pores in which the confinement alters the bulk properties.) At low temperatures one finds pronounced packing effects for the fluid particles near the corner of the wedge which differ significantly from those encountered at planar surfaces [@SD97; @HSW98; @NL90]. Even stronger effects occur if the wedge is exposed to a vapor phase. In this case a liquid-like meniscus is formed at the bottom of the wedge which undergoes a filling transition at a temperature $T_{\alpha}$ [*below*]{} the wetting transition temperature $T_W$ of the corresponding planar substrate [@NKD92; @Hau92; @Lip98; @RDN98]. It has been demonstrated that X-ray scattering experiments at grazing incidence are capable of resolving such interfacial structures [@Bus94; @Li98].
If the temperature is increased sufficiently above the triple point of the fluid one encounters its bulk critical point $T_c$. This can be either the liquid-vapor critical point of the fluid or the demixing critical point if the fluid is a binary liquid mixture. The experience with planar surfaces tells [@Bin83; @Die86] that at bulk criticality the confinement triggers interesting new surface critical phenomena. In this case the local order parameter $\phi$ is perturbed near the surface within a layer whose thickness is governed by the diverging bulk correlation length $\xi_{\pm}(t\to 0) = \xi_0^{\pm} |t|^{-\nu}$ where $t=(T-T_c)/T_{c\,}$; $\nu$ denotes the universal bulk critical exponent and $\xi_0^{\pm}$ is the nonuniversal amplitude above $(+)$ and below $(-)$ $T_c$. Thus at $T_c$ the perturbation due to the surface intrudes deeply into the bulk.
In order to extend our knowledge of the structure of confined fluids to these elevated temperatures we set out to investigate the aforementioned surface critical phenomena in a wedge. Based on analytic calculations [@Car83; @GT84; @BPP84; @Lar86; @AL95; @KP96; @DP97; @KLT97] and computer simulations [@PS98; @PS99] the local critical behavior in a wedge has been analyzed for the case that the corresponding planar surface exhibits the so-called [*ordinary*]{} or [*special*]{} surface phase transitions [@Bin83; @Die86]. In the corresponding magnetic language the ordinary phase transition corresponds to the case that the couplings between the surface spins remain below the threshold value of the multicritical special transition beyond which the surface can support long-ranged order even above $T_c$ [@Bin83; @Die86] and in which there are no surface fields. The ordinary transition has also been studied for different shapes of the confinement such as parabolic ones [@PTI91; @IPT93; @KT95]. The main concern of these studies has been critical edge exponents describing the leading critical behavior of the order parameter near the corner where it differs from that at planar surfaces and in the bulk. One finds that in general the edge exponents depend on the opening angle $\alpha$. These studies aim at describing magnetic systems in the absence of surface fields as they are experimental accessible, e.g., by scanning electron microscopy [@UCP91].
However, the aforementioned surface and edge universality classes are not applicable in the present context of confined fluids. For example, in a binary liquid mixture one of the two species will prefer the confining substrate more than the other which results in an effective surface field acting on the order parameter given by the concentration difference between the two species. Similar arguments hold for a one-component fluid near liquid-vapor coexistence. These surface fields give rise to another surface universality class, the so-called [*normal*]{} transition [@Bin83; @Die86]. It differs from the ordinary and special transitions discussed above in that these symmetry breaking surface fields generate a nontrivial order parameter profile even if the bulk is in the disordered phase, i.e., for $T\ge T_c$. For a planar surface this gives rise to the well studied so-called [*critical adsorption*]{} phenomenon (see, e.g., Refs. [@Bin83; @Die86; @CD90; @DS93; @Die94; @FD95; @SL95].) Here we extend the corresponding field-theoretical analysis for the normal transition to the wedge geometry under consideration. After presenting our model and discussing general scaling properties (Sec.\[secII\]) we analyze the order parameter profile in Sec.\[secIII\] and the structure factor in Sec.\[secIV\]. By focusing on the critical temperature $T=T_c$ we are able to obtain analytical results. They are summarized in Sec.\[summary\]. Appendices \[appA\] and \[appB\] contain important technical details needed in Secs.\[secIII\] and \[secIV\].
Experimentally, wedges are characterized by a finite depth $\Lambda$. Moreover, in many cases they are manufactured as a laterally periodic array of parallel grooves and ridges. The structural properties of a fluid exposed to such a periodic array sensitively depends on the ratio $\Lambda / \xi$ of the depth and the correlation length. For $\Lambda / \xi \ll 1$ the system will resemble a critical fluid exposed to a mildly corrugated substrate which is expected to give rise to corrections to the leading critical adsorption behavior at a planar substrate. For $\Lambda / \xi \gg 1$ near the tip of a ridge and near the bottom of a groove the presence of their periodic duplicates becomes irrelevant so that in this limit the edge singularity of a single edge with $\alpha>\pi$ and $\alpha<\pi$, respectively, will prevail. Our present study deals with the limit $\Lambda \to \infty$ and $\xi\to\infty$ taken such that $\Lambda / \xi \gg 1$. Certainly, in a later stage it will be rather rewarding to study also the crossover regime $\Lambda/\xi \approx 1$ in which the grooves and the ridges as well as the way they are joined together play an equally important role. The occurrence of the unbending transition in the case of wetting on corrugated substrates [@SP98] indicates that the regime $\Lambda/\xi \approx 1$ might exhibit rather interesting new phenomena.
Model and general results {#secII}
=========================
Our investigation is based on the Ginzburg-Landau Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ determining the statistical weight $\exp(-{\cal H})$ for a scalar order parameter $\phi$ which represents a critical system within the Ising universality class. According to the wedge geometry, ${\cal H}$ is given as a sum of three contributions, i.e., ${\cal H} = {\cal H}_b + {\cal H}_s + {\cal H}_e$, which refer to the bulk $(b)$, the surface $(s)$, and the edge contribution $(e)$, respectively. In cylindrical coordinates ${\bf x} = (r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|)$ (see Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]) the individual contributions are given by
\[H\] $$\label{Ha}
{\cal H}_b[\phi] = \int_0^\alpha d\theta
\int_0^{\infty} dr \, r \int d^{d-2} x_\| \,
\Big\{ {1 \over 2}(\nabla \phi)^2 + {\tau \over 2} \phi^2 + {g \over 4!}
\phi^4 \Big\} \, \, ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_s[\phi] =
\int_0^{\infty} dr \int d^{d-2} x_\| & & \Big\{ {c_1 \over 2}
[\phi(r,0,{\bf x}_\|)]^2 - h_{1\,} \phi(r,0,{\bf x}_\|) \label{Hb}\\
& & \, + \, {c_2 \over 2} [\phi(r,\alpha,{\bf x}_\|)]^2 - h_{2\,}
\phi(r,\alpha,{\bf x}_\|) \Big\} \, \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Hc}
{\cal H}_e[\phi] = \int d^{d-2} x_\| \, \Big\{ {c_e \over 2}
[\phi(0,0,{\bf x}_\|)]^2 -
h_{e\,} \phi(0,0,{\bf x}_\|) \Big\} \, \, ,$$
where $d$ is the space dimension and ${\bf x}_\|$ parameterizes the ($d-2$)-dimensional subspace parallel to the edge along which the system is translationally invariant. The bulk Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_b$ given by Eq.(\[Ha\]) represents the standard Ginzburg-Landau $\phi^4$ model in the absence of external bulk fields. The bulk parameter $\tau$ is proportional to the reduced temperature $t = (T - T_c) / T_{c\,}$, $g$ is the bulk coupling constant, and $\alpha$ denotes the opening angle. The surface Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_s$ given by Eq.(\[Hb\]) captures the effect of the two semi-infinite planar surfaces forming the geometric boundaries of the wedge located at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \alpha$, respectively. Note that ${\cal H}_b$ and ${\cal H}_s$ take their standard fixed-point form with a surface enhancement $c_i$ and a surface field $h_i$ for each of the surfaces $i = 1,2$. Cubic surface fields [@CD90] will be disregarded here. The surfaces meet at the opening angle $\alpha$ along the edge of the wedge which gives rise to the third contribution ${\cal H}_e$. The edge Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_e$ given by Eq.(\[Hc\]) has the same structure as the surface contribution ${\cal H}_s$ and is characterized by an edge enhancement $c_e$ and an edge field $h_e$ [@Die86]. The total Hamiltonian $\cal H$ constitutes a renormalizable model (see Subsec.IVA.3 in Ref.[@Die86]).
In this investigation we are exclusively concerned with the normal transition which is characterized by nonzero values of all surface and edge fields $h_1, h_2$, and $h_e$ and arbitrary values of the surface enhancements $c_1$ and $c_2$ and of the edge enhancement $c_e$. For nonzero fields $h_1$ or $h_2$ the system is [*ordered*]{} at any finite point even for $T > T_c$. Asymptotically close to the critical point $T_c$ the universal properties of the corresponding order parameter profile are linked to the [*critical adsorption fixed-point*]{} of the corresponding renormalization group description. The ensuing scaling functions refer to the scaling limit $r \to \infty$ and $\xi \to \infty$, where the ratio $r / \xi$ is kept fixed forming a finite scaling variable. [*At*]{} the critical adsorption fixed-point the surface fields are infinitely large so that the order parameter profile $$\label{profile}
M(r,\theta,t;\alpha) \, \equiv \,
\langle \phi(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|) \rangle$$ diverges at the surfaces $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \alpha$ of the wedge according to a power law. (We recall that such divergences refer to the renormalization group fixed-point whereas actually the divergence of the order parameter profile is cut off at atomic distances from the surfaces.) Consequently, at this so-called normal transition the surfaces can differ at most with respect to the sign of the fields. In the following we assume that the surface fields have the same sign and we denote this configuration as $(+,+)$. Note that only ${\cal H}_b$ in conjunction with the aforementioned boundary conditions is left to determine the functional form of the order parameter profile.
Close to the critical point $T_c$ the order parameter profile takes the scaling form $$\label{mpm}
M(r,\theta,t;\alpha) = a |t|^\beta
P_\pm(r/\xi_\pm,\theta;\alpha) \, \, ,$$ where $\xi_{\pm} = \xi_0^{\pm} |t|^{-\nu}$ with $t = (T - T_c) / T_c \gtrless 0$ is the correlation length and $P_\pm(\zeta_\pm,\theta;\alpha)$ are the corresponding scaling functions with the scaling variable $$\label{variable}
\zeta_\pm \, = \, r/\xi_\pm \, \, .$$ The amplitude $a$ in Eq.(\[mpm\]) is the nonuniversal amplitude of the bulk order parameter $M_b = a |t|^\beta$, $T < T_c$, where $\beta$ is the corresponding bulk critical exponent. The scaling functions $P_\pm$ are universal and have the limiting behavior $P_+(\zeta_+ \to \infty,\theta;\alpha) \to 0$ and $P_-(\zeta_- \to \infty,\theta;\alpha) \to 1$, respectively. Note that $P_+$ and $P_-$ are universal but depend on the [*definition*]{} of the correlation length $\xi_\pm$, because $\xi_\pm$ enters the scaling argument $\zeta_\pm$. In the opposite limit $\zeta_\pm \to 0$, i.e., $T \to T_c$, the scaling functions $P_\pm$ exhibit short-distance singularities in form of power laws which reflect the anomalous scaling dimension of the order parameter $\phi$: $$\label{Ppm}
P_\pm(\zeta_\pm \to 0,\theta;\alpha) = \tilde{\cal C}_\pm(\theta;\alpha)
\ \zeta_\pm^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, .$$ The ratio $\beta/\nu$ of critical exponents has the values $1$ in $d = 4$, $\simeq 0.5168$ in $d = 3$ [@GZ85], and $1/8$ in $d = 2$. Equation (\[Ppm\]) implies a power law dependence on $r$ for the order parameter profile at criticality: $$\label{mpmTc}
M(r,\theta,t=0;\alpha) = a \, \tilde{\cal C}_\pm(\theta;\alpha)
(r/\xi_0^\pm)^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, .$$ The scaling functions $\tilde{\cal C}_\pm(\theta;\alpha)$ appearing in Eqs.(\[Ppm\]) and (\[mpmTc\]) are universal but depend on the definition of the correlation length because they are derived from $P_{\pm}$. (However, the product $\tilde{\cal C}_\pm (\xi_0^\pm)^{\beta/\nu}$ is invariant with respect to different choices for the definition of the bulk correlation length.) In order to be specific we choose as the definition for $\xi$ the so-called [*true*]{} correlation length which governs the decay of the two-point correlation function in the bulk system [@FD95]. Equation (\[mpmTc\]) implies the relation $$\label{CpCm}
\tilde{\cal C}_+(\theta;\alpha) / \tilde{\cal C}_-(\theta;\alpha) =
(\xi_0^+ / \xi_0^-)^{-\beta/\nu}$$ between the scaling functions $\tilde{\cal C}_\pm$ involving the universal ratio $\xi_0^+/\xi_0^-$.
In the limit $\alpha = \pi$ the wedge geometry coincides with the semi-infinite geometry. In this limit the universal scaling functions $\tilde{\cal C}_\pm$ reduce to $$\label{Cpmcpm}
\tilde{\cal C}_\pm(\theta;\alpha = \pi) =
c_{\pm\,} (\sin \theta)^{-\beta/\nu}$$ where the universal amplitudes $c_\pm$ with $c_+ / c_- = (\xi_0^+ / \xi_0^-)^{-\beta/\nu}$ govern the critical adsorption profile at a planar surface [@FD95] so that $$\label{mhalf}
M(r,\theta,t=0;\alpha=\pi) \, = \,
M_{\infty/2}(z = r \sin \theta,t=0) \, = \,
a \, c_{\pm\,} (z / \xi_0^\pm)^{-\beta/\nu}$$ yields the order parameter profile $M_{\infty/2}$ in the semi-infinite system at criticality. The profile $M_{\infty/2}(z_0,t=0)$ at a reference distance $z_0$ from the surface can be used in order to construct the ratio $$\label{mpmmhalf}
{M(r,\theta,t=0;\alpha) \over M_{\infty/2}(z_0,t=0)} \, = \,
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, \rho^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, ,
\quad \rho = r / z_0 \, \, ,$$ which is independent of the nonuniversal amplitudes $a$ and $\xi_0^\pm$. Here we have introduced the length ratio $\rho = r/z_0$ and the scaling function $$\label{ratio}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, \equiv \,
\tilde{\cal C}_+(\theta;\alpha) / c_+ \, = \,
\tilde{\cal C}_-(\theta;\alpha) / c_- \, \, .$$ We note that ${\cal C}$ is not only universal but also independent of the definition for the correlation length because the lhs of Eq.(\[mpmmhalf\]) and $\rho$ are expressed in terms of order parameter profiles and distances, respectively, without resorting to the notion of the correlation length.
In the limit that the normal distance $z = r \sin \theta$ from the surface of the wedge is much smaller than $r$, i.e., for $\theta \to 0$ with $r$ fixed, the order parameter profile reduces to the planar semi-infinite behavior $$\label{planar}
M(r,\theta,t=0;\alpha) \, = \,
a \, c_{\pm\,} (z / \xi_0^\pm)^{-\beta/\nu}
\, \to \, a \, c_{\pm\,} \theta^{-\beta/\nu}
(r / \xi_0^\pm)^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, , \quad \theta \to 0 \, \, ,$$ so that Eqs.(\[mhalf\]) and (\[mpmmhalf\]) imply $$\label{theta}
{\cal C}(\theta \to 0;\alpha) \, \to \, \theta^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, ,
\quad {\cal C}(\theta \to \alpha;\alpha) \, \to \,
(\alpha-\theta)^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, ,$$ where we have used the symmetry property $$\label{symmetry}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, = \,
{\cal C}(\alpha - \theta;\alpha) \, \, .$$
Order parameter profile at $T_{\lowercase{c}}$ {#secIII}
==============================================
At the critical point the radial dependence of the order parameter profile in the wedge is given by the power law $r^{-\beta/\nu}$ \[see Eq.(\[mpmTc\])\]. The dependence of the profile on $\theta$ is captured by the universal amplitude function ${\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)$ \[see Eq.(\[mpmmhalf\])\], which in $d = 2$ is determined by conformal invariance arguments (see Sec.\[secIIID\]). In $d > 2$, however, one has to resort to explicit field-theoretical calculations, assuming that the amplitude function ${\cal C}$, as other universal quantities, is a smooth function of the spatial dimension $d$. In the following we focus on the corresponding mean-field description, i.e., lowest order perturbation theory within the field-theoretical approach. The mean-field results become exact at the upper critical dimension $d_{\mbox{uc}} = 4$ of the field theory described by Eq.(\[H\]), i.e., for $d \nearrow 4$. In order to provide an estimate for the order parameter profile in $d = 3$ we shall use the exact results in $d = 2$ and the mean-field results in $d = 4$ for an interpolation scheme between $d = 2$ and $d = 4$, where the correct scaling arguments and short-distance singularities are implemented. For the order parameter profile studied here we shall use the value $\beta / \nu \simeq 0.5168$ [@GZ85] in $d = 3$ instead of the mean-field value $\beta / \nu = 1$. Thus only the amplitude function is treated in lowest order perturbation theory.
Mean-field theory {#secIIIA}
-----------------
Within mean-field theory it is convenient to introduce the reduced profile $$\label{mean}
m(r,\theta,\tau;\alpha) \, \equiv \,
\sqrt{g/12} \ M(r,\theta,\tau;\alpha) \, \, ;$$ $m(r,\theta,\tau;\alpha)$ is determined by the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\label{ELeq}
\left[{\partial^2 \over \partial r^2} + {1 \over r}{\partial \over \partial r}
+{1 \over r^2}{\partial^2 \over \partial \theta^2} \right] m =
\tau \, m \, + \, 2 \, m^3$$ for $r > 0$ and $0 < \theta <\alpha$. The divergences of the profile $m$ near the surfaces and the edge of the wedge account for the effect of the surface and edge parts of the Hamiltonian in the $(+,+)$ configuration considered here. For $\tau = 0$ Eq.(\[ELeq\]) implies for the universal amplitude function $$\label{C1}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, = \, r \, m(r, \theta, \tau = 0; \alpha)$$ \[see Eq.(\[mpmmhalf\]), here $\beta/\nu = 1$\] the equation $$\label{C2}
{\partial^2 \over \partial \theta^2} \, {\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)
\, = \, - \, {\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, + \,
2 \, [{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)]^3 \, \, .$$ Equation (\[C2\]) leads to exact results for ${\cal C}$ in the limit $d \nearrow 4$. Note that Eq.(\[C2\]) can readily be solved using the order parameter profile obtained for a [*film geometry*]{} with $(+,+)$ boundary conditions [@Kre97]. Specifically, Eq.(\[C2\]) is equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equation for a film with thickness $L$ as given by Eq.(A3) in Ref.[@Kre97] if the rescaled temperature $\tau L^2$ there is replaced by $- \alpha^2$. The expression $\theta / \alpha$ for the wedge corresponds to $z / L$ for the film. The solution of Eq.(\[C2\]) can be expressed by the Jacobian elliptic functions sn and dn,
\[pi\] $$\label{m0pi}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, = \,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - 2 k^2(\alpha)}} \, \,
\frac{\mbox{dn}(\theta / \sqrt{1 - 2 k^2(\alpha)}; k(\alpha) )}
{\mbox{sn}(\theta / \sqrt{1 - 2 k^2(\alpha)}; k(\alpha) )} \, \, ,
\quad 0 \leq \alpha \leq \pi \, \, ,$$ in terms of the modulus $k$ of the complete elliptic integral $K(k)$ of the first kind (see Appendix \[appA\]) where $k = k(\alpha)$ is implicitly given by $$\label{k0pi}
\alpha = 2K(k) \sqrt{1 - 2 k^2} \, \, ,
\quad 1/2 \geq k^2 \geq 0 \, \, ,$$
(see Eqs.(A12) and (A13) in Ref.[@Kre97]) and
\[2pi\] $$\label{mpi2pi}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, = \,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + k^2(\alpha)}} \, \,
\frac{1}
{\mbox{sn}(\theta / \sqrt{1 + k^2(\alpha)}; k(\alpha))} \, \, ,
\quad \pi \leq \alpha \leq 2 \pi \, \, ,$$ where now $k = k(\alpha)$ is implicitly given by $$\label{kpi2pi}
\alpha = 2K(k) \sqrt{1 + k^2} \, \, ,
\quad 0 \leq k \leq k_{max} \simeq 0.90953 \, \, ,$$
(see Eqs.(A14) and (A15) in Ref.[@Kre97]). In the following we consider only the case $0 \leq \alpha \leq \pi$; according to Eq.(\[2pi\]) the extension to the case $\pi \leq \alpha \leq 2 \pi$ is straightforward. Note that the parameterizations of the opening angle $\alpha$ as given by Eqs.(\[k0pi\]) and (\[kpi2pi\]) are monotonous functions of the modulus $k$ and therefore the inverse function $k(\alpha)$ is uniquely defined but cannot be expressed in closed form in general. The special case $\alpha = \pi$ corresponds to $k(\alpha = \pi) = 0$ so that ${\cal C}(\theta;\alpha = \pi) = 1/\sin \theta$, which reproduces the mean-field result for the order parameter profile in the semi-infinite geometry at the normal transition expressed in polar coordinates \[see Eqs.(\[Cpmcpm\]) and (\[ratio\]), here $\beta/\nu = 1$\]. The shape of $\cal C(\theta;\alpha)$ for $d = 2$ \[see Eq.(\[function\]) in Sec.\[secIIID\]\] and $d = 4$ \[see Eq.(\[pi\])\] for fixed opening angles $\alpha = \pi/2$ and $\alpha = \pi/4$ is shown in Fig.\[fig\_C\] where the divergences at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \alpha$ according to Eq.(\[theta\]) have been split off. As an estimate for $d = 3$ we show in Fig.\[fig\_C\] the linear interpolation between the corresponding curves for $d = 2$ and $d = 4$.
Contour lines of the order parameter profile {#secIIIB}
--------------------------------------------
One of our motivations for the investigation of criticality in the wedge geometry is the frequent use of grooved substrates as templates to impose inhomogeneous structures on liquids. In the wedge geometry the density (or concentration) of the adsorbed critical fluid is inhomogeneous within planes perpendicular to the edge. The intersection of these planes with surfaces of constant order parameter $M(r,\theta,t=0;\alpha) = M_0$ renders the contour lines $r = r(\theta;\alpha,M_0)$ of the order parameter profile, which characterize the inhomogeneous shape of the order parameter configuration in the wedge. Far away from the center of the wedge the order parameter profile approaches the profile for a planar substrate so that the contour lines asymptotically become straight lines parallel to the surfaces forming the wedge (compare Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]). As expected, the deviation of the contour lines from these parallel straight lines is largest in the center of the wedge. The normalized order parameter profile defined by the lhs of Eq.(\[mpmmhalf\]) yields the contour lines $$\label{contour}
\frac{r(\theta,\alpha)}{z_0} \, = \,
\left[ {\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \right]^{\nu / \beta} \, \, ,$$ where for a given contour line the reference distance $z_0$ is fixed by the asymptotic distance of this contour line from the wedge surface, i.e., by $M_0 = M_{\infty/2}(z_0,t=0)$ (see Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]). Thus the angular dependence of [*every*]{} contour line exhibits the [*same*]{} universal shape in units of the corresponding asymptotic distance $z_0$. Equations (\[theta\]) and (\[contour\]) imply that $r(\theta \to 0,\alpha) \sim \theta^{-1}$ independent of $d$ and $\alpha$.
Within mean-field theory (for which $\beta/\nu = 1$) we obtain from Eq.(\[pi\]) in the center of the wedge, i.e., for $\theta = \alpha/2$: $$\label{mcenter}
\frac{r(\theta = \alpha/2, \alpha)}{z_0} \, = \,
{\cal C}(\theta = \alpha/2;\alpha) \, = \,
{\sqrt{1 - k^2(\alpha)} \over \sqrt{1 - 2 k^2(\alpha)}} \, \, ,
\quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ According to Fig.\[fig\_wedge\] the distance $R$ of the intersection of the asymptotes from the edge is given by $R = z_0/\sin(\alpha/2)$ which implies for the deviation $\Delta r = r - R$ of the contour line at the center of the wedge $$\label{Dr}
\Delta r = \left[{\sqrt{1 - k^2(\alpha)} \over \sqrt{1 - 2 k^2(\alpha)}}
- {1 \over \sin(\alpha/2)} \right] z_0 \, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ In order to discuss Eq.(\[Dr\]) we first consider a very wide wedge, i.e., the limit $\alpha \to \pi$ for which $k^2 \to 0$. In this limit the deviation $\Delta r$ decays according to \[see Eqs.(\[k0pi\]) and (\[Kkseries\])\] $$\label{Drpi}
{\Delta r \over z_0} \, = \, {2 \over 3}
\Big( 1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big) +
\Big( {5 \over 6} - {\pi^2 \over 8} \Big)
\Big(1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big)^2 \, \, + \,
{\cal O}\Big( \Big(1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big)^3 \, \Big)
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ In the opposite limit of a very narrow wedge, i.e., for $\alpha \to 0$, the deviation $\Delta r$ of the contour line in the center [*diverges*]{} according to $$\label{Dr0}
\frac{\Delta r}{z_0} \, = \,
\frac{\Omega}{\alpha} \, \, + \, {\cal O}(\alpha)
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, ,$$ where $\Omega = \sqrt{2} K(1/\sqrt{2}) - 2 \simeq 0.622$. This shows that the contour lines are expelled from the wedge into the bulk for small opening angles. The overall behavior of $\Delta r$ for $0 \leq \alpha \leq \pi$ for $d = 2$ \[see Eq.(\[Dr2d\]) in Sec.\[secIIID\]\] and $d = 4$ \[see Eq.(\[Dr\])\] is shown in Fig.\[fig\_dr\]. Again, the curve for $d = 3$ represents the estimate obtained by the linear interpolation between the curves for $d = 2$ and $d = 4$ (compare Fig.\[fig\_C\]).
Distant wall corrections {#secIIIC}
------------------------
Far away from the center of the wedge the contour lines of the order parameter profile approach straight lines which are parallel to the wedge surfaces (compare Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]). This implies that in this limit the deviation of the order parameter profile from the corresponding profile in a semi-infinite geometry becomes small. This small deviation can be interpreted in terms of the so-called distant-wall correction which is obtained from the [*short-distance expansion*]{} [@FY80; @RJ82; @Car86; @Car90; @ES94] of the order parameter near, say, the surface $\theta = 0$ of the wedge. For any scaling operator $\Psi$ the short-distance expansion at the normal transition can be written as $$\label{SDE}
\Psi(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|) = \langle \Psi(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|)
\rangle_{\infty/2\,} \left[1 + b_{\Psi} T_{\theta \theta}(r,0,{\bf x}_\|)
(r \theta)^d \, + \, {\cal O}(\theta^{d+2}) \, \right] \, \, ,$$ where $T_{\theta \theta} = T_{\perp \perp}$ denotes the stress tensor component [*perpendicular*]{} to the wall at $\theta = 0$ and $r \theta \ll
r \alpha$ is the small distance from the wall. For the order parameter profile $M = \langle \phi \rangle$ we infer from Eq.(\[SDE\]) $$\label{SDEm}
M(r,\theta;\alpha) = M(r,\theta;\pi)\ [1 + B_{\phi}\ \theta^d +
\dots \, ] \, \, ,$$ in analogy to the short-distance expansion of the order parameter profile in the film geometry [@FdG78], where $B_{\phi} = b_{\phi} \langle T_{\theta \theta} \rangle r^d$. From the general expression of the stress tensor at criticality (see Eq.(3.1) in Ref.[@ES94]) we obtain in polar coordinates $$\label{Tthth}
T_{\theta \theta} =
{1 \over 2r^2} \left({\partial \phi \over \partial \theta} \right)^2
- {1 \over 2} \left({\partial \phi \over \partial r}\right)^2
- {1 \over 2} \left( \nabla_\| \phi \right)^2 - {g \over 24} \phi^4
+ {d - 2 \over 4 (d - 1)}\ \left[{\partial^2 \over \partial r^2} \phi^2
+ \Delta_\| \phi^2 \right]$$ up to contributions of the order $g^3$, where $\nabla_\|$ and $\Delta_\|$ denote the components of the gradient and the Laplacian along the edge, respectively.
Within mean-field theory the thermal average of Eq.(\[Tthth\]) is obtained by setting $d = 4$ and replacing $\phi$ by $\langle \phi \rangle = \sqrt{12/g}\ m$ \[see Eqs.(\[mean\]) and (\[C1\])\]. Since the result is independent of $\theta$ we can use the fact that the order parameter profile is symmetric around the midplane $\theta = \alpha/2$ in order to obtain $$\label{Tththav}
\langle T_{\theta \theta} \rangle = {6 \over g r^4}
\Big[ [{\cal C}(\alpha/2;\alpha)]^2 -
[{\cal C}(\alpha/2;\alpha)]^4 \Big] \, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ From Eq.(\[pi\]) we thus find $$\label{Tththk}
\langle T_{\theta \theta} \rangle \, = \, - \, {6 \over g r^4} \,
{k^2(\alpha) [1 - k^2(\alpha)] \over [1 - 2k^2(\alpha)]^2}
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, ,$$ which exactly corresponds to $\langle T_{zz} \rangle$ in the film geometry with $(+,+)$ boundary conditions (see the first line of Eq.(3.4) in Ref.[@Kre97] for $y = -1$). If Eq.(\[Tththk\]) is inserted into Eq.(\[SDE\]) for $\Psi = \phi$ the structure of the distant-wall correction as given by Eq.(\[SDEm\]) is confirmed. However, for a complete identification the amplitude $b_{\phi}$ must be determined. Within the present mean-field approach Eq.(\[SDEm\]) can directly be verified by expanding Eq.(\[pi\]) for $\theta \to 0$ with $\alpha$ fixed. From the expansions of the Jacobian elliptic functions \[see Eq.(\[sndnseries\])\] we obtain $$\label{SDEmMF}
m(r,\theta;\alpha) = m(r,\theta;\pi)\
\left[1 + {k^2(\alpha) [1 - k^2(\alpha)] \over
[1 - 2k^2(\alpha)]^2} \left({\theta^4 \over 10}
- {\theta^6 \over 105} \right) \, + \, {\cal O}(\theta^8) \right]
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, ,$$ from which one can read off $b_{\phi} = -g/60$ within mean-field theory. The next-to-leading correction ${\cal O}(\theta^6)$ in Eq.(\[SDEmMF\]) is generated by the operator $\Delta_r T_{\theta \theta}$ where $\Delta_r$ denotes the radial part of the Laplacian in polar coordinates $(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|)$. In general the corresponding correction is ${\cal O}(\theta^{d+2})$ as indicated in Eq.(\[SDE\]). In principle $\Delta_\| T_{\theta \theta}$ also yields a contribution to the short-distance expansion, but one has $\Delta_\| \langle T_{\theta \theta} \rangle = 0$ due to the translational invariance along the ($d - 2$)-dimensional edge. We note that in the [*film geometry*]{} the counterpart of the operator $\Delta_r T_{\theta \theta}$ in the wedge does [*not*]{} contribute to the next-to-leading distant-wall correction of the order parameter profile due to the translational invariance in the film. Therefore in the film the next-to-leading correction is given by the operator $(T_{\perp \perp})^2$, which gives rise to ${\cal O}(\theta^{2 d})$ corrections only. The latter operator appears also in the wedge geometry and gives rise to the ${\cal O}(\theta^8)$ corrections indicated in Eq.(\[SDEmMF\]).
The distant-wall correction has an interesting geometric interpretation. The contour lines of the order parameter profile in the wedge and in the semi-infinite geometry, respectively, belonging to the same value $M_0$ of the order parameter are displaced by an amount $\delta(y;\alpha)$ where $\delta + z_0 = z = r \sin \theta$ and the distance $y$ is related to $\theta$ by (compare Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]) $$\label{y}
y \, = \, y(\theta,\alpha) \, = \,
r(\theta,\alpha) \cos \theta \, - \,
[R(\alpha) + \Delta r(\alpha)] \cos(\alpha/2) \, \, .$$ Within mean-field theory one obtains for the above choice of $M_0$ \[see Eq.(\[contour\]), here $\beta/\nu=1$\] and using $r / z_0 = {\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)$ $$\label{delta}
\frac{\delta (y(\theta,\alpha);\alpha)}{z_0} \, = \,
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \sin(\theta) \, - \, 1 \, = \,
{m(r,\theta;\alpha) \over m(r,\theta;\pi)} \, - \, 1
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ According to Eqs.(\[SDEm\]) and (\[delta\]) the ratio $\delta(y(\theta,\alpha);\alpha)/z_0$ as function of $\theta$ represents the distant-wall correction of the order parameter profile. Its leading terms can be read off from Eq.(\[SDEmMF\]). For general $d$ one has \[see Eq.(\[contour\])\] $$\label{eins}
\frac{\delta(y(\theta,\alpha);\alpha)}{z_0} \, = \,
[{\cal C}(\theta,\alpha)]^{\nu/\beta} \, \sin(\theta) \, - \, 1$$ so that $\delta / z_0 \to (1/6) [(\pi/\alpha)^2 - 1] \, \theta^2$ for $d = 2$ and $\theta \to 0$ \[see Eq.(\[function\]) in Sec.\[secIIID\]\]. The behavior of $\delta(y,\alpha)$ as function of $y$ for fixed opening angles $\alpha = \pi / 2$ and $\alpha = \pi / 4$ is shown in Fig.\[fig\_delta\] for $d = 2$ \[see Eq.(\[function\])\] and $d = 4$ \[see Eq.(\[delta\])\]. In order to obtain an estimate for $d = 3$ we introduce $$\label{interpol}
f(\theta;\alpha) \, = \,
\frac{\delta(y(\theta,\alpha);\alpha)}{z_0} \
\left( \frac{2 \theta}{\alpha} \right)^{-d} \, \, .$$ One has $\delta / z_0 \sim \theta^d$ for $\theta \to 0$ or $\sim y^{-d}$ for $y \to \infty$ due to $y(\theta \to 0, \alpha) = r(\theta \to 0, \alpha) \sim \theta^{-1}$ \[see Eq.(\[y\])\]. Therefore $f(\theta;\alpha)$ tends for $\theta \to 0$ to a constant value (depending on $d$). For $y = 0$ one has $2 \theta / \alpha = 1$ and $f = \Delta r \sin(\alpha/2) / z_0$ (compare Figs.\[fig\_wedge\] and \[fig\_dr\]). A reasonable estimate for $\delta(y;\alpha)$ in $d = 3$ can be obtained by interpolating $f(\theta;\alpha)$ linearly between $d = 2$ and $d = 4$ and using this approximation for $f$ in $$\label{d3}
\frac{\delta(y(\theta,\alpha);\alpha)}{z_0} \, = \, f(\theta;\alpha)
\left( \frac{2 \theta}{\alpha} \right)^{3} \, \, ,
\quad d = 3 \, \, .$$ The curves for $d = 3$ in Fig.\[fig\_delta\] correspond to the rhs of Eq.(\[d3\]) for fixed values $\alpha = \pi / 2$ and $\alpha = \pi / 4$. For $y = 0$ one has $2 \theta / \alpha = 1$ so that for $y = 0$ the linear interpolation of $f$ implies a linear interpolation of $\delta$ \[see Eq.(\[interpol\])\].
Exact results in $d = 2$ {#secIIID}
------------------------
At criticality systems exhibit not only scale invariance but, more generally, [*conformal*]{} invariance [@Car86]. This property is particularly useful in $d = 2$, where the [*large conformal group*]{} provides mappings between many different geometries [@Car86]. In higher spatial dimensions only Möbius transformations are available as conformal mappings (small conformal group) which map geometries bounded by planes and spheres onto other geometries bounded by planes and spheres. In $d = 2$ a wedge with opening angle $\alpha$ can be conformally mapped onto a half-plane, for which the profile is known. This leads to [@BE85] $$\label{phiwedge}
M(r,\theta, t = 0; \alpha) \equiv
\langle \phi \rangle_{wedge} = A\ (\pi/\alpha)^{\beta/\nu} \
[r \sin(\theta \pi / \alpha)]^{-\beta/\nu}$$ in the wedge, where $\beta / \nu = 1/8$ within the Ising universality class considered here. Note that conformal invariance [*completely*]{} determines the universal amplitude function ${\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)$ \[see Eq.(\[mpmmhalf\])\] as $$\label{function}
{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) \, = \, (\pi/\alpha)^{\beta/\nu} \
[\sin(\theta \pi / \alpha)]^{-\beta/\nu} \, \, , \quad d = 2 \, \, ,$$ which would remain unspecified by scale invariance considerations alone.
Using Eqs.(\[function\]) and (\[contour\]) we obtain the relation $$\label{d2}
\frac{r(\theta;\alpha)}{z_0} \, = \,
\frac{\pi/\alpha}{\sin(\theta\pi/\alpha)} \, \, , \quad d = 2 \, \, ,$$ for the contour lines of the order parameter profile. The deviation $\Delta r$ from the asymptotic contour lines at the center of the wedge, i.e., $\theta = \alpha/2$, is defined as shown in Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]. We obtain $$\label{Dr2d}
\frac{\Delta r}{z_0} \, = \, {\pi \over \alpha} \, - \,
{1 \over \sin(\alpha/2)} \, \, , \quad d = 2 \, \, .$$ In the limit $\alpha \to \pi$ Eq.(\[Dr2d\]) yields the expansion $$\label{Dr2dpi}
{\Delta r \over z_0} \, = \, \Big(1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big) +
\Big(1 - {\pi^2 \over 8} \Big) \Big(1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big)^2
\, + \, \, {\cal O} \Big( \Big(1 - {\alpha \over \pi} \Big)^3 \, \Big) \, \, ,
\quad d = 2 \, \, ,$$ which is the analogue of Eq.(\[Drpi\]) for $d = 2$. For $\alpha \to 0$ we obtain from Eq.(\[Dr2d\]) $$\label{Dr2d0}
\frac{\Delta r}{z_0} \, = \, \frac{\pi - 2}{\alpha}
\, \, + \, {\cal O}(\alpha) \, \, , \quad d = 2 \, \, ,$$ which is the analogue of Eq.(\[Dr0\]). Note that Eqs.(\[Drpi\]) and (\[Dr2dpi\]) and Eqs.(\[Dr0\]) and (\[Dr2d0\]), respectively, are very similar even in a quantitative sense, i.e., the dependence on the spatial dimension $d$ is weak.
We close this subsection with a discussion of the short-distance expansion of the order parameter according to Eq.(\[SDE\]) for the case $d = 2$. The thermal average of the stress tensor $\langle T \rangle$ in the wedge can be obtained by means of a conformal mapping from the half-plane [@KP96] and reads in polar coordinates
\[Tpolneu\] $$\label{Tpola}
\langle T_{rr} \rangle = -\langle T_{\theta \theta} \rangle =
{c \over 24 \pi} \left[ \left({\pi \over \alpha}\right)^2 - 1 \right]
{1 \over r^2} \, \, ,$$ $$\label{Tpolb}
\langle T_{r \theta} \rangle =
\langle T_{\theta r} \rangle = 0 \, \, ,$$
where $c$ is the conformal anomaly number. The distant-wall correction for the order parameter profile according to Eq.(\[SDEm\]) can be directly calculated from the expansion of Eq.(\[phiwedge\]) for small $\theta$ with the result $$\label{SDEm2d}
M(r,\theta, t = 0;\alpha) =
M(r,\theta, t = 0;\pi)\ \Big\{ 1 + {\beta \over 6\nu} \Big[
\Big( {\pi \over \alpha} \Big)^2 - 1 \Big] \theta^2 +
{\cal O}(\theta^4) \Big\} \, \, .$$ From Eqs.(\[SDE\]), (\[Tpolneu\]), and (\[SDEm2d\]) we obtain $b_{\phi} = -(4\pi / c) \, \beta/\nu$ in $d = 2$. For the Ising universality class considered here ($c = 1/2$ and $\beta/\nu = 1/8$) we have $b_{\phi} = -\pi$. Finally, we note that the next-to-leading distant-wall correction ${\cal O}(\theta^4)$ indicated in Eq.(\[SDEm2d\]) stems from $\Delta_r T_{\theta \theta}$ and $(T_{\theta \theta})^2$ because both operators have the same scaling dimension four.
Static structure factor {#secIV}
=======================
The static structure factor $S(|{\bf q}|)$ in a bulk system is given by the Fourier transform of the two-point correlation function $G(|{\bf r} - {\bf r}'|)$, where ${\bf q}$ denotes the momentum transfer and ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf r}'$ are positions in space. Due to translational invariance and isotropy of the bulk the moduli of the momentum transfer and the distance in space remain as the only arguments in Fourier space and real space, respectively. In the wedge geometry translational invariance and isotropy only hold in the ($d - 2$)-dimensional subspace along the edge so that the position dependence of $G$ is more complicated. Apart from modifications of the eigenmode spectrum caused by different boundary conditions we follow the derivation of $G$ for a wedge as given in Ref.[@Car83].
Mean-field theory {#secIVA}
-----------------
Starting from the formal definition $G({\bf r};{\bf r}') \equiv
[\delta m({\bf r}) / \delta h({\bf r}')]_{h=0\,}$, where $m({\bf r})$ denotes the order parameter profile and $h({\bf r})$ is an external spatially varying field, we obtain $$\label{Geq}
- \Delta G({\bf r};{\bf r}') + 6 m^2({\bf r}) G({\bf r};{\bf r}')
= \delta ({\bf r} - {\bf r}')$$ at the critical point and within mean-field theory. For ${\bf r} = (r, \theta, {\bf x}_\|)$ we apply a Fourier transform with respect to ${\bf x}_\|$ and define $S({\bf p};r,\theta;r',\theta')$ by [@Car83] $$\label{Sdef}
G(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|;r',\theta',{\bf x}_\|') = \int {d^{d-2} p \over
(2\pi)^{d-2}} \, S({\bf p};r,\theta;r',\theta')
\exp[i{\bf p} ({\bf x}_\| - {\bf x}_\|')] \, \, .$$ From Eqs.(\[Geq\]) and (\[Sdef\]) and by using $m({\bf r}) = {\cal C}(\theta;\alpha) r^{-1}$ \[see Eq.(\[C1\])\] one obtains $$\label{Seq}
-\left[{\partial^2 \over \partial r^2} + {1 \over r} {\partial \over
\partial r} + {1 \over r^2} {\partial^2 \over \partial \theta^2} - p^2
\right] S + {6 \over r^2} \ [{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)]^2 \ S
= {1 \over r} \delta(r - r') \delta(\theta - \theta') \, \, .$$ We solve Eq.(\[Seq\]) in terms of eigenfunctions to a spectrum $E$ of eigenvalues for the operator on the left hand side of Eq.(\[Seq\]). Each eigenfunction can be written as a product of a radial part $R(r)$ and an angular part $\psi(\theta)$. For the shifted spectrum $\kappa^2 = E -
{\bf p}^2$ the corresponding eigenvalue equations are given by $$\label{Rr}
R_n^{\,''}(r) + r^{-1} R_n^{\,'}(r) +
(\kappa^2 - \lambda_{n\,} r^{-2}) R_n(r) = 0$$ and $$\label{psit}
-\psi^{''}_n(\theta) + 6\ [{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)]^2 \ \psi_n(\theta)
= \lambda_{n\,} \psi_n(\theta) \, \, ,$$ where Eq.(\[Rr\]) is a Bessel equation with parameter $\kappa$ and Eq.(\[psit\]) is a Lam[é]{} equation. In general the discrete eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ cannot be given in closed form (see Appendix \[appB\] for details). Apart from the specific spectrum $\{ \lambda_n \}$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions $\{ \psi_n \}$ one can represent the solution of Eq.(\[Seq\]) in the same form as in Ref.[@Car83], i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sspectral}
S({\bf p};r,\theta;r',\theta') &=& {2 \over \alpha} \sum_{n=3}^\infty
\int_0^\infty d\kappa \ \kappa \ {J_{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}(\kappa r)
J_{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}(\kappa r') \over \kappa^2 + {\bf p}^2}\
\psi_n(\theta) \psi_n(\theta') \nonumber\\[2mm]
&=& {2 \over \alpha} \sum_{n=3}^\infty I_{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}(p r_<)
K_{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}(p r_>)\ \psi_n(\theta) \psi_n(\theta')\end{aligned}$$ where $p = |{\bf p}|$, $r_< = \min (r,r')$, and $r_> = \max (r,r')$. In order to determine the decay of the two-point correlation function in real space we insert Eq.(\[Sspectral\]) into Eq.(\[Sdef\]) and proceed along the lines described in Ref.[@Car83]. The decay of $G$ away from the edge is governed by the critical exponent $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$ according to $$\label{perp}
G(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|; r'\to \infty, \theta', {\bf x}'_\|)
\, \sim \, \frac{1}{(r')^{d-2+\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)}}$$ and as in Ref.[@Car83] we find from Eq.(\[Sdef\]) that in the limit $r'/r \to \infty$ the smallest eigenvalue in the spectrum $\{ \lambda_n \}$ determines the exponent $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$. With the notation used in Appendix B the smallest eigenvalue is $\lambda_3$ and in accordance with Ref.[@Car83] we find $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha) = \sqrt{\lambda_3}$. Along the edge, i.e., in the limit $|{\bf x}_\| - {\bf x}'_\|| \to \infty$ for $r,r' > 0$ the decay of $G$ is governed by the critical exponent $\eta_{e \|}(\alpha)$ according to $$\label{para}
G(r,\theta,{\bf x}_\|; r', \theta', {\bf x}'_\| \to \infty) \, \sim \,
\frac{1}{|{\bf x}_\| - {\bf x}'_\||^{d-2+\eta_{e \parallel}(\alpha)}}
\, \, .$$ In agreement with the general scaling relation $$\label{eta}
\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha) \, = \, \frac{\eta + \eta_{e \|}(\alpha)}{2}
\, \, , \quad 2 \leq d \leq 4 \, \, ,$$ we find $\eta_{e \|}(\alpha) = 2\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$ within mean-field theory (for which $\eta = 0$). From the approximate evaluation of the spectrum $\{ \lambda_n \}$ \[see Eq.(\[epsn\]) in Appendix B\] we obtain $$\label{etaperp}
\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha) \, = \, \sqrt{\lambda_3} \, \approx \,
{3\pi \over \alpha}\sqrt{1 - {4 \alpha \over 3\pi^{2}} \,
\zeta(\alpha/2) + {2\alpha^2 \over 9 \pi^4}
\left(\pi^2 + {g_2(\alpha) \over 24} \alpha^2 -
2\zeta^2(\alpha/2) \right)}$$ where $\zeta(u)$ is the Weierstrass $\zeta$-function \[see Eq.(\[Wzeta\])\] and $$\label{g2}
g_2(\alpha) \, = \,
\frac{4 k^2(\alpha) [1-k^2(\alpha)]}{[1-2k^2(\alpha)]^2}
\, + \, \frac{4}{3}$$ \[see Eq.(\[WPwedge\])\]. In the limit $\alpha \to \pi$ corresponding to a planar surface Eq.(\[etaperp\]) becomes exact and one obtains $\eta_\perp \equiv \eta_{e \perp}(\pi) = 3$ in accordance with the mean-field result for the semi-infinite geometry at the normal transition [@Bin83]. The dependence of $\eta_{e \perp}$ on $\alpha$ is displayed in Fig.\[fig\_eta\] for $d = 2$ \[see Eq.(\[eta2d\]) in Sec.\[secIVB\]\] and $d = 4$ \[see Eq.(\[etaperp\])\], where the overall $1/\alpha$ dependence has been split off. The estimate for $d = 3$ is obtained by interpolating linearly between the curves for $d = 2$ and $d = 4$ (compare Figs.\[fig\_C\] and \[fig\_dr\]). The exponent $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$ increases monotonically as $\alpha$ decreases. This implies that at the normal transition the correlation function decays more rapidly away from an edge ($\alpha < \pi$) than away from a planar surface ($\alpha = \pi$).
Finally, we note that from the general scaling relation for the edge exponent $$\label{sr}
\beta_e(\alpha) \, = \, \frac{\nu [d - 2 + \eta_{e \|}(\alpha)]}{2}
\, \, , \quad 2 \leq d \leq 4 \, \, ,$$ which describes the singular temperature dependence of the order parameter at the edge, one has within mean-field theory \[see Eq.(\[eta\]), here $\eta = 0$ and $\nu = 1/2$\] $$\label{beta1}
\beta_e(\alpha) \, = \, \frac{1 + \eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)}{2}
\, \, , \quad d = 4 \, \, .$$ In the limit $\alpha \to \pi$ corresponding to a planar surface Eq.(\[beta1\]) yields $\beta_e(\pi) = \beta_1 = 2$, in accordance with the general scaling relation $\beta_1 = d \nu$ for $2 \leq d \leq 4$ at the normal transition for the semi-infinite geometry [@Die94].
Exact results in $d = 2$ {#secIVB}
------------------------
In $d = 2$ rigorous results for the edge exponent $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$ can be obtained starting from the correlation function in the half-plane at the normal transition [@Car84] $$\label{G2d}
G(x,y;x',y') = (y y')^{-\eta/2} \ {\cal G}
\left( {(x - x')^2 + y^2 + y'^2 \over y y'} \right)\; ,$$ where $x,x'$ are the coordinates of the two points along the surface and $y,y'$ are their distances from the surface [@Car84]. Applying the conformal mapping and carrying out the limit $r'/r \to \infty$ at fixed $r > 0$ leads to $$\label{G2dwedge}
G(r,\theta;r',\theta') \sim \Big( {\pi \over \alpha} \Big)^{\eta}
\Big[ \sin\left({\pi \over \alpha} \theta\right)
\sin\left({\pi \over \alpha} \theta'\right)
\Big]^{(\eta_\| - \eta) / 2} \ (r r')^{-\eta/2} \
\Big( {r' \over r} \Big)^{-\pi \eta_\| / (2\alpha)}$$ for the correlation function in the wedge. From Eq.(\[G2dwedge\]) one can read off the scaling relation [@Car84] $$\label{eta2d}
\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha) \, = \,
{\eta \over 2} \, + \, {\pi \over \alpha}\, {\eta_\| \over 2} \, \, .$$ In the limit $\alpha \to \pi$ corresponding to a planar surface one has $\eta_{e \perp}(\pi) = (\eta + \eta_\|)/2 = \eta_{\perp}$ as expected \[see Eq.(\[eta\])\]. In $d = 2$ the edge consists of a single point so that one cannot define correlations along the edge. However, if we formally define $\eta_{e \|}(\alpha)$ by Eq.(\[eta\]) we find $\eta_{e \|}(\alpha) = (\pi/\alpha) \eta_\|$. From $\beta_1 = 2$ [@Die94] we obtain $\eta_\| = 4$ at the normal transition within the Ising universality class, which implies \[see Eq.(\[sr\]), here $\nu = 1$\] $$\label{beta12d}
\beta_e(\alpha) \, = \,
\frac{\eta_{e \|}(\alpha)}{2} \, = \frac{2 \pi}{\alpha}
\, \, , \quad d = 2 \, \, ,$$ for the edge exponent of the magnetization. We note that $\beta_e$ given by Eq.(\[beta12d\]) is four times larger than its corresponding value at the ordinary transition [@Car83; @GT84; @BPP84].
Summary
=======
We have investigated the universal local properties of the order parameter profile in a wedge with opening angle $\alpha$ (see Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]) for the normal transition. We have obtained the following main results:
- Near $T_c$ the order parameter is determined by universal scaling functions and the two nonuniversal bulk amplitudes $a$ and $\xi_0^{+}$ \[see Eq.(\[mpm\])\]. At $T_c$ the order parameter profile reduces to a power law $r^{-\beta/\nu}$ in radial direction multiplied by a universal amplitude function depending on the polar angle $\theta$ and the opening angle $\alpha$ \[see Eqs.(\[mpmTc\]) and (\[mpmmhalf\])\]. The amplitude function is symmetric around the midplane and diverges as $\theta^{-\beta/\nu}$ upon approaching the surfaces forming the wedge \[see Eq.(\[theta\])\].
- We have determined the universal amplitude function ${\cal C}(\theta, \alpha)$ within mean-field theory, i.e., for space dimension $d=4$ \[see Eqs.(\[pi\]) and (\[2pi\])\], where the order parameter profile in the wedge and for $T = T_c$ can be obtained from the order parameter profile in the film geometry for $T < T_c$ \[see Eq.(\[C2\])\]. In conjunction with exact results in $d=2$ \[see Eq.(\[function\])\] we construct an estimate for ${\cal C}(\theta, \alpha)$ for $d=3$ (see Fig.\[fig\_C\]).
- The amplitude function determines the meniscus-like contour lines of a constant value of the critical order parameter profile \[see Eq.(\[contour\]) and Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]\]. The deviation $\Delta r$ of the contour line relative to its asymptotes (compare Fig.\[fig\_wedge\]) from the corner of the wedge vanishes linearly in the planar limit $\alpha\to\pi$ \[see Eqs.(\[Drpi\]) and (\[Dr2dpi\])\] and diverges $\sim\alpha^{-1}$ for $\alpha\to 0$ \[see Eqs.(\[Dr0\]) and (\[Dr2d0\])\]. Figure \[fig\_dr\] presents an estimate of the function $\Delta r(\alpha)$ for $d=3$.
- The contour lines approach their asymptotes as $y^{-d}$ for increasing lateral distance $y$ \[see Fig.\[fig\_wedge\] and Eq.(\[eins\])\]. This follows from an analysis of distant-wall corrections in terms of the stress tensor (see Sec.\[secIIIC\]). The explicit results for $d=2$ and $d=4$ allow one to construct an estimate for the corresponding behavior in $d=3$ (see Fig.\[fig\_delta\]).
- The decay of the two-point correlation function at $T_c$ away from the edge and parallel to the wedge is governed by the critical edge exponents $\eta_{e\perp}(\alpha)$ and $\eta_{e\|}(\alpha)$, respectively \[see Eqs.(\[perp\]) and (\[para\])\]. They fulfill the scaling relation $\eta_{e\perp}(\alpha)=[\eta+\eta_{e\|}(\alpha)]/2$ with the bulk exponent $\eta$. Based on the quite accurate estimate in $d=4$ \[see Eq.(\[etaperp\]) and Appendix B\] and the exact result in $d=2$ \[see Eq.(\[eta2d\])\] Fig.\[fig\_eta\] presents an estimate for $\eta_{e\perp}(\alpha)$ in $d=3$. Equations (\[beta1\]) and (\[beta12d\]) provide the critical edge exponent $\beta_e(\alpha)$ of the order parameter for the normal transition. Equation (\[Sspectral\]) gives the full structure factor for the wedge geometry and for $T = T_c$ within mean-field approximation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank G. Sommer for a helpful collaboration at an early stage of this work. M.K. gratefully acknowledges support by the German Science Foundation through a Heisenberg Stipendium. The work of A.H. and S.D. has been supported by the German Science Foundation through Sonderforschungsbereich 237 [*Unordnung und gro[ß]{}e Fluktuationen*]{}.
Elliptic functions {#appA}
==================
Here we summarize a few properties of elliptic functions as far as they are needed for the derivation of the results obtained in this paper. For further information we refer to the literature (see, e.g., Refs.[@Law89; @GR65; @Kam71]). The properties of the Jacobian elliptic functions can be derived starting from the Jacobi amplitude $\mbox{am}(u;k)$ which is implicitly defined by the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind: $$\label{EllipInt1}
u \, = \, \int_0^{\textstyle{\mbox{am}(u;k)}}
{d \varphi \over \sqrt{1 - k^2 \sin^2 \varphi}} \, \, .$$ The complete elliptic integral of the first kind $K = K(k)$ is defined by $\mbox{am}(K;k) = \pi/2$. For the derivation of Eq.(\[Drpi\]) we quote the expansion of $K(k)$ in powers of the modulus $k$: $$\label{Kkseries}
K(k) = {\pi \over 2} \left[ 1 + {1 \over 4} k^2 + {9 \over 64} k^4
+ {\cal O}(k^6) \right] \, \, .$$ From the first derivative of Eq.(\[EllipInt1\]) with respect to $u$ one obtains for $k^2 \leq 1$ the relation $$\label{dn}
\mbox{dn}(u;k) \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial u}
\mbox{am}(u;k) = \sqrt{1 - k^2 \mbox{sn}^2(u;k)}$$ for the delta amplitude $\mbox{dn}(u;k)$ using the standard notations $$\label{sncn}
\mbox{sn}(u;k) \equiv \sin[\mbox{am}(u;k)] \, \, ,
\quad \mbox{cn}(u;k) \equiv \cos[\mbox{am}(u;k)] \, \, .$$ Due to $\mbox{am}(0;k) = 0$ and $\mbox{am}(K;k) = \pi/2$ one has
\[special\] $$\label{speciala}
\mbox{sn}(0;k) = 0 \, \, , \quad
\mbox{cn}(0;k) = 1 \, \, , \quad
\mbox{dn}(0;k) = 1 \, \, ,$$ $$\label{specialb}
\mbox{sn}(K;k) = 1 \, \, , \quad
\mbox{cn}(K;k) = 0 \, \, , \quad
\mbox{dn}(K;k) = \sqrt{1 - k^2} \, \, .$$
The derivation of Eq.(\[SDEmMF\]) is based on the Taylor expansions
\[sndnseries\] $$\label{sndnseriesa}
\mbox{sn}(u;k) = u - {1 + k^2 \over 3!} u^3 + {1 + 14k^2 + k^4 \over 5!} u^5
- {1 + 135 k^2 + 135 k^4 + k^6 \over 7!} u^7 + {\cal O}(u^9) \, \, ,$$ $$\label{sndnseriesb}
\mbox{dn}(u;k) = 1 - {k^2 \over 2} u^2 + {k^2 (4 + k^2) \over 4!} u^4
- {k^2 (16 + 44 k^2 + k^4) \over 6!} u^6 + {\cal O}(u^8) \, \, .$$
Finally, we quote the relation $$\label{EllipInt2}
E(\mbox{am}(u;k),k) = \int_0^u \mbox{dn}^2(x;k) dx =
\int_0^{\textstyle{\mbox{am}(u;k)}} \sqrt{1 - k^2 \sin^2 \varphi}\ d \varphi$$ between the incomplete elliptic integral of the second kind $E(x,k)$ and the delta amplitude $\mbox{dn}(u;k)$. $E(k) \equiv E(\pi/2,k)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind.
As demonstrated in Appendix A of Ref.[@Kre97] the mean-field order parameter profile can be obtained from the observation that $[{\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)]^2$ is a Weierstrass $\wp$-function up to an additive constant. The Weierstrass $\wp$-function is an elliptic function which is related to squares of certain Jacobian elliptic functions [@Law89; @GR65]. It solves the differential equation $$\label{WPeq}
[\wp'(u)]^2 = 4 \wp^3(u) - g_{2\,} \wp(u) - g_3$$ where $g_2$ and $g_3$ are the invariants of $\wp$. Note that no term quadratic in $\wp$ appears on the rhs of Eq.(\[WPeq\]). This condition determines the additive constant in the relation between $\wp$ and ${\cal C}^2$ which appears as the “potential” in the eigenvalue problem in Eq.(\[psit\]). For the derivation of the spectrum $\{ \lambda_n \}$ (see Appendix B) the Weierstrass $\zeta$-function is also needed. It is the negative integral of $\wp(u)$ and can be written as $$\label{Wzeta}
\zeta(u) = {1 \over u} - \int_0^u \left[ \wp(z) -
{1 \over z^2} \right] dz \, \, .$$ Note that $\zeta(u)$ is [*not*]{} an elliptic function. For the explicit calculation of the spectrum $\{ \lambda_n \}$ we finally quote the Laurent series of $\wp(u)$ and $\zeta(u)$ around $u = 0$:
\[Wseries\] $$\label{Wseriesa}
\zeta(u) = {1 \over u} - {g_2 \over 60} u^3 - {g_3 \over 140} u^5
\, + \, {\cal O}(u^7) \, \, ,$$ $$\label{Wseriesb}
\wp(u) = {1 \over u^2} + {g_2 \over 20} u^2 + {g_3 \over 28} u^4
\, + \, {\cal O}(u^6) \, \, .$$
Eigenmode spectrum {#appB}
==================
The spectrum of the eigenvalue problem defined by Eq.(\[psit\]) can be determined along similar lines as in Appendix B of Ref.[@Kre97]. The Weierstrass function associated with ${\cal C}(\theta;\alpha)$ \[see Eq.(\[pi\])\] can be written in the form $\wp(\theta) = {\cal C}^2(\theta;\alpha) - a$, where $a$ is a constant to be determined. Based on Eq.(\[C2\]) we aim at obtaining a differential equation for $\wp$ which is of the form given by Eq.(\[WPeq\]). This requirement is fulfilled if $a = 1/3$ which results in
\[WPwedge\] $$\label{WPwedgea}
\wp(\theta) = \left[ {2K \over \alpha} {\mbox{dn}(2K \theta / \alpha;k)
\over \mbox{sn}(2K \theta / \alpha;k)} \right]^2 \, - \, {1 \over 3} \, \, ,$$ $$\label{WPwedgeb}
g_2 = {4 k^2 (1 - k^2) \over (1 - 2 k^2)^2} \, + \, {4 \over 3} \, \, ,$$ $$\label{WPwedgec}
g_3 = {4 k^2 (1 - k^2) \over 3 (1 - 2 k^2)^2} \, + \, {8 \over 27} \, \, .$$
The eigenvalue problem in Eq.(\[psit\]) can now be cast into a Lam[é]{} equation [@Kam71] $$\label{Lame}
-\psi_n''(\theta) \ + \ 6 \ \wp(\theta) \psi_n(\theta) =
\epsilon_n \ \psi_n(\theta)$$ where $\epsilon_n = \lambda_n - 2$. As discussed in Appendix B in Ref.[@Kre97] the eigenvalue spectrum is given by the solution of the two equations
\[EVeq\] $$\label{EVeqa}
2 a_n \zeta(\alpha/2) - \alpha \left[\zeta(a_n) + {\wp'(a_n) \over 2\wp(a_n)
- \epsilon_n/3} \right] = n \pi i \, \, ,$$ $$\label{EVeqb}
\wp(a_n) = {\epsilon_n^3 - 27 g_3 \over
27 g_2 - 9 \epsilon_n^2} \, \, .$$
The mode numbers $n$ are integers (see below) and $a_n$ are auxiliary parameters with the property $a_n \to 0$ for $n \to \infty$. For large $n$ Eq.(\[EVeq\]) can be solved asymptotically by using the expansions quoted in Eq.(\[Wseries\]). From the expansion for $\wp(a_n)$ we obtain for large $n$ $$\label{epsexp}
\epsilon_n = -{9 \over a_n^2} \left[ 1 + {7 g_2 \over 540} a_n^4
+ {\cal O}(a_n^6) \right]$$ which implies the expansion $$\label{aexp}
{2 \over \alpha} \ \zeta(\alpha/2) a_n - {3 \over a_n} - {g_2 \over 180} a_n^3
+ {\cal O}(a_n^5) = {n \pi i \over \alpha} \, \, .$$ Equation (\[aexp\]) can be solved with the ansatz $a_n = 3\alpha i /(n\pi) [1 + A n^{-2} +B n^{-4} + {\cal O}(n^{-6})]$. Inserting the solution into Eq.(\[epsexp\]) leads to $$\label{epsn}
\epsilon_n = \left( {n \pi \over \alpha} \right)^2 \left\{ 1 -
{12 \over (n \pi)^2} \ \alpha \ \zeta(\alpha/2) - {36 \over (n \pi)^4} \left[
\left( \alpha\ \zeta(\alpha/2) \right)^2 - {g_2 \over 48} \alpha^4 \right]
+ {\cal O}(n^{-6}) \right\} \, \, ;$$ $\lambda_n = \epsilon_n + 2$ yields the desired spectrum.
The allowed mode numbers $n$ can be obtained by considering the special case $\alpha = \pi$ corresponding to a planar surface, for which ${\cal C}(\theta;\pi) = 1/\sin \theta$ and Eq.(\[psit\]) can be solved in closed form. For the present problem the Weierstrass $\zeta$-function can directly be derived from Eqs.(\[Wzeta\]) and (\[WPwedge\]) so that $$\label{Wzetawedge}
\zeta(\theta) = {2K \over \alpha} \left[ {\mbox{dn}(2K\theta/\alpha;k) \over
\mbox{sn}(2K\theta/\alpha;k)}\ \mbox{cn}(2K\theta/\alpha;k)
+ E(\mbox{am}(2K\theta/\alpha;k),k) + {k^2 - 2 \over 3}\ {2K \over \alpha}\
\theta \right]$$ with $K = K(k)$ as defined in Appendix A. Equation (\[Wzetawedge\]) explicitly demonstrates that $\zeta(\theta)$ is not an elliptic function. At the midplane $\theta = \alpha/2$ Eq.(\[Wzetawedge\]) reduces to \[see Eq.(\[special\])\] $$\label{Wzetamid}
\zeta(\alpha/2) = {2 K(k) \over \alpha}
\left[ E(k) + {k^2 - 2 \over 3} K(k) \right] \, \, .$$ According to Eq.(\[k0pi\]) the special case $\alpha = \pi$ corresponds to $k = 0$ for which $\zeta(\pi/2) = \pi/6$ from Eq.(\[Wzetamid\]) and $g_2 = 4/3$ from Eq.(\[WPwedge\]). From Eq.(\[epsn\]) we infer $\epsilon_n = n^2 - 2$, i.e., $\lambda_n = n^2$, which is indeed the correct eigenvalue spectrum for ${\cal C}(\theta;\pi) = 1 / \sin \theta$. The eigenfunctions are normalizable for $n \geq 3$. Therefore $\lambda_3$ is the lowest eigenvalue for this problem.
For a numerical solution of Eq.(\[EVeq\]) using, e.g., the Newton method the asymptotic spectrum given by Eq.(\[epsn\]) for $n \geq 3$ provides excellent initial values for the iteration. In fact, these initial values already are within 0.1% of the exact spectrum even for the ground state $n = 3$ if $0.1 < \alpha/\pi \leq 1$. This implies that the mean-field expression for $\eta_{e \perp}(\alpha)$ given by Eq.(\[etaperp\]) is quite accurate if $\alpha$ is not too small.
[99]{}
W. Hansen, J. P. Kotthaus, and U. Merkt, in [*Semiconductors and Semimetals*]{}, edited by M. Reed (Academic, London, 1992), Vol. 35, p. 279; see also P. Bönsch, D. Wüllner, T. Schrimpf, A. Schlachetski, and R. Lacmann, J. Electrochem. Soc. [**145**]{}, 1273 (1998), and J. Wang, D. A. Thompson, and J. G. Simmons, J. Electrochem. Soc. [**145**]{}, 2931 (1998).
D. W. L. Tolfree, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**61**]{}, 313 (1998).
Y. Xia and G. M. Whitesides, Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. [**28**]{}, 153 (1998).
F. Burmeister, C. Schäfle, B. Keilhofer, C. Bechinger, J. Boneberg, and P. Leiderer, Adv. Mater. [**10**]{}, 495 (1998).
J. B. Knight, A. Vishwanath, J. P. Brody, and R. H. Austin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3863 (1998).
M. Grunze, Science [**283**]{}, 41 (1999).
R. F. Service, Science [**282**]{}, 399 (1998).
S. Dietrich, [*Fluids in contact with structured substrates*]{} in [*New Approaches to Old and New Problems in Liquid State Theory: Inhomogeneities and Phase Separation in Simple, Complex and Quantum Fluids*]{}, proceedings of the NATO-ASI (Series C) held in Patti Marina (Messina), Italy, July 7-17, 1998, edited by C. Caccamo, J. P. Hansen, and G. Stell (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999), Vol. C [**529**]{}, p. 197.
M. Schoen and S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 499 (1997).
D. Henderson, S. Soko[ł]{}owski, and D. Wasan, Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 5539 (1998).
A. J. P. Nijmeijer and J. N. J. van Leeuwen, J. Phys. A [**23**]{}, 4211 (1990).
M. Napi[ó]{}rkowski, W. Koch, and S. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, 5760 (1992).
E. H. Hauge, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{}, 4994 (1992).
A. Lipowski, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, R1 (1998).
K. Rejmer, S. Dietrich, and M. Napi[ó]{}rkowski, Phys. Rev. E, in press (1999); cond-mat/9812115; and references therein.
P. Müller-Buschbaum, M. Tolan, W. Press, F. Brinkop, and J. P. Kotthaus, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. [**98**]{}, 413 (1994).
Z. Li, M. Tolan, T. Höhr, D. Kharas, S. Qu, J. Sokolov, M. H. Rafailovich, H. Lorenz, J. P. Kotthaus, J. Wang, S. K. Sinha, and A. Gibaud, Macromolecules [**31**]{}, 1915 (1998).
K. Binder, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, London, 1983), Vol. 8, p. 1.
H. W. Diehl, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, London, 1986), Vol. 10, p. 75; H. W. Diehl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**11**]{}, 3503 (1997).
J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**16**]{}, 3617 (1983).
A. J. Guttmann and G. M. Torrie, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**17**]{}, 3539 (1984).
M. N. Barber, I. Peschel, and P. A. Pearce, J. Stat. Phys. [**37**]{}, 497 (1984); I. Peschel, Phys. Lett. A [**110**]{}, 313 (1985).
T. A. Larsson, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**19**]{}, 1691 (1986).
D. B. Abraham and F. T. Latr[é]{}moli[é]{}re, J. Stat. Phys. [**81**]{}, 539 (1995); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4813 (1996); Nucl. Phys. B [**45A**]{}, 74 (1996).
P. Kleban and I. Peschel, Z. Phys. B [**101**]{}, 447 (1996).
B. Davies and I. Peschel, Ann. Phys. [**6**]{}, 187 (1997).
D. Karevski, P. Lajk[ó]{}, and L. Turban, J. Stat. Phys. [**86**]{}, 1153 (1997).
M. Pleimling and W. Selke, Eur. Phys. J. B [**5**]{}, 805 (1998).
M. Pleimling and W. Selke, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 65 (1999).
I. Peschel, L. Turban, and F. Igl[ó]{}i, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**24**]{}, L1229 (1991).
F. Igl[ó]{}i, I. Peschel, and L. Turban, Adv. Phys. [**42**]{}, 683 (1993).
C. Kaiser and L. Turban, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**28**]{}, 351 (1995).
J. Unguris, R. J. Celotta, and D. T. Pierce, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 140 (1991); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1125 (1992).
A. Ciach and H. W. Diehl, Europhys. Lett. [**12**]{}, 635 (1990); H. W. Diehl and A. Ciach, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 6642 (1991).
H. W. Diehl and M. Smock, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 5841 (1993); [*ibid*]{} [**48**]{}, 6740 (1993).
H. W. Diehl, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. [**98**]{}, 466 (1994); Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 2846 (1994); T. W. Burkhardt and H. W. Diehl, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 3894 (1994).
G. Flöter and S. Dietrich, Z. Phys. B [**97**]{}, 213 (1995).
D. S. P. Smith and B. M. Law, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 580 (1995); Phys. Rev. E [**54**]{}, 2727 (1996); Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 620 (1997).
P. S. Swain and A. O. Parry, Eur. Phys. J. B [**4**]{}, 459 (1998); C. Rascón and A. O. Parry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1267 (1998); C. Rascón, A. O. Parry, and A. Sartori, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 5697 (1999).
J. C. Le Guillou and J. Zinn-Justin, J. Phys. Lett. (France) [**46**]{}, L137 (1985); R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**31**]{}, 8103 (1998).
M. Krech, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 1692 (1997).
M. E. Fisher and H. Au-Yang, Physica A [**101**]{}, 255 (1980).
J. Rudnick and D. Jasnow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 1595 (1982).
J. L. Cardy, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, London, 1986), Vol.11, p. 55.
J. L. Cardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1443 (1990).
E. Eisenriegler and M. Stapper, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 10 009 (1994).
M. E. Fisher and P. G. de Gennes, C. R. Acad. Sci. Ser. B [**287**]{}, 207 (1978).
T. W. Burkhardt and E. Eisenriegler, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**18**]{}, L83 (1985).
J. L. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. B [**240**]{}, 514 (1984).
D. F. Lawden, [*Elliptic Functions and Applications*]{} (Springer, New York, 1989).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{} (Dover, New York, 1972); I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{} (Academic, London, 1965).
E. Kamke, [*Differentialgleichungen, Lösungsmethoden und Lösungen*]{} (Chelsea, New York, 1971), Vol. 1, p. 408.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
address: |
Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\
and Department of Physics, University of California\
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
author:
- 'Jonathan L. Feng [^1]'
title: |
**Supersymmetry at Linear Colliders:\
The Importance of Being ${e^-e^-}$**
---
hep-ph/9803319 LBNL–41254\
March 1998 UCB–PTH–98/04\
Introduction
============
The possible role of supersymmetry (SUSY) in stabilizing the electroweak scale is cause for optimism in the search for SUSY at current and planned colliders. If SUSY is discovered, detailed studies of superpartner properties will likely become a long-term focus of high energy physics and the primary goal of future colliders.
In recent years, our appreciation for the variety of possible superpartner mass spectra, flavor structures, and SUSY breaking mechanisms has grown dramatically. At future colliders, it will therefore be important to seek [*model-independent*]{} measurements of all possible superpartner properties. Such studies will yield constraints on SUSY parameters that ultimately could shed light on a variety of mysteries, including the physics at or near the Planck scale.
What contributions might an ${e^-e^-}$ collider make toward this goal? The replacement of a beam of positrons with electrons is straightforward at linear colliders, and the option of colliding electrons in the ${e^-e^-}$ mode is therefore, for the most part, a simple extension for any linear collider program. However, when considering the physics promise of the ${e^-e^-}$ mode, it is, of course, important first to recall the potential of the more conventional hadron or ${e^+e^-}$ colliders. In particular, a direct comparison can be made to the ${e^+e^-}$ mode of linear colliders, where luminosities of $50{~{\rm fb}^{-1}}/{\rm yr}$, center of mass energies of up to 1.5 TeV, and highly polarizable $e^-$ beams have been shown to be powerful tools for model-independent studies of SUSY particles. At ${e^+e^-}$ colliders, superparticles may be discovered essentially up to the kinematic limit, and their couplings may be measured at the percent level to determine if they are, in fact, supersymmetric partners of standard model particles.[@HN; @FMPT; @NFT; @CFP; @KRS; @NPY] Detailed studies of the chargino and neutralino sectors,[@JLC; @FMPT; @BMT] sleptons,[@BV; @JLC; @NFT; @BMT; @Bartl] and squarks[@squark; @BMT; @Bartl] find that the masses of most of these particles may be measured to a few percent, and mixings, such as gaugino-Higgsino mixing[@JLC; @FMPT] and left-right scalar mixing,[@NFT; @Bartl] may also be determined.
What, then, can an ${e^-e^-}$ collider add? At first sight, there appear to be only disadvantages. In ${e^-e^-}$ mode, pair production of almost all superpartners is forbidden by total lepton number and charge conservation:
$$e^-e^- \not\to \chi^-\chi^-, \chi^0\chi^0, \tilde{q}\tilde{q}^*,
\tilde{\nu} \tilde{\nu} \ .
\label{otherpairs}$$
It is therefore clear that the general purpose potential of ${e^+e^-}$ colliders cannot be matched by ${e^-e^-}$ colliders. In fact, the only possible superpartner pair production is the fermion number violating process[@KL]
$$e^-e^- \to {\tilde{e}}^-{\tilde{e}}^- \ ,
\label{selectron}$$
which is allowed through the $t$-channel Majorana gaugino exchange of Fig. \[fig:feynman\]. The advantages of the ${e^-e^-}$ mode over the ${e^+e^-}$ mode for SUSY studies are almost certainly confined to those derived from this reaction.
\[fig:feynman\]
The process $e^- e^- \to {\tilde{e}}^- {\tilde{e}}^-$, however, is particularly well-suited to precision studies. First, backgrounds may be highly suppressed. Second, selectrons are typically expected to be among the lighter superparticles, and they are therefore likely to be kinematically accessible. As we will see, the cross sections for $e^-e^- \to {\tilde{e}}^- {\tilde{e}}^-$ are then typically large, and so statistical errors are small. Third, the properties of selectrons are largely determined by quantum numbers, and so selectron production and decay have strong dependences on only a few SUSY parameters. Theoretical systematic errors arising from unknown SUSY parameters are therefore also typically small.
In fact, the only selectron properties not determined by quantum numbers are their masses and flavor mixings, and, as we will see in the following two sections, ${e^-e^-}$ colliders provide unparalleled potential for detailed studies of both of these properties. Note, however, that the simple characteristics of selectrons also make them ideal for probing other sectors. A few comments on implications for gaugino mass measurements will be given below.[@PT] In addition, high precision measurements of selectron couplings may be used to constrain very massive sparticle sectors through the super-oblique corrections introduced in Ref. — this possibility is described in the contribution of H.–C. Cheng to these proceedings.[@Cheng]
Slepton Masses
==============
Let us consider first the case of ${\tilde{e}}_R$ pair production in the absence of flavor mixing. At an ${e^+e^-}$ collider, this takes place through $s$-channel $\gamma$ and $Z$ processes and $t$-channel neutralino exchange. Assuming that the selectron decays directly to a stable neutralino $\chi$, the signal is ${e^+e^-}\to {e^+e^-}\chi \chi$, where the neutralinos go undetected. The dominant backgrounds are $W^+W^-$, which can be nearly eliminated by right-polarizing the $e^-$ beam, and $e^{\pm} \nu_e W^{\mp}$ and $\gamma\gamma \to W^+ W^-$, which cannot.
As the reaction requires a right-handed electron and a left-handed positron, the initial state has spin 1, leading to the well-known $\beta^3$ behavior of scalar pair production at threshold. Measurements of scalar masses through threshold scans are therefore impossibly poor, and one must resort to kinematic endpoints. For example,[@BV; @JLC; @BMT] the upper and lower endpoints of the energy distributions of the final state $e^+$ and $e^-$ are determined by $m_{{\tilde{e}}_R}$ and $m_{\chi}$, and by measuring these endpoints, $m_{{\tilde{e}}_R}$ may be constrained to a few GeV with an integrated luminosity of 20 to 50 ${~{\rm fb}^{-1}}$.[^2]
In the ${e^-e^-}$ mode, selectron pair production takes place only through $t$-channel neutralino exchange. The signal is ${e^-e^-}\to
{e^-e^-}\chi\chi$. However, among the potential backgrounds, $W^-W^-$ is forbidden by total lepton number conservation, $\gamma\gamma \to
W^+W^-$ does not produce like-sign electrons, $e^- e^- Z$ may be eliminated by kinematic cuts,[@COR] and the remaining backgrounds $e^- \nu_e W^-$ and $\nu_e \nu_e W^- W^-$ may be completely eliminated, in principle, by right-polarizing [*both*]{} beams.
In addition, the initial state $e^-_R e^-_R$ required for ${\tilde{e}}^-_R {\tilde{e}}^-_R$ production has spin 0, and the threshold cross section therefore has the $\beta$ behavior more commonly associated with fermion pair production. The $\sqrt{s}$ dependence of the cross section is shown in Fig. \[fig:crosssection\] for $m_{{\tilde{e}}_R} = 200{~{\rm GeV}}$, where, for simplicity, we have assumed gaugino-like neutralinos, and the effects of initial state radiation, beamstrahlung, and selectron width have been neglected. For comparison, the ${e^+e^-}$ cross section is also plotted; it is barely visible near threshold.
\[fig:crosssection\]
As the ${e^-e^-}$ cross section rises sharply at threshold, let us now consider what precision might be expected from a threshold mass measurement. The $1\sigma$ statistical error on the mass from a measurement of the cross section is
$$\Delta m = \Delta \sigma \left( \frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial m}
\right)^{-1} \ ,$$
where $\Delta \sigma = \sqrt{\sigma/L}$, and $L$ is the total integrated luminosity. At $\sqrt{s} = 2m_{{\tilde{e}}_R} + \,
0.5{~{\rm GeV}}$, where the cross section is $\sigma = 200$ fb, an integrated luminosity of $L = 1{~{\rm fb}^{-1}}$ gives a cross section measurement of $\Delta
\sigma = 14$ fb, and the resulting $1\sigma$ statistical uncertainty on the mass is $\Delta m = 40 {~{\rm MeV}}$. This result contrasts sharply with results from the ${e^+e^-}$ mode, which, as noted above, are typically more than an order of magnitude worse. Note also that the necessary integrated luminosity can be collected in a matter of weeks, even given the possible factor of 2 to 3 reduction in luminosity for the ${e^-e^-}$ mode relative to the ${e^+e^-}$ mode.[@Spencer]
In the above, effects of background have been neglected. The dominant background arises from imperfect beam polarization, and is $e^-\nu_e
W^-$ with cross section $B = 43 \times 2P(1-P) + 400 \times (1-P)^2$ fb.[@CC] The beam polarization $P$ is defined here as the fraction of right-handed electrons in each individual beam: $P = N(e^-_R) /
[N(e^-_L) + N(e^-_R)]$. Polarizations of $P=90\%$ are already available, and higher polarizations may be possible for future colliders.[@Clendenin] For $P = 90\% \ (95\%)$, the background is $B = 12 \ (5)$ fb and is negligible, assuming it is well-understood and so contributes only to the the uncertainty through statistical fluctuations. While the difference between 90% and 95% polarization is not critical for this study, one might worry that the systematic uncertainty from beam polarization measurement might be significant. For example, to take an extreme case, if $P = 90\pm 5\%$, the $e^-\nu_e W^-$ background is constrained only to the range 5 to 20 fb. However, if the projected beam polarization uncertainties of $\Delta P \sim 1\%$ are achieved,[@Woods] the systematic uncertainty does not significantly degrade these results.
The analysis above is clearly highly idealized, and more concrete estimates require a number of refinements.[@FP] In particular, effects of the selectron width, initial state radiation, and beamstrahlung must be included, and other experimental systematic errors, such as uncertainties in the beam energy, will also be important at this high level of precision. In addition, theoretical systematic errors from uncertainties in the masses and gaugino purity of the neutralinos also enter. Finally, the entire scan must be optimized once all these effects are included. It is clear, however, that the ${e^-e^-}$ mode offers an exceptionally promising method for measuring selectron masses.
Although the analysis for right-handed selectrons is the most elegant, other slepton masses may also be measured using the ${e^-e^-}$ and $e\gamma$ modes and similar strategies. For example, $m_{{\tilde{e}}_L}$ can be measured through $e^-_L e^-_L \to
{\tilde{e}}^-_L {\tilde{e}}^-_L$. In this case, beam polarization may not be used to remove the dominant backgrounds, but again, if systematic uncertainties are small, the $\beta$ behavior may be exploited to obtain a precise measurement. (Note that ${e^+e^-}\to
{\tilde{e}}_R^{\pm} {\tilde{e}}_L^{\mp}$ also has $\beta$ behavior at threshold.) Finally, along similar lines, the cross sections for chargino pair production ${e^+e^-}\to \chi^+ \chi^-$ and the $(-,-)$ helicity component of $e^- \gamma \to \tilde{\nu}_e \chi^-$ also rise as $\beta$ near threshold, and, as noted in Refs. and , this behavior may be exploited to determine $m_{\chi^{\pm}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\nu}_e}$ accurately.[^3] In this way, all first generation slepton masses may be measured to high precision.
It is appropriate to ask what use such high accuracy measurements might be. One important application is to loop-level SUSY studies.[@HN; @NFT; @CFP; @KRS; @NPY; @Cheng] Another is to the measurement of $\tan\beta$, which has important implications for Yukawa couplings, unification scenarios, and a wide variety of other SUSY measurements. At tree level, the relation
$$m^2_{{\tilde{e}}_L} - m^2_{\tilde{\nu}_e} = - M^2_W \cos 2\beta
\label{splitting}$$
provides a model-independent measurement of $\tan\beta$. If these slepton masses are measured and their mass splitting is highly constrained, bounds on $\tan\beta$ may be obtained. As an example, in Fig. \[fig:tanbsoft\], upper and lower bounds are given as a function of the underlying value of $\tan\beta$ for fixed $m_{\tilde{\nu}_e} = 200 {~{\rm GeV}}$ and uncertainties in $m_{{\tilde{e}}_L}
- m_{\tilde{\nu}_e}$ as indicated. For moderate and large $\tan\beta$, $\cos 2\beta \approx -1$, and so constraints from Eq. (\[splitting\]) require high precision measurements of the mass splitting. We see that if the mass difference is known to, say, 200 MeV, the mass splitting provides a powerful determination of $\tan\beta$ for $\tan\beta {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}10$. Note that model-independent measurements of $\tan\beta$ in the intermediate range $4{\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}\tan\beta {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}10$ are extremely difficult; previous suggestions have been limited to those exploiting processes involving heavy Higgs scalars.[@higgs; @FM]
\[fig:tanbsoft\]
Slepton Flavor Mixings
======================
In SUSY theories, there are generically many new sources of flavor violation. In the standard model, there is no flavor violation at neutral gauge boson vertices $V^{\mu}\bar{f}f$. However, this is not the case for neutral gaugino vertices $\tilde{f}f\tilde{V}$, as the fermion- and sfermion-diagonalizing matrices need not be identical. There are therefore 7 new Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa-like matrices, one for each fermion species $f=u_L, u_R, d_L, d_R, e_L, e_R, \nu$, all of which are worthwhile to explore at future colliders. For simplicity here, let us consider right-handed lepton flavor violation, and let us simplify still further to the case of only ${\tilde{e}}_R -
\tilde{\mu}_R$ mixing, which may be parametrized by a single mixing angle $\theta_R$.
The mixing of ${\tilde{e}}_R - \tilde{\mu}_R$ induces decays $\mu\to e
\gamma$ at low energies, and so is already constrained by the rather stringent bound $B(\mu\to e\gamma ) < 4.9\times 10^{-11}$.[@mu] With the simplifying assumptions above, $\mu\to e\gamma$ receives contributions from two diagrams, which interfere destructively. Both are proportional to $(\Delta m^2_R / m^2_R) \sin 2\theta_R$, where $\Delta m^2_R \equiv m_{{\tilde{e}}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_R}^2$ and $m^2_R \equiv (m_{{\tilde{e}}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{\mu}_R}^2)/2$, and one has an additional dependence on the left-right mass mixing parameter $\hat{t} \equiv (-A+\mu \tan\beta) / m_R$. Note that the superGIM suppression factor $\Delta m^2_R / m^2_R$ suppresses the rate for $\Delta m_R {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}m_R$.
The collider signal of lepton flavor violation is ${e^+e^-}\to e^{\pm}
\mu^{\mp} \chi\chi$ for the ${e^+e^-}$ mode, or ${e^-e^-}\to e^- \mu^-
\chi\chi$ for the ${e^-e^-}$ mode. In ${e^+e^-}$ mode, the leading backgrounds are once again $W^+W^-$, $e\nu_e W$, and $\gamma\gamma \to
W^+W^-$. The essential virtue of the ${e^-e^-}$ mode for this study is the absence of analogous backgrounds if both $e^-$ beams are right-polarized.
For the ${e^-e^-}$ case, the flavor-violating collider cross section takes a form familiar from $B$ physics, and is proportional to $\sin^2
2 \theta \frac{x^2}{1+x^2}$, where $x\equiv \Delta m_R / \Gamma$ and $\Gamma$ is the slepton decay width. Note that this cross section is superGIM suppressed only for $\Delta m_R {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}\Gamma$, in contrast to the $\mu\to e \gamma$ signal. There is therefore a large range of mass splittings $\Gamma {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}\Delta m_R {\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}m_R$ where the low energy signal is suppressed below current bounds, but the collider signal can be maximally flavor-violating.
In Fig. \[fig:talklfvfig03\] we present the reach of an ${e^-e^-}$ collider in the $(\Delta m^2_R / m^2_R, \sin 2\theta_R)$ plane, where we demand a 5$\sigma$ excess, and assume $\sqrt{s} = 500 {~{\rm GeV}}$, $L=20{~{\rm fb}^{-1}}$, and 200 GeV right-handed sleptons. We see that lepton flavor violation may be probed down to mixing angles $\sim 10^{-2}$, far below the Cabibbo angle, and for a wide range of mass splittings. This result is a significant improvement over the ${e^+e^-}$ case.[@ACFH] Note that the discovery of lepton flavor violation would have major consequences for SUSY models. For example, the cases of pure gauge-mediated SUSY and pure minimal supergravity would both be eliminated, as both assume degenerate sleptons at some scale and therefore predict the complete absence of lepton flavor violation. For details, see Refs. and .
\[fig:talklfvfig03\]
It is important to note that in presenting these results, we have assumed a right-handed beam polarization of $P=90\%$, for which the background is $B=12$ fb and a $5\sigma$ signal is $S=3.9$ fb, and we have neglected experimental systematic uncertainties in beam polarization. However, for this study, as we are looking for a rare signal and a large background has been eliminated through beam polarization, accurate polarimetry is absolutely crucial. For example, as noted above, if the beam polarization is $P=90\pm 5 \%$, the background is constrained only to the range 5 to 20 fb; the $5\sigma$ signal is then overwhelmed by polarimetry uncertainties. In fact, even for $P=90\pm 1\%$, the background ranges from $B = 10$ to 13 fb, which is also significant relative to the statistical uncertainty. As these SUSY flavor studies may provide important insights into not only the mixings of superpartners, but also the observed patterns of standard model fermion masses and mixings, they are an important example of studies for which beam polarimetry plays an essential role.
Gaugino Mass Measurements
=========================
As noted in the introduction, the simplicity of selectrons allows one to use selectrons to probe other sectors. It is possible, for example, to exploit the spin structure of the amplitude of Fig. \[fig:feynman\] to study the gaugino sector. In particular, because this amplitude includes a $t$-channel neutralino mass insertion,
$$\sigma (e^-_R e^-_R \to {\tilde{e}}^-_R {\tilde{e}}^-_R ) \sim \left|
\frac{M_1}{t-M_1^2} \right|^2 \sim \frac{1}{M_1^2}$$
for large $M_1$, where $M_1$ is the Bino mass. The exact dependence on $M_1$ is given in Fig. \[fig:M1\] for $\sqrt{s} = 500 {~{\rm GeV}}$ and $m_{{\tilde{e}}_R} = 200 {~{\rm GeV}}$. The dependence of $\sigma (e^+ e^-_R
\to {\tilde{e}}^+_R {\tilde{e}}^-_R)$ is also shown. We see that, in stark contrast to the ${e^+e^-}$ case, the ${e^-e^-}$ cross section is large and has a strong dependence on $M_1$ even for $M_1$ as high as ${\cal
O} (1{~{\rm TeV}})$. For example, for $M_1 = 700{~{\rm GeV}}$, the $1\sigma$ statistical error from a cross section measurement with $L=1{~{\rm fb}^{-1}}$ is $\Delta M_1 \approx 20 {~{\rm GeV}}$. In addition, once $M_1$ is measured, $M_2$ may be determined through the process $e^-_L e^-_L \to
{\tilde{e}}^-_L {\tilde{e}}^-_L$. Note that such large gaugino masses, which are possible in the Higgsino region in gravity-mediated models and in other settings, are likely to be extremely difficult to measure accurately by other means. At the same time, these measurements are extremely useful, for example, for testing gaugino mass unification.
\[fig:M1\]
Conclusions
===========
It is clear that the possibilities for general studies of SUSY at an ${e^+e^-}$ collider cannot be matched by an ${e^-e^-}$ collider. However, given that the ${e^-e^-}$ mode is experimentally a relatively simple extension of any linear collider program and is also motivated by the desire for high energy $e\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$ studies, it is certainly worth addressing what additional information the ${e^-e^-}$ mode might bring to precision SUSY studies.
In this study, we have highlighted two possible applications. First, as a result of the fact that the scalar superpartners present in SUSY theories have an associated handedness, ${e^-e^-}$ colliders may enable one to measure slepton masses through threshold scans with far greater precision than in the ${e^+e^-}$ mode. Such high precision measurements are useful for measuring $\tan\beta$, and, for example, may also allow one to be sensitive to small radiative effects.[@CFP]
It is also worth noting that such studies require far less luminosity than the corresponding studies in the ${e^+e^-}$ mode. At present, most studies of SUSY at linear colliders assume integrated luminosities of ${\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle >}}20 {~{\rm fb}^{-1}}$. In addition, these studies often assume beam energies and polarizations that are optimized for the particular study at hand. While it is clear that not all of these analyses may be conducted simultaneously, systematic attempts to determine how best to distribute the luminosity have not been undertaken, and, in any case, may be premature, given the strong dependence on the actual superpartner spectrum realized in nature. However, in the event that practical limitations on luminosity become relevant, novel studies requiring only weeks of beam time may prove particularly attractive.
In addition, we have shown that the extraordinarily clean environment of ${e^-e^-}$ colliders leads to striking sensitivity in probes of supersymmetric flavor structure through lepton flavor violation. In such studies, an accurate knowledge of beam polarization is crucial. Finally, note that, for concreteness, we have concentrated on scenarios with stable neutralinos as the lightest supersymmetric particles. However, in other scenarios, such as gauge-mediated scenarios, the signals typically become much more spectacular, and the results given above only improve.
I am grateful to the organizers, especially C. Heusch and N. Rogers, for a stimulating and enjoyable conference and thank N. Arkani-Hamed, H.–C. Cheng, L. Hall, and M. Peskin for conversations and collaborations related to the work presented here. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the DOE under Contracts DE–AC03–76SF00098 and by the NSF under grant PHY–95–14797.
[99]{}
K. Hikasa and Y. Nakamura, Z. Phys. C [**70**]{}, 139 (1996), hep-ph/9501382; [*ibid.*]{}, [**71**]{}, E356 (1996).
J. L. Feng, H. Murayama, M. E. Peskin, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1418 (1995), hep-ph/9502260.
M. M. Nojiri, K. Fujii, and T. Tsukamoto, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 6756 (1996), hep-ph/9606370.
H.-C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 6875 (1997), hep-ph/9706438; [*ibid.*]{}, [**57**]{}, 152 (1998), hep-ph/9706476.
E. Katz, L. Randall, and S. Su, he-ph/9706478; [*ibid.*]{}, hep-ph/9801416.
M. M. Nojiri, D. M. Pierce, and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 1539 (1998), hep-ph/9707244; S. Kiyoura, M. M. Nojiri, D. M. Pierce, and Y. Yamada, hep-ph/9803210.
T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi, and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 3153 (1995).
H. Baer, R. Munroe, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 6735 (1996), hep-ph/9606325.
R. Becker and C. Vander Velde, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders*]{}, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 1993, edited by F.A. Harris, S.L. Olsen, S. Pakvasa, and X. Tata (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993), Vol. II, p. 822.
J. L. Feng and D. E. Finnell, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 2369 (1994), hep-ph/9310211.
A. Bartl [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C [**76**]{}, 549 (1997), hep-ph/9701336.
W.-Y. Keung and L. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 1067 (1983).
See also M. Peskin, these proceedings, hep-ph/9803279; S. Thomas, these proceedings.
H.-C. Cheng, these proceedings, hep-ph/9801234.
D. Wagner, talk presented at the Workshop on Physics at the First Muon Collider and at the Front End of the Muon Collider, Batavia, IL, 6–9 Nov 1997.
J. Lykken, talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Physics Potential and Development of $\mu^+ \mu^-$ Colliders, San Francisco, CA, 10–12 Dec 1997.
F. Cuypers, G. J. van Oldenbourgh, and R. Rückl, Nucl. Phys. [**B509**]{}, 128 (1993), hep-ph/9305287.
J. Spencer, these proceedings.
D. Choudhury and F. Cuypers, Nucl. Phys. [**B429**]{}, 33 (1994).
J. Clendenin, these proceedings, SLAC–PUB–7726.
M. Woods, these proceedings, hep-ex/9802009.
J. L. Feng and M. Peskin, in preparation.
V. Barger, T. Han, and J. Kelly, hep-ph/9709366.
V. Barger, M. S. Berger, and T. Han, hep-ph/9801410.
J. F. Gunion and J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{},1730 (1997), hep-ph/9610495.
J. L. Feng and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 5962 (1997), hep-ph/9612333.
R. D. Bolton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 2077 (1988).
N. Arkani-Hamed, H.–C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, and L. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1937 (1996), hep-ph/9603431.
N. Arkani-Hamed, H.–C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, and L. J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B [**505**]{}, 3 (1997), hep-ph/9704205.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the DOE under Contracts DE–AC03–76SF00098 and by the NSF under grant PHY–95–14797.
[^2]: In such analyses, the information contained in the fact that electrons and positrons come paired in events is lost. Using kinematic variables that are sensitive to this correlation,[@squark] slepton mass measurements may be improved, sometimes very significantly.[@Wagner; @Lykken] These improved analyses do not reduce the required integrated luminosities, however, and measurements much below the GeV level still appear to be rather challenging.
[^3]: Note that this method may be used to measure $m_{\tilde{\nu}_e}$ even if $\tilde{\nu}_e$ decays invisibly.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Y. Bai, Y.-C. Sun, X.-T. He, Y. Chen, J.-H. Wu, Q.-K. Li, R.-F. Green & W. Voges'
title: 'M dwarf Stars –The By-Product of X-Ray Selected AGN Candidates '
---
Introduction
============
Observations from X-ray satellites have showed that strong X-ray emission is a quasi-defining characteristics of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), and X-ray selection from a deep X-ray survey might be the best census method to obtain a sample of AGNs with a high completeness level ([@He01]). The multiwavelength quasar survey(MWQS) aimed at obtaining a sample of $\sim$350 new AGNs brighter than B = 19.0, based on a simple yet effective X-ray, radio and optical inspection criteria ([@He01]; [@Chen02; @Chen07]; [@Bai07]). In X-ray band survey, AGN candidates are selected from the [*ROSAT*]{} All-Sky Survey (RASS) sources by applying the criteria to exclude most stars and galaxy clusters ([@Chen07]). However, M dwarfs are hard to be distinguished from AGN candidates if criteria in soft X-ray band alone are applied, thus constituting a potential contaminant to the AGN candidates in optical observations. By analyzing low dispersion spectral characteristics of AGNs and M dwarfs, these two kinds of sources can be differentiated. Thus the selected X-ray loud M dwarfs can be investigated in details.
M dwarf stars are the most numerous stars in our galactic neighborhood with masses between 0.1 and 0.5 $M_{\odot}$, and they can be divided into two classes (dM and dMe) based on an optical criterion: dMe stars have $H_{\alpha}$ in emission, while dM stars have $H_{\alpha}$ in absorption. Due to the large quantity, longevity (with lifetime greater than the Hubble time), and spectral energy distribution (SED) sensitivity to metallicity ([@Lepine07]), M dwarfs are suitable as tracers of the chemical and dynamical evolution of the Galaxy ([@Laughlin97]). The optical and near infrared spectra of M dwarfs are dominated by molecular absorption bands of metal oxides and hydrides ([@Bessel91]) and the ratio between the strength of them has been known as a metallicity diagnostic ([@Bessel82]).Four spectroscopic indices (TiO5, CaH1, CaH2, CaH3) was defined by [@Reid95] to make a separation of three metallicity subclasses, M dwarfs (dM) subdwarfs (sdM) and extreme subdwarfs (esdM) ([@Gizis97]). Furthermore, the higher radial velocity and deeper transit/occultation as the consequence of the low stellar mass and small radius of M dwarf stars will facilitate the detection of small planets. M dwarfs might be suitable for hosting planets, as indicated by the common observed accretion disks around young dwarf stars ([@Liu04]; [@Lada06]).
In this paper, the initial result of a sample of 22 M dwarfs limited in X-ray flux is given in Section 2. In Section 3, the classification system for M dwarfs and subdwarfs is re-examined based on a combinations of four relationships defined in \[CaH1, TiO5\], \[CaH2, TiO5\], and\[CaH3, TiO5\]. The metallicity index $\zeta_{TiO/CaH}$ is calculated to measurement the metal content in M dwarfs. A summary is given in Section 4.
Observation and result
======================
The candidates are selected with criteria in X-ray band and observed by using 2.1m and 2.16m telescopes at KPNO (Kitt Peak National Observatory) and NAOC (National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences) ([@He01; @Chen02; @Chen07; @Bai07; @Sun11]). The criteria adopted for the selection of candidates are consistent between two telescopes([@Bai07]). The spectral coverages are respectively about 4000-10000[Å]{} with resolution of 7[Å]{} and 4000-8000[Å]{} with resolution of 13[Å]{}. All the spectra are reduced with IRAF. The initial result is a subset of 22 M dwarfs, in which the spectra of 16 sources are taken for the first time. A cross identification has been made with the 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey) All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources to get data in the band of near infrared. All of 2MASS sources lie within 7" to the optical position of our targets. Table 1 displays the ROSAT and 2MASS source designation and optical position. Among 22 M dwarfs, four spectra have $H_{\alpha}$ in absorption and are classified as dM stars (1RXS J015515.4-173916, 1RXS J041615.7+012640, 1RXS J043426.2-030041, 1RXS J075107.8+061714). Others are classified as dMe stars for the $H_{\alpha}$ in emission. Fig. \[spectra\] shows the spectra of the M dwarfs.
[lllr]{} ROSAT name & 2MASS name & R.A.(2000) & DEC (2000)\
1RXS J015515.4-173916 & 01551663-1739080 & 01 55 16.32 & $-$17 39 06.9\
1RXS J040840.7-270534 & 04084031-2705473\*& 04 08 40.24 & $-$27 05 46.0\
1RXS J041132.8+023559 & 04113190+0236058 & 04 11 31.68 & + 02 36 05.2\
1RXS J041132.8+023559 & 04113149+0236012 & 04 11 31.50 & + 02 36 01.3\
1RXS J041325.8-013919 & 04132663-0139211\*& 04 13 26.19 & $-$01 39 20.7\
1RXS J041612.7-012006 & 04161320-0119554 & 04 16 13.12 & $-$01 19 54.1\
1RXS J041615.7+012640 & 04161502+0126570 & 04 16 14.99 & + 01 26 57.8\
1RXS J042854.3+024836 & 04285400+0248060 & 04 28 53.92 & + 02 48 08.0\
1RXS J043051.6-011253 & 04305207-0112471 & 04 30 51.71 & $-$01 12 48.7\
1RXS J043426.2-030041 & 04342887-0300390 & 04 34 28.84 & $-$03 00 39.3\
1RXS J053954.8-130805 & 05395494-1307598\*& 05 39 54.90 & $-$13 07 59.1\
1RXS J055533.1-082915 & 05553254-0829243\*& 05 55 32.57 & $-$08 29 25.1\
1RXS J060121.5-193749 & 06012092-1937421 & 06 01 20.90 & $-$19 37 42.1\
1RXS J075107.8+061714 & 07510760+0617135 & 07 51 07.63 & + 06 17 13.3\
1RXS J111819.9+134739 & 11182030+1347392 & 11 18 20.02 & + 13 47 41.7\
1RXS J112144.4+162156 & 11213897+1617528 & 11 21 39.24 & + 16 17 52.4\
1RXS J125336.5+224742 & 12533626+2247354\*& 12 53 36.18 & + 22 47 35.3\
1RXS J130123.5+265145 & 13012236+2651422 & 13 01 22.09 & + 26 51 46.4\
1RXS J170849.1-110433 & 17084975-1104308 & 17 08 50.01 & $-$11 04 25.9\
1RXS J174741.0-135445 & 17474148-1354368 & 17 47 41.54 & $-$13 54 35.5\
1RXS J185008.6+110509 & 18500888+1105098 & 18 50 08.64 & + 11 05 10.4\
1RXS J210326.6+161658 & 21032686+1616569\*& 21 03 26.80 & + 16 16 57.6\
{width="75mm"} {width="75mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"}
{width="75mm"} {width="75mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"} {width="73mm"}
![Spectra of M dwarf stars. Spectral flux ($F_{\lambda}$) is in $\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,sec^{-1}\,\AA^{-1}}$. []{data-label="spectra"}](f1_21.eps "fig:"){width="73mm"} ![Spectra of M dwarf stars. Spectral flux ($F_{\lambda}$) is in $\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,sec^{-1}\,\AA^{-1}}$. []{data-label="spectra"}](f1_22.eps "fig:"){width="73mm"}
Discussion
==========
Molecular Band Indices
----------------------
The classification of M dwarfs is based on the the strength of the TiO and CaH molecular bands near 7000[Å]{} and three spectral indices CaH2, CaH3, and TiO5 are defined to measure the mean flux level of the molecular bands ([@Reid95]).
In order to obtain the precise spectral indices, we test wavelengths of $H_{\alpha}$ and find that the wavelengths of the spectra shift up to 30[Å]{} because of the long integral time of M dwarf from 1200 to 3600 seconds. The gravity effect and the change of temperature gradient may cause the displacement between CCD and spectrograph in such a long integral time. For each spectrum, the central wavelength of $H_{\alpha}$ is measured carefully to calculate the shift of molecular band. The molecular band indices are displayed in Table 2. There are discrepancies of molecular band indices between our samples and six M dwarfs in [@Riaz06], which may be caused by the difference of the spectral resolution. M dwarfs are by-product of the MWQS and low resolution spectra (7-13Å) are good enough to make AGN identifications.
The distribution of three spectral indices is shown in Fig. \[indices\]. The TiO and CaH band strengths are tightly correlated in the left frame, which indicates that the stars have equivalent (solar) metallicities and probably belong to Population I ([@Lepine07]). The metallicity class separators ([*solid line*]{}) proposed by [@Burgasser06], show that all our stars belong to M dwarfs. The right frame in Fig. \[indices\] represents the relation between CaH2 and CaH3. The [*Dashed line*]{} stands for the fitting of our sample with least square method (Eq. \[eq:CaH3\]). The distribution suggests that CaH2 may be dependent on metallicity ([@Lepine07]).
$$CaH3=-0.516CaH2^{2}+1.244CaH2+0.251
\label{eq:CaH3}$$
We obtain the parameter $\zeta_{TiO/CaH}$ introduced by [@Lepine07] to make the metallicity class separation among dwarfs, subdwarfs and extreme subdwarfs, based on the relative strength of TiO to CaH. The parameter $\zeta_{TiO/CaH}$ is defined as $$\zeta_{TiO/CaH}=\frac{1-TiO5}{1-[TiO5]_{Z_{\odot}}},
\label{eq:zeta}$$ where $[TiO5]_{Z_{\odot}}$ is given by [@Lepine07], as a function of the CaH2+CaH3 index. The parameters of our sample are lager than 0.83 and confirm that they belong to M dwarfs with near-solar metallicity.
We have used the relation from [@Reid95] (Eq. \[eq:sp\]) to obtain spectral type with an uncertainty of $\pm$0.5 subclasses. The spectral type of our sample ranges between K7 to M4. $${\it{S_{p}}}=-10.775\times TiO5+8.2
\label{eq:sp}$$
![[*Left*]{}: CaH and TiO band strengths of the stars of our sample. [*Dashed line*]{} shows CaH2+CaH3/TiO5 relationship of disk M dwarfs in [@Lepine07]. [*Right*]{}: Distribution of the CaH2 and CaH3 spectral indices of our sample. [*Dashed line*]{} represents the best fitted relationship.[]{data-label="indices"}](f2_1.eps "fig:"){width="73mm"} ![[*Left*]{}: CaH and TiO band strengths of the stars of our sample. [*Dashed line*]{} shows CaH2+CaH3/TiO5 relationship of disk M dwarfs in [@Lepine07]. [*Right*]{}: Distribution of the CaH2 and CaH3 spectral indices of our sample. [*Dashed line*]{} represents the best fitted relationship.[]{data-label="indices"}](f2_2.eps "fig:"){width="73mm"}
Absolute Magnitudes
-------------------
[@Riaz06] have given an experiential relation (Eq. \[eq:MJ\]) between $M_{J}$ and TiO5 for 35 M dwarfs with TiO5$\geq$0.4, and an rms scatter is of 0.8 mag. We used the relation to obtain $M_{J}$ , and derived the bolo-metric magnitudes from the absolute K magnitudes ([@Veeder74]). The distance of our stars was estimated by the absolute magnitudes with the uncertainties on an order of $\pm37\%$. There are 14 stars, over half of the sample, which lie within 100 pc. It has to be pointed out that stars that lie in the region around TiO5$\sim$4 have a high uncertainty in their absolute magnitudes and the derived distance ([@Riaz06]). $$M_{J}=0.97(TiO5)^{2}-5.01(TiO5)+8.73
\label{eq:MJ}$$
Luminosity
----------
We have used the relation of the count rate to energy flux conversion ([@Schmitt95]) to obtain X-ray fluxes for our targets, except one star with unreliable hardness ratio. The X-ray luminosity was calculated with the X-ray flux and the distance. The strong X-ray luminosity of 20 targets with $L_x$ larger than $10^{29}$, and one with $L_x$ larger than $10^{28.5}$, suggests that they have strong coronal activity ([@Barrado98]).
The distribution between Log($L_{x}/L_{bol}$) and spectral type is shown in Fig. \[X-ray luminosity\]. For a given spectral type, there is a large spread in $L_{x}$, as shown in FIG. 5 of [@Riaz06]. The rotational velocity differences can explain this dispersion in $L_{x}$ for low-mass stars ([@Stauffer97]). The distribution also suggests that samples with different distance locate in the different areas of the diagram. Our samples with distance exceeding 100pc incline to be stronger X-ray emitters and earlier type stars than ones within 100pc, but we need more samples to confirm the trend. The distribution of X-ray flux for dM and dMe stars is also tested but no break is found.
![Log($L_{x}/L_{bol}$) versus spectral type. [*Pluses*]{} are targets with distance larger than 100pc and [*circles*]{} stand for targets with distance less than 100pc.[]{data-label="X-ray luminosity"}](f3.eps){width="90mm"}
Colors of Infrared
------------------
M dwarfs can not be distinguished from AGN samples directly if criteria in soft X-ray band alone are applied, but with colors in infrared band there may be hints to differentiate the two kinds of sources. Fig. \[infrared colors\] shows the color-color diagram in infrared band for M dwarfs and AGN samples ([@Chen07]). Colors of AGNs distribute widely in the diagram because of the complex hot dusty environment outside the accretion disks with a distance of a few parsecs to the central black holes. However, M dwarfs concentrate in smaller area in the color-color diagram, and this maybe indicate that the temperatures of their atmosphere cover a narrow range from $\sim$2100K to $\sim$3300K.
[@Chen07] suggested that most AGNs span a color range $1.0<J-K<2.0$ and $0.5<H-K<1.2$, while [@Riaz06] selected M dwarfs with criteria $0.8<J-K<1.1$, $H-K>0.15$ and $J-H<0.75$. Most of our targets are agreement with the criteria of [@Riaz06], but one M dwarf lies outside the range. Color indices for our sample are in ranges of about $0.76<J-K<0.96$, $H-K>0.14$, and $J-H<0.56$. The colors of infrared may be effective to distinguish M dwarfs from AGNs.
![Infrared colors diagram for M dwarfs and AGNs. [*Pluses*]{}: M dwarfs. [*circles*]{}: AGNs sample in [@Chen07].[]{data-label="infrared colors"}](f4.eps){width="90mm"}
Summary
=======
As a by-product in MWQS, we have obtained the spectra of 22 X-ray flux limited M dwarf stars. The spectral types are calculated with molecular band indices based on a calibration of the TiO to CaH band strength ratio, ranged from K7 to M4. Over half of them lie within 100pc of the Sun. The distribution between Log($L_{x}/L_{bol}$) and spectral type suggests that M dwarfs with different distant may locate in different areas of the diagram and the large spread in X-ray luminosities for a given spectral type reflects the range in the rotational velocities of the stars. The colors of infrared could be criteria to separate AGNs from M dwarfs selected from soft X-ray data. For the future observation, we are going to enlarge the samples up to 100 and a further investigation on X-ray luminosity function may provide more information about coronal heating mechanisms and occurrence of flares. An observational campaign is on the schedule aimed at obtaining frequency spectrum of dM and dMe stars based on photometric observation to characterize M dwarfs variations, which will give us a chance to study the interior pulsation models of M dwarfs. Extrasolar planet candidates may be selected if we can get long term photometric observation and high resolution spectral observation.
This work was supported by Scientific Research Foundation of Beijing Normal University and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under No.10778717. This work was partially Supported by the Open Project Program of the Key Laboratory of Optical Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
[lrrrrrrrrclrr]{} ROSAT name & cts & HR1 & J & H & K & CaH2 & CaH3 & TiO5 &$\zeta_{TiO/CaH}$& SpT & Distance & log($L_{x}/L_{bol}$)\
1RXS J015515.4-173916 & 0.0622 & -0.23 & 12.268 & 11.645 & 11.397 & 0.72 & 0.91 & 0.80 & 1.19 & M0 & 242 & -2.26\
1RXS J040840.7-270534 & 0.0610 & -0.08 & 10.813 & 10.234 & 9.975 & 0.42 & 0.69 & 0.43 & 0.98 & M3.5 & 64 & -2.73\
1RXS J041132.8+023559 & 0.0825 & 0.06 & 10.416 & 9.793 & 9.530 & 0.58 & 0.78 & 0.62 & 1.01 & M1.5 & 76 & -2.77\
1RXS J041132.8+023559 & 0.0825 & 0.06 & 10.046 & 9.428 & 9.136 & 0.52 & 0.78 & 0.60 & 0.94 & M2 & 61 & -2.93\
1RXS J041325.8-013919 & 0.0976 & 0.01 & 9.375 & 8.761 & 8.504 & 0.43 & 0.69 & 0.53 & 0.83 & M2.5 & 40 & -3.11\
1RXS J041612.7-012006 & 0.0358 & -0.26 & 12.004 & 11.429 & 11.045 & 0.45 & 0.74 & 0.48 & 1.01 & M3 & 122 & -2.60\
1RXS J041615.7+012640 & 0.0211 & & 13.602 & 12.962 & 12.768 & 0.67 & 0.83 & 0.74 & 0.99 & M0.5 & 403 &\
1RXS J042854.3+024836 & 0.0203 & -1.00 & 10.809 & 10.203 & 9.980 & 0.56 & 0.78 & 0.57 & 1.08 & M2 & 83 & -3.65\
1RXS J043051.6-011253 & 0.0172 & 0.21 & 11.403 & 10.830 & 10.527 & 0.39 & 0.67 & 0.41 & 0.96 & M4 & 81 & -2.98\
1RXS J043426.2-030041 & 0.0325 & 0.15 & 13.141 & 12.445 & 12.287 & 0.78 & 0.90 & 0.85 & 1.08 & K7 & 391 & -2.09\
1RXS J053954.8-130805 & 0.0505 & -0.24 & 10.601 & 9.984 & 9.724 & 0.54 & 0.79 & 0.60 & 0.98 & M2 & 80 & -2.99\
1RXS J055533.1-082915 & 0.0717 & -0.20 & 10.735 & 10.168 & 9.884 & 0.43 & 0.68 & 0.48 & 0.90 & M3 & 68 & -2.74\
1RXS J060121.5-193749 & 0.0956 & -0.01 & 14.104 & 13.782 & 13.800 & 0.45 & 0.73 & 0.50 & 0.96 & M3 & 333 & -0.97\
1RXS J075107.8+061714 & 0.0696 & 0.11 & 11.866 & 11.257 & 10.962 & 0.68 & 0.86 & 0.74 & 1.08 & M0 & 182 & -2.28\
1RXS J111819.9+134739 & 0.1086 & -0.47 & 9.087 & 8.516 & 8.258 & 0.48 & 0.73 & 0.55 & 0.90 & M2.5 & 36 & -3.32\
1RXS J112144.4+162156 & 0.0278 & -0.39 & 12.079 & 11.450 & 11.195 & 0.71 & 0.86 & 0.73 & 1.26 & M0.5 & 196 & -2.63\
1RXS J125336.5+224742 & 0.0758 & -0.12 & 10.482 & 9.870 & 9.634 & 0.45 & 0.68 & 0.48 & 0.93 & M3 & 60 & -2.79\
1RXS J130123.5+265145 & 0.0136 & 0.30 & 11.333 & 10.740 & 10.512 & 0.41 & 0.66 & 0.48 & 0.85 & M3 & 90 & -3.07\
1RXS J170849.1-110433 & 0.0769 & -0.25 & 10.541 & 9.953 & 9.658 & 0.48 & 0.72 & 0.58 & 0.84 & M2 & 74 & -2.84\
1RXS J174741.0-135445 & 0.0552 & 1.00 & 11.058 & 10.395 & 10.151 & 0.59 & 0.80 & 0.61 & 1.09 & M1.5 & 100 & -2.50\
1RXS J185008.6+110509 & 0.0556 & 0.43 & 10.429 & 9.817 & 9.541 & 0.55 & 0.78 & 0.58 & 1.03 & M2 & 71 & -2.84\
1RXS J210326.6+161658 & 0.0750 & -0.02 & 11.078 & 10.430 & 10.178 & 0.48 & 0.73 & 0.49 & 1.00 & M3 & 82 & -2.55\
The [*[ROSAT]{}*]{} count rate in counts s$^{-1}$.
The [*[ROSAT]{}*]{} hardness ratio, except one star with unreliable hardness ratio.
Spectral type.
Distance in parsec.
[99]{}
Bai Y., Chen Y., He X. -T. et al. 2007, , 7, 375 Barrado, D., Stauffer, J. R., & Randich, S. 1998, , 506, 347 Bessel, M. S. 1982, PASAu, 4, 417 Bessel, M. S. 1991, , 101, 662 Burgasser, A., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2006, , 645, 1485 Chen Y., He X. -T., Wu J. -H. et al. 2002, , 123, 578 Chen Y., Bai Y., He X.-T. et al., 2007, , 7, 595 Gizis, J. E. 1997, , 113, 806 He X.T., Wu J.H., Yuan Q.R. et al., 2001, , 121, 1863 Lada, C. J., Muench, A. A., Luhmann, K. L., et al. 2006, , 131, 1574 Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 1997, , 482, 420 Lépine, S., Rich, R. M., & Shara, M. M. 2007, , 669, 1235 Liu, M. C., Matthews, B. C., Williams, J. P., & Kalas, P. G. 2004, , 608, 526 Reid, I. N., Hawley, S., & Gizis, J. E. 1995, , 110, 1838 Riaz, B., Gizis, J. E., & Harvin, J. 2006, , 132, 866 Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Fleming, T. A., & Giampapa, M. S. 1995, , 450, 392 Stauffer, J. R., Balachandran, S. C., Krishnamurthi, A. et al. 1997, , 475, 604 Sun, Y.-C., Bai Y., He X. -T. et al. 2011, Progress in Astronomy, accepted. Veeder, G. J. 1974, AJ, 79, 1056
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present phonon dispersions, element-resolved vibrational density of states (VDOS) and corresponding thermodynamic properties obtained by a combination of density functional theory (DFT) and nuclear resonant inelastic X-ray scattering (NRIXS) across the metamagnetic transition of B2 FeRh in the bulk material and thin epitaxial films. We see distinct differences in the VDOS of the antiferromagnetic (AF) and ferromagnetic (FM) phase which provide a microscopic proof of strong spin-phonon coupling in FeRh. The FM VDOS exhibits a particular sensitivity to the slight tetragonal distortions present in epitaxial films, which is not encountered in the AF phase. This results in a notable change in lattice entropy, which is important for the comparison between thin film and bulk results. Our calculations confirm the recently reported lattice instability in the AF phase. The imaginary frequencies at the $X$-point depend critically on the Fe magnetic moment and atomic volume. Analyzing these non vibrational modes leads to the discovery of a stable monoclinic ground state structure which is robustly predicted from DFT but not verified in our thin film experiments. Specific heat, entropy and free energy calculated within the quasiharmonic approximation suggest that the new phase is possibly suppressed because of its relatively smaller lattice entropy. In the bulk phase, lattice degrees of freedom contribute with the same sign and in similar magnitude to the isostructural AF-FM phase transition as the electronic and magnetic subsystems and therefore needs to be included in thermodynamic modeling.'
author:
- 'M. Wolloch'
- 'M. E. Gruner'
- 'W. Keune'
- 'P. Mohn'
- 'J. Redinger'
- 'F. Hofer'
- 'D. Suess'
- 'R. Podloucky'
- 'J. Landers'
- 'S. Salamon'
- 'F. Scheibel'
- 'D. Spoddig'
- 'R. Witte'
- 'B. Roldan Cuenya'
- 'O. Gutfleisch'
- 'M. Y. Hu'
- 'J. Zhao'
- 'T. Toellner'
- 'E. E. Alp'
- 'M. Siewert'
- 'P. Entel'
- 'R. Pentcheva'
- 'H. Wende'
nocite: '[@langreth:81; @takahashi:16]'
title: 'Impact of lattice dynamics on the phase stability of metamagnetic FeRh: Bulk and thin films'
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
During recent years, ordered B2 FeRh (CsCl structure) has received increased attention due to its extraordinary properties, in particular its temperature-driven isostructural transition between a ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AF) phase at $T_{\rm M}\sim\unit[350]{K}$, which was discovered more than seven decades ago [@fallot:38; @fallot:39; @shirane:63; @shirane:64]. This transition is accompanied by a large volume change of $\sim 1\,$% and a complete loss of the Rh moment in the AF phase (1.0$\mu_{\rm B}$ in FM), while the Fe moment remains large and essentially constant around 3.2-3.3$\mu_{\rm B}$ across the transition. The availability of a metamagnetic transition near room temperature (RT) makes FeRh an interesting material for a number of technological applications like heat assisted magnetic recording (HAMR)[@weller:14], antiferromagnetic spintronics[@jungwirth:16] and magnetic refrigeration [@yu:10]. For a recent review on this topic see Ref. .
HAMR is believed to be the future magnetic recording technology in order to extend the areal density to and beyond [@weller:14]. Near field transducers (NFC) are used to focus laser light well below the diffraction limit to give a thermal write assist, enabling the use of highly anisotropic recording media like FePt [@stipe:10; @challener:09]. Due to the high Curie temperature of FePt, thermally written-in-errors due to highly excited states in combination with low saturation magnetization, as well as the limited lifetime of NFCs remain an issue for this technology [@richter:12; @budaev:12]. An interesting idea to overcome those problems is to replace the second order transition of FePt by the first order transition of FeRh. Thiele et al. proposed an exchange spring structure for the recording process by coupling FeRh to FePt [@thiele:03]. The advantage is that the first order phase transition of FeRh can be tailored well below the Curie temperature of FePt, which relaxes the lifetime and reliability problem of the NFCs. Furthermore during recording the magnetic moment of FeRh is still high overcoming the problem of thermally written-in-errors [@suess:15].
Another exciting application of FeRh is in the developing field of spintronics, which is promising significant advantages in data storage [@chappert:07]. It has been shown that the AF to FM transition in FeRh can be driven by electric fields, leading to electric on and off switching of ferromagnetism near RT [@cherifi:14]. In contrast to FM memory and storage devices, application based on AF spintronics are insensitive to magnetic field pertubation and generate no magnetic stray fields, thus eliminating crosstalk. These advantages come at the price of an increased difficulty in manipulating the antiferromagnetic aligned magnetic moments [@gomonay:14; @jungwirth:16]. A room temperature FeRh AF memory resistor was recently demonstrated by Marti and coworkers, using the FM phase to pre-align the magnetic moments of the AF phase after cooling, and using the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) to read out data [@marti:14]. Soon after, sequential write-read operations on FeRh AF memory were performed using Joule heating to trigger the metamagnetic transition [@matsuzaki:15; @moriyama:15]. Employing Mössbauer spectroscopy, Bordel et al. reported a strain-driven Fe-spin reorientation across the AF-to-FM transition in epitaxially strained FeRh thin films grown on MgO, which could be of significant use in AF spintronics applications [@bordel:12]. It has also been shown that FeRh can be used as a material for spin wave transmission [@usami:16].
Recently, also the giant magnetocaloric effect (MCE) of B2 FeRh shifted back into the scientific focus, since FeRh has one of the highest adiabatic temperature changes of all known materials, [@annaorazov:92; @gschneidner:00; @manekar:08; @liu:12; @chirkova:16; @zverev:16] which in addition is accompanied by large elasto- and barocaloric effects [@nikitin:92; @stern-taulats:14; @stern-taulats:15]. However, the transition suffers from a large hysteresis and a high sensitivity to stoichiometry and anti-site defects.[@staunton:14] Nonetheless, Liu et al. reported a large reversible caloric effect in a dual-stimulus magnetic-electric refrigeration cycle for a FeRh film grown epitaxially on BaTiO$_3$ [@liu:16].
The origin of the metamagnetic transition has been under vibrant debate for more than half a century. An early explanation was given using the exchange inversion model by Kittel, where the exchange parameters vary linearly with the lattice parameter and change their sign at some critical value, thus causing the transition [@kittel:60]. However, this model is incompatible with the large entropy change observed at the transition [@kouvel:66; @lommel:69; @mckinnon:70; @annaorazov:96]. Later, reasoned by the large differences in low temperature specific heats between the AF and FM phases, Tu et al.[@tu:69] argued that a change in entropy of band electrons is solely responsible for the transition, but this view fails to explain the transition in the case of admixture of 5% Ir to FeRh, where the relation of the specific heats becomes reversed [@kouvel:66; @ivarsson:71; @fogarassy:72].
In 2003, part of the present authors proposed an explanation for the transition based on the competition between AF Fe-Fe and FM Fe-Rh exchange interactions. Monte Carlo simulations of a Blume-Capel spin model suggested that longitudinal thermal fluctuations of the Rh magnetic moments in the FM phase give rise to a Schottky anomaly far below $T_{\rm M}$, which finally provides the entropic stabilization of the FM phase.[@gruner:03] Coupling the magnetic subsystem to lattice and volume degrees of freedom leads to a very good agreement with experiment in terms of the entropy change $\Delta S$ at $T_{\rm M}$ and the temperature dependence of the Gibbs free energy difference $\Delta G$. Recent state-of-the-art measurements of the specific heat $C_p$ in FeRh thin films with AF and FM magnetic order seem to support the presence of this Schottky anomaly.[@cooke:12] However, Cooke et al. separated the magnetic contribution from the other degrees of freedom in terms of a simple Debye model due to the lack of reliable lattice vibration data. Based on their analysis these authors proposed a strong competition between large magnetic and lattice contributions to $\Delta S$ with opposite sign.
In 2004, Mryasov showed that it is also possible to model the transition with a Heisenberg Hamiltonian including bi-quadratic exchange interactions.[@ju:04; @mryasov:04] In contrast to Ref. , the Rh moments were treated as induced by the magnetic moments of the surrounding Fe. Derlet introduced an empirical Landau-Heisenberg model with parameters fitted to existing ab-initio calculations. The paper concluded that a quadratic exchange term is needed to produce the transition and that both volume- and magnetic fluctuations are equally important [@derlet:12]. Barker and Chantrell extended Mryasovs model by fully expanding the quadratic spin interactions into four spin exchange terms, which were parameterized from experimental data.[@barker:15] Solving the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation using atomistic spin dynamics yields $T_{\rm M}$ in good agreement with experiment.
The DFT calculations of Sandratskii and Mavropoulos pointed out that in the AF phase hybridization between Fe and Rh states causes a local spin polarization of Rh, which averages to zero.[@sandratskii:11] Later on, Kudrnovský, Drchal, and Turek argued that the hybridization with surrounding Fe moments is the main reason for the development of magnetic moments on Rh atoms in the FM phase.[@kudrnovsky:15] The importance of hybridization effects in both, AF and FM speaks against a simple Stoner-like picture of an induced Rh moment and rather for the presence of metastable magnetic states of Rh.
Recent work also aimed at incorporating finite temperature changes to the electronic structure arising from magnetic excitations. Deàk and coworkers evaluated the magnetic and electronic contributions to $\Delta G$ in their relativistic disordered local moment (DLM) approach.[@deak:14] They were able to reproduce a transition from AF to FM, albeit at a rather large temperature and atomic volume. In a similar spirit Polesya et al. evaluated an extended Heisenberg Hamiltonian which only acts on the Fe atoms, where the FM exchange interaction is scaled according to a response function dependent on the Rh moments.[@polesya:16] With magnetic exchange parameters self-consistently obtained from uncompensated DLM calculations, which correspond to the average moment of the configuration, they obtain a very reasonable transition temperature of .
A completely different route was taken by Gu and Antropov, who derived the magnetic contributions to the free energy and $\Delta S$ from the magnon (spin wave) spectra calculated from first-principles.[@gu:05] In this approach, neither Stoner-type nor spin-flip-excitations are considered. From the comparison with experimental data, the authors concluded that the magnetic degrees of freedom provide the dominant contribution to the transition.
The relevance of a specific degree of freedom for the metamagnetic transition is reflected in its temperature dependent contribution to the specific heat $C_p$ and finally also to $\Delta S$ and $\Delta G$. A direct comparison of these calculated quantities with experimental data is thus inevitable to evaluate a specific model. This requires the detailed knowledge of all individual contributions to the Gibbs free energy difference between the AF and FM phase $\Delta G(T,p)$, which is usually divided into vibrational, magnetic and electronic degrees of freedom ($\Delta G=\Delta G^{\rm vib}+\Delta G^{\rm mag}+\Delta G^{\rm el}$). So far, respective computational data are only provided by Refs. . Experimental information on $C_p(T)$ is available from Refs. , while $\Delta G(T)$ was measured by Ponomarev.[@ponomarev:72]
This work aims at providing for the first time a comprehensive overview of the lattice dynamical contribution to the phase stability in FeRh, from both the computational as well as the experimental point of view. With the notable exception of a pioneering inelastic neutron spectroscopy study of the phonon dispersion along the \[111\] crystallographic direction in the AF state at room temperature [@castets:77], and the recent determination of the element-specific Debye-Waller-factor by X-ray spectroscopy [@wakisaka:15], no experimental study on lattice vibrations of B2 FeRh has been published to the best of our knowledge. Very recently, a computational study reported unstable lattice dynamics in the B2 AF structure in combination with a strain-induced softening of the shear elastic constant $C^{\prime}$.[@aschauer:16] However, thermodynamic properties associated with the lattice degrees of freedom are still not available, yet.
After an introduction to methodological details (Sec. \[sec:Method\]), we present in a thorough characterization of electronic structure and phonon dispersion relations (Sec. \[sec:structure\]). The latter imply an instability of the B2 AF phase towards a new monoclinic or orthorhombic low energy phase, which depends sensitively on the magnitude of the Fe moment. In Sec. \[sec:experiment\] we compare the vibrational density of states (VDOS) with results of $^{57}$Fe nuclear resonant inelastic X-ray scattering (NRIXS), which deliver the Fe-projected VDOS of B2-ordered AF and FM FeRh thin films. From the latter, we derive Fe-projected thermodynamic quantities. Finally in section \[sec:thermo\], we evaluate from first-principles the vibrational and electronical contributions $\Delta G^\mathrm{vib}(T)$ and $\Delta G^\mathrm{el}(T)$ to the metamagnetic transition and for the proposed new low temperature phase in the quasi-harmonic approximation. The calculated results are found to be in excellent agreement with available experimental data.
Methodological Details {#sec:Method}
======================
Electronic structure calculations {#sub:Comp}
---------------------------------
Spin polarized DFT computations have been performed employing the Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package *VASP* [@kresse1993; @kresse1994a; @kresse1996a; @kresse1996b] version 5.4.1, using the Projector Augmented-Wave (PAW) method [@bloechl1994; @kresse:98]. A dense $\Gamma$-centered k-mesh of $17\times17\times17$ points was used to sample the Brillouin zone of our 4 atom fcc-like unit cell. Meshes of equal or greater density were used for larger supercells. The plane wave energy cutoff was chosen to be , more than 160% (180%) of the standard value for the Fe (Rh) PAW potential (set of 2003) which treats the $3d$ and $4s$ ($4p$, $5s$, and $4d$) electrons as valence. With this k-mesh and energy cutoff total energies are converged to less than per formula unit. We employ different functionals to describe the effects of exchange and correlation, to study the functional dependence of our results. If not indicated otherwise the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof version of the generalized gradient correction (GGA) (PBE [@PBE]) has been used. In addition we used the revised Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (RPBE [@RPBE]), the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof revised for solids (PBEsol [@PBEsol]), and the Perdew-Wang 91 (PW91 [@PW91]) GGAs. Moreover the van der Waals corrected optB86b [@optB86b] and the local density approximation (LDA [@LDA]) functionals have been employed in parts of this work. To ensure accurate forces during relaxations and phonon calculations we use an additional superfine fast Fourier transform (FFT) grid for the evaluation of the augmentation charges and a smearing of according to Methfessel and Paxton [@methfessel:89] (first order). For total energy calculations the tetrahedron method with Blöchl corrections has been used [@bloechl:94]. In all total energy GGA calculations we explicitly account for non spherical contributions of the gradient corrections inside the PAW spheres. Phonon calculations were carried out in the harmonic approximation using both the small displacement method (usually ) and density functional perturbation theory (DFPT), using the *phonopy* [@togo:08] and *PHON* [@alfe:09] codes.
For the calculation of the thermodynamic contributions from the vibrational and electronic degrees of freedom in the quasiharmonic approximation we employ a similar but slightly different setup. We used valence states of $3p$, $3d$, and $4s$ for Fe and $4$, $4d$, and $5s$ for Rh with a plane wave cutoff $E_{\rm cut}=450$eV. We used a $3 \times 3 \times 3$ supercell and mostly single displacements of about to keep the numerical effort tractable. Forces were determined using a Monkhorst-Pack k-grid of $4 \times 4 \times 4$ (except for the orthorhombic $Pmm$2 structure, where, according to the larger primitive cell and the thoroughly stable phonon dispersion, we reduced the k-mesh to $2 \times 2 \times 2$) in combination with a finite temperature smearing according to Methfessel and Paxton[@methfessel:89] with a broadening of $\sigma=0.1$eV. For the calculations of the thermodynamic properties from the vibrational density of states, we could safely neglect the imaginary modes in the B2(AF) phase. These occur only at small lattice constants $a_0 \leq 3.02\,$Å and are present only in a very small fraction of the reciprocal space; even when imaginary modes were omitted, the integrated density of states deviates from unity by less than $0.1\,$%. Consequently, a comparison of the thermodynamic quantities with the results of computationally much more demanding calculations for fully relaxed configurations did not result in a notable difference. The thermodynamic quantities of the electronic subsystems were calculated in a similar fashion from a finely resolved electronic density of states, calculated for different volumina with a Monkhorst-Pack k-grid of $20 \times 20 \times 20$ and Brillouin zone intergration via the tetrahedron method with Blöchl corrections [@bloechl:94]. The finite temperature modelling of the electronic subsystem simply involved the folding of the density of states with the Fermi distribution function. The impact of finite temperature magnetic spin-flip or spin-wave excitations on the electronic structure, which was incorporated in the approach of Déak et al. [@deak:14] and Polesya et al. [@polesya:16], has not been taken into account here.
Samples and experimental procedures {#sub:exp}
-----------------------------------
Two FeRh thin-film samples (labeled FeRh02 and FeRh03, respectively) with different stoichiometries were grown by molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) via codeposition of $^{57}$Fe-metal and Rh in ultrahigh vacuum onto clean MgO(001) substrates held at 300$\,^{\circ}$C during deposition. The preselected deposition rates for $^{57}$Fe (enriched to 95% in the isotope $^{57}$Fe) and Rh were measured and controlled by several independent quartz-crystal oscillators. The FeRh film thickness was about 100 nm. After deposition, the films were in-situ annealed at 800$\,^{\circ}$C (sample FeRh02) or 700$\,^{\circ}$C (sample FeRh03) in order to promote the B2 order. The B2 structure and the epitaxial (001) growth were verified by ex-situ conventional $\Theta - 2 \Theta$ X-ray diffraction. The actual composition of the samples was inferred from energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The composition was found to be ($51.4 \pm 1.2$) at.% Fe for sample FeRh02 (i.e. Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$) and ($48.0 \pm 1.0$) at.% Fe for sample FeRh03 (i.e. Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$), as compared to the nominal composition (according to the quartz-crystal oscillators) of 51 at.% Fe and 48 at.% Fe, respectively. Structural details were studied by high resolution X-ray diffraction using a 4-circle diffractometer. This diffractometer allowed the determination of the out-of-plane ($c$) and in-plane ($a$) lattice parameters of the FeRh thin films by measuring asymmetric reflections, thus having an in- and out-of-plane component. We obtained a $\nicefrac{c}{a}$ ratio of 1.0114(7) for sample FeRh02 (Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$) and 1.0057(7) for sample FeRh03 (Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$), showing that the $\nicefrac{c}{a}$ ratio is slightly larger for sample Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$ than for sample Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$. Our room temperature (RT) $\nicefrac{c}{a}$ values are in good agreement with experimental $\nicefrac{c}{a}$ values of 1.016 for FM Fe$_{49}$Rh$_{51}$ and 1.008 for AF Fe$_{49}$Rh$_{51}$ epitaxial thin films on MgO(001) reported by Bordel et al. [@bordel:12]. The samples were further characterized by ex-situ $^{57}$Fe conversion-electron Mössbauer spectroscopy (CEMS) and vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM). These results showed that sample FeRh02 (Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$) is ferromagnetic (FM) from RT down to 5K, while sample FeRh03 (Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$) is antiferromagnetic (AF) up to , where it starts to transform upon heating to the FM state, the transition being completed at . Further details on sample preparation and characterization will be published elsewhere [@salamon:unpub]. Shortly () after sample preparation, the $^{57}$Fe NRIXS measurements were performed at , and at the undulator beamline 3-ID at the Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory. $^{57}$Fe NRIXS is selective to the $^{57}$Fe resonant isotope only and measures the phonon excitation probability, as described in Refs. . This provides the Fe-projected (partial) phonon (or vibrational) density of states (VDOS) rather directly with a minimum of modeling [@sturhahn:00]. A high resolution monochromator [@toellner:00] was used to produce x-ray with meV energy bandwidth for phonon studies. The monochromatized synchrotron radiation was incident onto the thin-film surface under a grazing angle of a few degrees. The synchrotron beam energy was scanned around the resonant energy of the $^{57}$Fe nucleus (14.413 keV) with an energy resolution $\Delta E$ of 1.3 meV and was focused onto the sample surface by a Kirkpatrick-Baez mirror. The average collection time per NRIXS spectrum was about . The evaluation of the NRIXS spectra and the extraction of the VDOS was performed using the PHOENIX software by W. Sturhahn [@sturhahn:00].
Harmonic lattice vibrations and structural stability {#sec:structure}
====================================================
Results {#sub:Results}
-------
In the ordered cubic B2 structure (CsCl prototype) FeRh exhibits two major magnetic configurations, AF coupling (between the $\lbrace111\rbrace$ planes) and FM coupling, which are close in energy and are visualized in Fig. \[fig:Cells\].
[0.4]{} ![Magnetic configurations of FeRh. Iron atoms are shown in gold, rhodium in silver. (a) B2(AF) (also called or ) configuration with the fcc-like unit cell shown. Fe atoms in the [111]{} lattice planes are alternating spin-up (red) and spin-down (blue). (b) B2(FM) state where also the Rh atoms possess a magnetic moment (blue, smaller than the iron moments which are shown in red).[]{data-label="fig:Cells"}](Figure_1a "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.4]{} ![Magnetic configurations of FeRh. Iron atoms are shown in gold, rhodium in silver. (a) B2(AF) (also called or ) configuration with the fcc-like unit cell shown. Fe atoms in the [111]{} lattice planes are alternating spin-up (red) and spin-down (blue). (b) B2(FM) state where also the Rh atoms possess a magnetic moment (blue, smaller than the iron moments which are shown in red).[]{data-label="fig:Cells"}](Figure_1b "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Initially calculations where carried out with the PBE GGA functional, and, in accordance with literature, the magnetic ground state for FeRh was found to be the AF configuration, where the Fe atoms are coupled ferromagnetically within the [111]{} planes with alternating alignment of the spins in adjacent planes. In this configuration the rhodium atoms do not carry a magnetic moment. The FM configuration is slightly higher in energy ( compared to AF) and has a larger equilibrium volume. Here, the rhodium atoms also possess a magnetic moment, which appears to be induced by the Fe atoms. Details can be found in table \[tab:Energies\].
-------- -------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
$\Delta E$ \[meV\] $a$ \[Å\] $V$ \[Å$^3$\] $m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Fe}$ \[$\mu_\mathrm{B}$\] $m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Rh}$ \[$\mu_\mathrm{B}$\]
B2(AF) 0 2.990 26.73 $\pm3.118$ 0
B2(FM) 70.8 3.007 27.20 3.177 1.058
-------- -------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
: Energy difference to the B2(AF) structure, lattice constants, cell volume, and local magnetic moments of the two studied magnetic configurations of FeRh. Energies and volumes are given per formula unit.[]{data-label="tab:Energies"}
Our ground state lattice constant of $a_\mathrm{AF}=\unit[2.990]{\AA}$ at is in good agreement with the experimental values ( [@shirane:64], [@makhlouf:94], and [@ibarra:94]) and previous calculations ( [@gu:05], [@jekal:15], and [@gruner:03; @aschauer:16]). The calculated lattice parameter for the FM structure at is, at $a_\mathrm{FM}=\unit[3.007]{\AA}$, also in good agreement with previous work ( [@gruner:03], [@jekal:15], and [@gu:05; @aschauer:16])
Earlier investigations reported that the B2(AF) phase is soft with respect to a tetragonal distortion corresponding to the martensitic Bain path from the body centered cubic (bcc) to the face centered cubic (fcc) structure [@uebayashi:06; @cherifi:14; @aschauer:16]. Investigating the Bain path and optimizing the volume of the cell at each step we confirm a second minimum at $\nicefrac{c}{a}=1.247$ (pure fcc: $\nicefrac{c}{a}=\sqrt{2}\simeq1.414$) after overcoming a barrier of only at $\nicefrac{c}{a}\simeq1.1$.[^1] Indeed, X-ray diffraction experiments found a transition to a mixture of body centered tetragonal (bct) and fcc under a small uniaxial pressure of and by admixture of Pt or Pd,[@miyajima:92; @yuasa:94; @yuasa:95; @uebayashi:07] and the careful analysis of the elastic behavior in Ref. reveals that the tetragonal shear constant $C^{\prime}$ exhibits a marked softening under compressive volumetric and epitaxial strain. A structural transition was also observed in thin films of disordered FeRh by Witte and coworkers.[@witte:16]
### Phonon calculations {#subsub:phonons}
To determine the phononic contribution to the magnetic phase transition described in section \[sec:Intro\] we calculated the phonon band structure for the two cubic magnetic phases, FM and AF. For better comparison we used the same primitive cell with fcc basis vectors sketched in Fig. \[fig:Cells\_a\] for both magnetic phases. Convergence of the stable branches with respect to the supercell size was achieved at $4\times4\times4$ multiplication of the 4 atom unit cell, which then contains 256 atoms (see Fig. \[fig:Phonons\]).
![Phonon band structures for B2 FeRh. Solid red (blue) lines are for $4\times4\times4$ supercells in the AF (FM) magnetic configuration. Light grey dashed-dotted lines are results from $2\times2\times2$, dark grey dashed lines are for $3\times3\times3$ AF supercells. Imaginary frequencies are plotted as negative.[]{data-label="fig:Phonons"}](Figure_2){width="\linewidth"}
While the B2(FM) dispersion is stable in the entire Brillouin zone, a region around the $X$ point of the B2(AF) phonon band structure shows imaginary (plotted as negative) frequencies for all cell sizes (see Fig. \[fig:Phonons\]). This indicates a dynamic instability of the crystal and suggests that displacing the ions according to the wave vector at $X$ would not result in a restoring force but lead to a lowering of the total energy. The wave vector at $X$, which points along the direction of one of the cubic axes, describes a (doubly degenerate) transverse optical phonon with a periodicity of $2a_\mathrm{AF}$. Comparing results for different supercell sizes shows that the instability does not depend on the cell size along the $\Gamma - X - W$ direction of the Brillouin zone, but spreads out along $X - U$ and $X - K$ with increasing cell size until also $U$ and $X$ are included in the imaginary pocket for the $4\times4\times4$ supercell.
Phonon calculations require very accurate forces and thus we repeated our volume optimization and phonon calculations with significantly higher plane wave cutoff () and k-mesh density (corresponding to a $24\times24\times24$ mesh for the unit cell). The phonon band structure obtained with these parameters showed no significant deviation from Fig. \[fig:Phonons\], ruling out insufficiently converged computational parameters as a source of the imaginary frequencies.
To investigate whether the instability depends on the applied functional (PBE) we performed additional calculations with other GGAs, first computing the equilibrium volume and then determining the phonon band structure for PBEsol, PW91, and RPBE. The relevant parts of these phonon band structures are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Phonons\_GGA\] and significant differences are revealed for the four tested GGA functionals.
[0.45]{} ![(a) Phonon band structures for B2(AF) FeRh calculated for different GGAs. All GGAs other than RPBE show dynamical instabilities. (b) Qualitative PBE phonon band structures for B2(AF) FeRh calculated for constrained magnetic moments. Increasing the magnetic moments on the Fe atoms from (green dash-dotted line) to (blue dashed line) gradually stabilizes the whole band structure. If dotted, dash-dotted or dashed lines appear solid, it is due to degenerate bands.[]{data-label="fig:Phonons_Constrained+GGA"}](Figure_3a "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} ![(a) Phonon band structures for B2(AF) FeRh calculated for different GGAs. All GGAs other than RPBE show dynamical instabilities. (b) Qualitative PBE phonon band structures for B2(AF) FeRh calculated for constrained magnetic moments. Increasing the magnetic moments on the Fe atoms from (green dash-dotted line) to (blue dashed line) gradually stabilizes the whole band structure. If dotted, dash-dotted or dashed lines appear solid, it is due to degenerate bands.[]{data-label="fig:Phonons_Constrained+GGA"}](Figure_3b "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Although the stable phonon branches (both acoustic and optical) are in good qualitative agreement, the phonon instability previously detected for PBE is not a universal feature. For PBEsol and PW91, the imaginary pocket around the $X$ point is significantly broader and deeper clearly encompassing also the $U$ and $K$ points, where the PBE bands remain nearly stable. On the other hand, the phonon band structure calculated with the RPBE functional is stable at all wave vectors although it also shows considerable softening of the transverse optical modes at the $X$, $K$, and $U$ points. To further analyze this unsatisfactory result we performed additional volume optimization and phonon calculations for the local density approximation (LDA) and the van der Waals corrected optB86b functionals, as well as a PBE phonon calculation at the higher volume predicted by the RPBE functional. Both the LDA and the optB86b calculations lead to a smaller volume and smaller magnetic moments than all GGAs and both lead to large imaginary pockets around $X$ encompassing also $U$ and $K$, while the PBE calculation at the higher volume (PBE\* in Tab. \[tab:Functionals\]) leads to an increased magnetic moment and has only a very small pocket at the $X$ point in the phonon band structure. The results of all calculations are given in table \[tab:Functionals\], sorted from top to bottom according to increasing magnetic moments. We see (also note Fig. \[fig:Phonons\_GGA\]) that an increase in magnetic moment is stabilizing the B2(AF) phase, as the imaginary pocket is reduced in size from PBEsol () and PW91 (), over PBE (), to PBE\* (), and finally vanishes for RPBE ().
Comparing the GGA results, the increased magnetic moment is correlated with an increased atomic volume. For instance, RPBE, at , predicts a significantly higher volume than PBE () and PW91 (). In turn, a calculation with PBE at an artificially higher volume (labeled PBE\* in Tab. \[tab:Functionals\]) also led to a nearly stable phonon band structure. To separate the influence of the magnetic moment and volume on the imaginary mode, we performed PBE phonon calculations with constrained magnetic moments using $2\times2\times2$ supercells at the equilibrium PBE volume of . Although we were not able to converge the constrained calculations to the same accuracy as our other phonon calculations, Fig. \[fig:Phonons\_Constrained\] indicates that the increase of the magnetic moments alone is sufficient to stabilize the cubic structure. This observation is in accordance with the results by Aschauer et al. [@aschauer:16], who find that the second minimum along the martensitic Bain path disappears if the local Fe moments are increased. In contrast to our work, however, they use a PBE+U approach to increase electron localization in the Fe $d$ orbitals and thus influence the magnetic moments, while we subtly change the hybridization of the orbitals by increasing the size of the magnetic moments directly.
--------------------- ----------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -- --
$a$ \[Å\] $V$ \[Å$^3$/f.u.\] $m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Fe}$ \[$\mu_\mathrm{B}$\] Instabilities at
LDA 2.915 24.77 $\pm2.835$ $X$, $U$, $K$
optB86b 2.965 26.07 $\pm3.036$ $X$, $U$, $K$
PBEsol 2.947 25.60 $\pm3.040$ $X$, $U$, $K$
PW91 2.992 26.78 $\pm3.095$ $X$, $U$, $K$
PBE 2.990 26.73 $\pm3.117$ $X$, $U$, $K$
PBE\* 3.014 27.39 $\pm3.152$ $X$
RPBE 3.014 27.39 $\pm3.183$
Exp. [@shirane:64] 2.986 26.63 $\pm3.3$ -
Exp. [@makhlouf:94] 2.993 26.81 - -
Exp. [@ibarra:94] 3.000 27.00 - -
--------------------- ----------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -- --
: \[tab:Functionals\] Comparison of lattice parameter $a$, cell volume $V$, local magnetic iron moments $m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Fe}$, and phonon stability for the calculation of FeRh in the cubic AF phase with different functionals. PBE\* is a PBE phonon calculation at higher (non-equilibrium) volume.
While it is interesting that quite small differences in the magnetic moments can lead to a stabilization of the cubic phase, it is certainly true that the size of the magnetic moments and the volume are interrelated effects and an increase of one of them leads to an increase in the other unless some degree of freedom is constrained. Indeed, if the PBE volume is increased to the magnetic moments converge to (PBE\* in Tab. \[tab:Functionals\]) and the unstable pocket at $X$ is considerably smaller than the one observed if the volume is not increased and only the magnetic moment is constrained to (see figure \[fig:Phonons\_Constrained\]).
### Analyzing the phonon instability {#subsub:instability}
We already mentioned that the instability at the $X$ point in the PBE phonon band structure (see Fig. \[fig:Phonons\]) is a doubly degenerate transverse optical phonon branch with the wave vector pointing along one of the cubic axes. Without loss of generality we chose the $c$ axis as direction of the wave vector. The direction of the ionic displacements resulting from this wave vector is shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\]. The angle of the ion displacements with the cubic axes of the cell is $\sim 17^\circ$ and the Rh atoms become displaced about 16% less than the Fe atoms. By stepwise displacing the atoms without allowing cell or atomic relaxations, we see a slight lowering of the total energy and a minimum at an amplitude of about (see Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\]).
![Frozen phonon calculation corresponding to the unstable phonon at wave vector $X$. Energy is referenced to zero displacements. The displacement is given only for the Fe atoms since it is not equivalent for Fe and Rh. The inset shows the cubic unit cell and direction of displacements of ions according to the dynamic instability at the $X$ point. Arrows indicate the direction of the displacement, Fe is shown in gold, Rh in silver.[]{data-label="fig:frozen_phonon"}](Figure_4){width="0.85\linewidth"}
While the total reduction in energy is only per formular unit, this minimum confirms the phonon calculations and can be used as a starting point for cell- and subsequent ionic relaxations. After carefully relaxing the whole system we arrive at a monoclinic structure ($P$2/$m$) with a total energy gain of per formular unit compared to B2(AF) (see Fig. \[fig:monoclinic\_cell\])[^2]. This is more than twice the energy gain reported for a tetragonally distorted structure with similar atomic displacements in Ref. .
[0.49]{} ![(a) Monoclincic unit cell of $P$2/$m$(AF) FeRh. (b) Side view of the same cell with $\lbrace 1 \overline{1} 0\rbrace$ planes drawn for both Fe (gold) and Rh (silver) atoms. Arrows indicate short ($d_s$) and long ($d_l$) distance between lattice planes.[]{data-label="fig:monoclinic_cell"}](Figure_5a "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) Monoclincic unit cell of $P$2/$m$(AF) FeRh. (b) Side view of the same cell with $\lbrace 1 \overline{1} 0\rbrace$ planes drawn for both Fe (gold) and Rh (silver) atoms. Arrows indicate short ($d_s$) and long ($d_l$) distance between lattice planes.[]{data-label="fig:monoclinic_cell"}](Figure_5b "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
The change in the angle $\gamma$ to $92.6^\circ$ is not particularly large, but the tetragonal distortion is severe, with $c$ compressed by 7.2% to and $a$ and $b$ enlarged by 2.8% to . The distortion of the lattice vectors leads to a reduction in volume by $\sim 2\%$. The magnetic moments on the Fe sites are also reduced by $\sim 9\%$ to for the $P$2/$m$(AF) phase compared to the B2(AF) structure. The Rh atoms still do not carry a local moment, a result that was carefully checked by turning all symmetry operations off. In Fig. \[fig:monoclinic\_cell\_planes\] the $\lbrace 1 \overline{1} 0\rbrace$ lattice planes are drawn to clarify in which way the ions are shifted compared to the cubic structure. If one compares Fig. \[fig:monoclinic\_cell\_planes\] with the cubic structure (inset of Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\]), it becomes clear that the $\lbrace 1 \overline{1} 0\rbrace$ lattice planes, which contain both Fe and Rh atoms in the cubic phase, contain only a single atomic species in the monoclinic phase. Now two closer spaced planes of Fe atoms are followed by two closer spaced planes of Rh atoms, and so forth. The distances between Fe planes (short: $d_s=\unit[1.65]{\AA}$; long: $d_l=\unit[2.79]{\AA}$; for Rh planes the situation is exactly the same), indicated by arrows in Fig.\[fig:monoclinic\_cell\_planes\], show the deviation from the cubic structure, where those lattice planes are equidistant with $d_0=\unit[2.11]{\AA}$.
Considering the density of states (DOS) for both crystal structures (see Fig. \[fig:DOS\]), we observe a significant increase of the AF DOS at the Fermi level from for the B2 case to for the $P$2/$m$ phase, although it is still smaller than the DOS at the Fermi level in the B2(FM) case (). The loss of symmetry is also clearly visible in the monoclinic DOS, which loses most of the distinct features displayed in the cubic phase and is essentially uniform in the valence band.
![Electronic DOS for the B2(FM), B2(AF) and $P$2/$m$(AF) phases of FeRh. Total DOS is plotted in black, Fe states are red and orange (depending on the nonequivalent Fe sites in the AF structure) and Rh states are blue.[]{data-label="fig:DOS"}](Figure_6){width="1\linewidth"}
We also investigated the stability of the monoclinic phase with respect to other functionals. To this end we optimized the volume of the monoclinic cell for all functionals in table \[tab:Functionals\] which show the dynamic instability, while fixing the cell shape and holding the ion positions at their PBE relaxed coordinates. The monoclinic phase is significantly favored in energy for all the functionals, with LDA showing the strongest decrease in energy and PBE the weakest (see Tab. \[tab:monoclinic\]). In all cases the volume and the magnetic moments are significantly reduced, with an average reduction of the volume by 2.2% and of the local iron moments by 10.9% for the 3 GGAs PBEsol, PBE, and PW91.
--------- ------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------
$\Delta E$ \[meV/f.u.\] $\Delta V$ \[%\] $\Delta m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Fe}$ \[%\]
LDA $-193.1$ $-3.4$ $-22.8$
PBEsol $-87.6$ $-2.5$ $-13.28$
optB86b $-82.3$ $-5.0$ $-13.6$
PW91 $-42.0$ $-2.1$ $-10.1$
PBE $-24.3$ $-1.9$ $-9.2$
--------- ------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------
: \[tab:monoclinic\] Energy gain $\Delta E$, volume change $\Delta V$, and Fe local magnetic moment change $\Delta m^\mathrm{loc}_\mathrm{Fe}$ of the $P$2/$m$(AF) structure compared to the B2(AF) phase for different functionals. Cell shape and ion positions have been relaxed with PBE, but volumes are optimized for each functional.
For RPBE, where the B2(AF) structure is stabilized because of the higher magnetic moments and the larger equilibrium volume, the $P$2/$m$(AF) phase is higher in energy by if only the volume is optimized according to the RPBE functional. If we also allow the ions and the cell shape to relax again with RPBE, we find that the monoclinic phase is almost equivalent in energy (favored by ) to the B2(AF) phase for this functional.
The comparison of the different exchange-correlation functionals proves that from the computational point-of-view, the preference for the $P$2/$m$(AF) ground state is a robust result. Indeed, a closely related relaxation pattern as shown in Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\] (missing the monoclinic distortion) has been found experimentally in ternary bct FeRh$_{0.38}$Pd$_{0.62}$.[@yuasa:95b] Experiments for binary B2 FeRh applying hydrostatic pressures of up to did not reveal any indications for a new phase at room temperature and above in pure FeRh.[@wayne:68; @vinokurova:76] Later experimental work [@kuncser:05] at higher pressures (10 to ) suggests a transition to a fct tetragonal structure with significantly reduced volume, which coexists with the B2 phase.
The fact that the monoclinic phase has not been found in experiments for pure FeRh until today, although it should be clearly distinguishable from the B2 phase given the large tetragonal distortion ($\nicefrac{c}{a}=0.9$), requires some discussion. An early measurement by neutron diffraction reports a Fe moment of [@shirane:64], which is clearly underestimated by all GGA-type exchange-correlation functionals. According to our constrained moment calculations (see Fig. \[fig:Phonons\_Constrained\]), enhancing the Fe moment to leads to a stable B2(AF) dispersion with standard GGA, even if the lattice constant is fixed at $a_\mathrm{AF}=\unit[2.990]{\AA}$ corresponding to the experimental value [@shirane:64; @makhlouf:94; @ibarra:94]. However, the GGA is usually known to overestimate magnetic moments [@asada:92; @hafner:02; @ruban:08; @mazin:08; @pulikkotil:12] (rather than to underestimate them) and increased magnetic moments would also destabilize the second fcc like minimum along the martensitic Bain path, which has been experimentally observed for FeRh under high velocity impact deformation or filing [@lommel:67; @miyajima:92; @aschauer:16]. Alternatively, the extremely shallow minimum associated with the unstable phonon (only energy gain in the cubic phase) may be simply smeared out by kinetic fluctuations at temperatures larger than . We also know from first principle calculations that a small number of antisite defects are enough to suppress AF order down to low temperatures [@staunton:14]. It is thus possible that defects and slightly off-stoichiometric compositions also suppress the monoclinic AF phase. Nevertheless, careful adaption of the $\nicefrac{c}{a}$ ratio or application of strain at low temperatures could still lead to a stabilization of the $P$2/$m$(AF) low energy phase with its significantly reduced volume and magnetic moments.
Electronic origin of the lattice instability {#sec:FermiSurface}
--------------------------------------------
![Fermi surface of B2-ordered AF FeRh in the extended Brillouin zone scheme. The different colors refer to different bands crossing the Fermi level. Clear nesting features are absent. The shape of the Fermi surface agrees well with previous reports.[@vinokurova:88; @szajek:94] []{data-label="fig:FS"}](Figure_7){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Taking into account the magnetic configuration, the FeRh lattice in the cubic AF state belongs to the same point group as the L2$_1$ Heusler alloys like Ni$_2$MnGa. These compounds similarly exhibit a soft acoustic phonon in \[110\] direction, albeit not at the zone boundary point $K$ or even $X$ [@uijttewaal:09]. The origin of the softening in Ni-Mn-based Heusler compounds is a Ni e$_u$-peak right below the Fermi level, which gives rise to extended plane nesting sheets in the Fermi surface connected by the same wave vector describing the soft phonon. As pointed out recently, disordered equiatomic bcc-FeRh under epitaxial strain undergoes a transition to an orthorhombic structure which shows signatures of a martensitic transformation, driven by a redistribution of electronic states away from the Fermi level in combination with the removal of parallel features visible in selected Fermi surface cross-sections [@witte:16]. In B2 FeRh, however, the Fermi surface of the AF phase, depicted in Fig. \[fig:FS\] is rather small, which reflects the low density of states at the Fermi level (cf. Fig. \[fig:DOS\]). It also does not exhibit obvious nesting features. Lowering the energy of the cubic structure according to the soft phonon mode following the path displayed in Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\] does not lead to notable changes in the DOS at the Fermi level. Instead, peaks at 1.9eV and 4.2eV below $E_{\rm_F}$, which arise from flat hybridized d-bands degenerate at $X$, $L$ and $\Gamma$, split up asymetrically according to the reduced symmetry. This reminds of a band-Jahn-Teller mechanism which is taking effect far below the Fermi level. The overall gain in energy is very small and it is impossible to clearly separate the competing contributions. But we may speculate that the strong hybridization of rhodium and iron states in both the AF and the FM phase, responsible for both the implicit splitting of Rh in the AF phase and the evolution of a net magnetic moment in the FM phase,[@sandratskii:11; @kudrnovsky:15] is also decisive for the structural stability of B2 FeRh. This could explain why rather different mechanisms such as increasing the local exchange splitting of Fe via constrained magnetic moments, or decreasing the band width by increasing the volume, or shifting the relative position of the elemental orbitals using the GGA+U approach, have the same consequence, i.e., stabilizing the B2(AF) phase.
An instable phonon can open a downhill relaxation path to a new ground state structure, as the monoclinic structure for ordered FeRh or the tetragonal L$1_0$ phase in the case of the Heusler systems [@niemann:12; @gruner:14]. In FeRh, the phonon instability is fragile and is connected to a much smaller energy gain compared to the Heusler alloys. Thus, in addition to the mechanisms discussed above, the relaxation path to the monoclinic ground state might easily be blocked by other perturbations as well, like a slight amount of chemical or magnetic disorder, or the presence of lattice defects. However, the phonon-induced modulations are no prerequisite for the existence of a (meta-)stable monoclinic minimum. This is directly seen from a comparison of the electronic density of states (see Fig. \[fig:DOS\]), which exhibits entirely unrelated features for the B2 and P2/m phases, as well as the existence of the minimum for the monoclinic phase for the RPBE functional which predicts stable phonons in B2(AF) structure. This suggests, that the new phase might be stabilized at low temperatures under carefully designed external conditions, such as a sufficiently large pressure, by epitaxial strain and/or band filling, which tunes the AF-FM transition as well.[@barua:13]
Nuclear resonant inelastic X-ray scattering in thin films {#sec:experiment}
=========================================================
![ Fe-projected (partial) VDOS of Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ (sample code FeRh03) measured by $^{57}$Fe NRIXS at (a) T = 59K (AF), (b) 305K (AF), and (c) 416K (FM). The approximate positions of peaks P$_1$, P$_2$, P$_3$ and of the shoulder P$_4$ are indicated by dashed vertical lines. Comparison of the VDOS in (a), (b) with (c) reveals distinct differences between the VDOS of the AF and FM state. []{data-label="fig:ExpVDOS"}](Figure_8){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Our most important experimental result is presented in Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]. It displays the Fe-projected (partial) VDOS, $g(E)$, of sample Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ (code FeRh03) measured at $T = 59$K, 305K and 416K, i.e., across the AF to FM phase transition. In Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\](a), the VDOS of Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ at 59K (when the sample is in the AF state) is characterized by three prominent phonon peaks: a pronounced sharp high-energy peak (P$_1$) at (31.0$\,\pm\,$0.2)meV, a less pronounced medium-energy peak (P$_2$) at (25.5$\,\pm\,$0.3)meV, and a very broad, weak low-energy peak (P$_3$) at (16.3$\,\pm\,$0.5) meV. Upon heating from 59K to 305K, where the sample is still in the AF state, the overall shape of the VDOS essentially remains the same (Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]b), however, we observe a slight red shift (about 1%, averaged over the spectrum) due to the effect of lattice thermal expansion. When the Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ sample is heated to 416K, the VDOS (Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]c) distinctly changes in two aspects: (i) the height of the high-energy VDOS peak P$_1$ is drastically reduced to the height of P$_2$ while its width increases; (ii) the broad (but weak) low-energy feature P$_3$, centered at $\sim$16 meV, becomes remarkably narrower. In fact, the largest relative change in the broad feature P$_3$ upon heating to 416K occurs at $\sim$10 meV, implying a reduction of an apparent shoulder (P$_4$) at (10.0$\,\pm\,$1.5) meV that exists at 305K and 59K, but not at 416K. Since $T = 416$K is above the transition temperature of $\sim$380K, the sample Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ is in the FM state. This transition is clearly seen in the differences between the VDOS in Figs. \[fig:ExpVDOS\](a,b) and Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\](c). Apparently, the phonon spectrum of B2-ordered FeRh depends on the type of magnetic ordering (AF or FM). Since the transition occurs isostructurally, the drastic magnetism-dependent modification of the VDOS observed in Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\] is an atomistic manifestation of strong magnetoelastic (or spin-phonon) interaction in the magnetocaloric FeRh compound. In this respect the FeRh alloy behaves similarly to the magnetocaloric ordered La(Fe,Si)$_{13}$ compound, for which also a distinct magnetic-order-dependent modification of the Fe-projected VDOS has been discovered by NRIXS [@gruner:15].
![ Experimental Fe-projected VDOS (red circles with error bars) of FM Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$ measured by NRIXS at 303K (a) and of AF Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ measured by NRIXS at 305K (b) compared with the element-resolved (orange for Fe, blue for Rh) and total (black) VDOS calculated from DFT at the respective experimental lattice constants (thick solid lines). This leads to slighly tetragonal cells ($c/a=1.009$ for FM and $c/a=1.005$ for AF according to the expitaxial strain), which we compare to cubic systems ($c/a=1.0$) calculated at the respective atomic volume (dashed lines). This reveals a significant shift of the low energy peak at on $c/a$. The lower panel (c) shows the total VDOS of the monoclinic $P$2/$m$ AF ground state (dash-dotted black line) together with the total and element resolved VDOS (thick black lines, same colors as above) for the orthorhombic $Pmm$2. Both structures yield very similar results which differ significantly from the measured VDOS in subfigures (a) and (b). All VDOS curves are specified in states per degree of freedom, meV and f.u. (formula unit or element) of stoichiometric FeRh. []{data-label="fig:ExpTheo"}](Figure_9){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]a we present the experimental Fe-projected (partial) VDOS of the FM sample Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$ (sample code FeRh02) obtained by NRIXS at 303K. For better comparison, in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]b we display again the experimental partial VDOS of the AF sample Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ at 305K, taken from Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]b. The VDOS of the FM and AF are clearly distinguishable. In fact, the features of the VDOS of the FM state, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]a, are remarkably similar to those of the FM state above the AF-to-FM transition, (Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]c), as described above. There is only a small red-shift ($\sim$2.2% averaged over the phonon spectrum) between the experimental FM VDOS in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]a (at 303K) and Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]c (at 416K) due to lattice thermal expansion, otherwise both VDOS have nearly the same shape. The peak positions of the FM VDOS at 63K are located at P$_1 = (31.4 \pm 0.2)\,$meV , P$_2 = (26.2 \pm 0.3)\,$meV and P$_3 = (16.6 \pm 0.5)\,$meV, and thus agree with the corresponding peak positions of the AF VDOS at low temperature (59K) (Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]a). Besides the difference in peak heights, P$_1$ and P$_2$ becomes broader in the FM state than in the AF state (Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]), the reverse is observed for P$_3$ and P$_4$.
It is important to compare the prominent features in our experimental Fe-projected VDOS of AF Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ with those of the \[111\] phonon dispersion obtained almost 40 years ago by inelastic neutron scattering on B2-ordered bulk FeRh at RT [@castets:77]. From the extrema (minima or maxima) observed in the \[111\] dispersion curve one would expect to find van-Hove-type anomalies in the corresponding VDOS. From the phonon dispersion in Fig. 3 of Ref. [@castets:77], we find a maximum at $\sim$31 meV and a minimum at $\sim$26 meV for the optical phonon modes, and a maximum at $\sim$24 meV and a minimum at $\sim$17 meV for the longitudinal acoustic phonon mode ( we used the conversion 1THz$\,=\,$4.132meV). The observed peak positions in the partial VDOS of our AF Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$ sample (Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]a) are 31.0meV (P$_1$), 25.5meV (P$_2$) and 16.3meV (P$_3$). A comparison shows that the latter peaks agree reasonably well with the position of extrema in the \[111\] phonon dispersion. This allows us to assign our peak P$_1$ and P$_2$ to the transverse and longitudinal optical mode, respectively, and P$_3$ to the longitudinal acoustic mode. The VDOS-shoulder at $\sim 10\,$meV has no counterpart in the \[111\] dispersion curve.
We find excellent agreement between the position of peaks in the experimental (NRIXS) VDOS and the positions of van Hove singularities expected from the phonon dispersion relations in Fig. \[fig:Phonons\] computed at the respective equilibrium volume. For the AF phase, we expect computed van Hove singularities at , , , and , as compared with our experimental Fe-projected VDOS peaks at (P$_4$), (P$_3$), (P$_2$), and (P$_1$). The agreement is remarkable in view of the fact that no adjustable parameters were employed. The same is valid for the FM phase: We expect computed van Hove singularities at , , and , in comparison with (P$_3$), (P$_2$), and (P$_1$) in the experiment. The remaining disagreement is remedied if the VDOS is compared to a calculation carried out at the experimental lattice parameters as shown in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]. This applies in particular to Peak P$_3$ in the B2(FM) phase, for which we obtain from Fig. \[fig:Phonons\] vs. $(16.6 \pm 0.5)\,$meV in the experiment. In the latter case, the epitaxial condition implies a slight tetragonal distortion. This indeed causes a significant shift (1.5meV) of P$_3$ to higher energies, which is seen by comparing the cubic FM VDOS (dashed yellow lines) to the tetragonal distorted one (solid yellow lines) at the same volume per atom (Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]a). From the qualitative difference between the experimental AF-VDOS in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]b and the calculated results for the predicted new AF ground state structures shown in Fig. \[fig:ExpTheo\]c, we infer that no significant fraction of P2/m and Pmm2 structures is present in the experimental samples down to at least 60K. This becomes evident from the deep minimum between P$_2$ and P$_3$ in the B2(AF) phase at 23meV, which is fully reproduced by the experiment, while the computational VDOS of the the monoclinic and orthorhombic structures is larger by one order of magnitude.
Recently, anomalous structural behavior across the metamagnetic transition of Fe$_{49}$Rh$_{51}$ thin films on MgO(001) has been observed by temperature-dependent extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) studies [@wakisaka:15]. The authors extracted the $T$-dependence of the EXAFS dynamical Debye-Waller factor (or mean-square relative atomic displacement $C_2 = \langle(r - \langle r \rangle)^2\rangle)$ of Fe-Rh, Fe-Fe and Rh-Rh from the Fe and Rh K-edge EXAFS signals. Anomalous thermal behavior near the AF to FM transition (including a thermal hysteresis) was observed in particular in $C_2$ for Fe-Fe and Rh-Rh, but less so for Rh-Fe and Fe-Rh. As NRIXS measures the $T$-dependence of the total Fe mean-square displacement, $\langle x^2 \rangle$, it is interesting to compare our NRIXS $\langle x^2 \rangle$ values with the EXAFS $C_2$ data in Fig. 5 of Ref. . We observe a tendency for our $\langle x^2 \rangle$ data to be slightly lower for the FM phase than for the AF state at corresponding temperatures. Compared to the EXAFS $C_2$ values (as plotted in Fig. 5 of Ref. ) our Fe $\langle x^2 \rangle$ NRIXS data are close to the $C_2$ values for Fe-Rh vibrations, but distinctly different to the $C_2$ values for Fe-Fe vibrations. This observation suggests that the dominant contribution to the NRIXS $\langle x^2 \rangle$ originates from nearest-neighbor Fe-Rh vibrational modes. On the other hand, the larger differences in the Fe-Fe and Rh-Rh Debye-Waller factors compared to the mixed case reported by EXAFS indicates that in the AF phase vibrations are enhanced in the planes formed by either Fe or Rh alone. This could be a manifestation of the soft mode at $X$ as described in Sec. \[sub:Results\], which is present in the AF but not in the FM phase (see also the inset of Fig. \[fig:frozen\_phonon\]).
From the experimental VDOS, g(E), we obtain the Fe-projected lattice entropy $S^{\rm vib}_{\rm Fe}(M_{\rm exp},V_{\rm exp})$ and lattice specific heat $C^{\rm vib}_{\rm Fe}(M_{\rm exp},V_{\rm exp})$ corresponding to constant volume $V_{\rm exp}$ and magnetization $M_{\rm exp}$ at the respective measurement temperature $T_{\rm exp}$ [@fultz:10]. The experimental difference $\Delta C^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe}) = C^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}({\rm Fe}) - C^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}({\rm Fe})$ between the FM and AF states in the measured temperature range is very small. Near 60K, the difference is found to be $\Delta C^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe}) = [0.701(2) - 0.645(2)]
\,k_{\rm B}$/${\rm Fe} = + 0.056(3)\,k_{\rm B}$/Fe, i.e., $C^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}({\rm Fe}) > C^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}({\rm Fe})$. At room temperature, we find $\Delta C^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe}) = [2.757(8) - 2.765(7)]\,k_{\rm B}$/${\rm Fe} = - 0.008(10)\,
k_{\rm B}/$Fe, being zero within error bars. Also the difference obtained from DFT, $\Delta C^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe})= - 0.003\,k_{\rm B}/$Fe, is very small.
Likewise, the difference $\Delta S^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe})=S^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}(\mathrm{Fe})-S^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}(\mathrm{Fe})$ between the FM and AF states in the measured temperature range is found to be small and changes sign. Near 60K we obtain $\Delta S^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe}) = [0.261(1) - 0.254(1)]\,k_{\rm B}/\mbox{Fe} = 0.0070(14)\,k_{\rm B}/\mbox{Fe}$, with $S^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}({\rm Fe}) > S^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}({\rm Fe})$. At RT, for example, we find that $\Delta S^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe}) = [3.345(9) - 3.410(8)]\,k_{\rm B}/\mbox{Fe} =
- 0.065(12)\,k_{\rm B}/$Fe, with $S^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}({\rm Fe}) < S^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}({\rm Fe})$, which is consistent with the increased mean square displacements in the AF phase observed by both NRIXS here and EXAFS in Ref. .
From our calculations, we obtain a somewhat larger absolute value of $\Delta S^{\rm vib}({\rm Fe})=-0.114\,k_{\rm B}/{\rm Fe}$ at RT. For the joint contribution of both elements to the entropy change our calculations yield $\Delta S^{\rm vib}=-0.210\,k_{\rm B}$/f.u., which increases significantly to $\Delta S^{\rm vib}=-0.058\,k_{\rm B}$/f.u., if we calculate it for the corresponding cubic systems at the same atomic volume.[^3] Since the VDOS of the AF phase remains essentially unchanged by the tetragonal distortion, this difference is predominantely caused by the shift of the peak P$_3$ in the FM phase. It is not advisable to compare these values directly with the total entropy change from bulk experiments, since the different composition of the films affect the lattice parameters and thus decrease the volume change at the phase transition, which, according to Grüneisen theory, has a considerable impact on the entropy change. We may, however, compare the entropy change with and without tetragonal distortion, since the volume of each phase is kept constant. From the values given above for $\Delta S^{\rm vib}$ we might expect an increase of the transition temperature by $\Delta T\approx T\,(\Delta S^{\rm tetra}-\Delta S^{\rm cubic})/C_p\approx 8\,$K from the impact of a tetragonal distortion of less than 1% on the vibrational entropy of the FM phase. Uniaxial strain conditions might also evolve in bulk systems from the large volumetric stress during the transformation. This possibly contributes to the rather large hysteresis associated with the metamagnetic transition. In turn, it has been shown recently, that multi-stimuli cycles[@liu:12] combining the magnetocaloric transition with biaxial compressive strain can effectively decrease hysteresis losses.[@liu:16]
Thermodynamic stability from quasiharmonic calculations {#sec:thermo}
=======================================================
To quantify the relevance of the lattice and electronic degrees of freedom for the thermodynamic stability of the B2(FM), the B2(AF), and the new hypothetical low temperature phase, we calculate the free energies from first-principles within the quasiharmonic approximation [@fultz:10; @hickel:12; @wang:13] and derived $V(T)$, $C_p(T)$ and $S(T)$, which can be directly compared with experiments. We approximate the monoclinic low temperature structure by an orthorhombic model (point group $Pmm$2). This saves significant computation time since the unit cell lacks the small monoclinic distortion, but still exhibits a stable phonon dispersion. It also has a closely related VDOS to the $P$2/$m$ ground state and is extremely close in energy ().
Minimization of the free energy $F=E-T\,S$ with respect to the volume $V$ at a given temperature $T$ yields the Gibbs free energy $G$ at zero pressure. Magnetic contributions to the Gibbs free energy are not included here. The corresponding thermal expansion arises from the volume dependence of the vibrational and electronic DOS. We obtain a similar temperature dependence in all three phases with a linear thermal expansion coefficient at room temperature of $1.3\times 10^{-5}$K$^{-1}$ for B2(AF) and $1.1\times 10^{-5}$K$^{-1}$ for B2(FM) and $Pmm$2, which corresponds reasonably well to the value of $0.95\times 10^{-5}$K$^{-1}$ obtained by Ibarra and Algabarel for the AF phase of FeRh [@ibarra:94]. The calculated volume change between B2(AF) and B2(FM) of 1.5% at $T=350\,$K slightly exceeds the experimental reports of around 1% [@zakharov:64; @levitin:66].
![Lattice and electronic specific heat $C_p$ at zero pressure for the B2(AF) (red), the B2(FM) (blue), and the orthorhombic $Pmm$2(AF) (green) FeRh structures. The plot shows the sum of electronic and lattice specific heat (thick solid lines) and the element-resolved contributions to the vibrational degrees of freedom (dashed lines for Rh and dash-dotted lines for Fe). The contributions from Rh are larger than from Fe. The excess in $C_p$ of the FM state at room temperature and above is entirely related to the electronic contribution (thin solid lines). Below $T=200\,$K there is also a notable contribution from the lattice degrees of freedom corresponding to Rh. The inset shows the crossover in $C_p^{\rm vib+el}$ of B2(AF) and B2(FM) at low temperatures.[]{data-label="fig:Cp"}](Figure_10){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Knowledge of $V(T)$ yields access to $S(T)$ and the specific heat at constant pressure $C^{\rm vib+el}_p=T\,(\partial S/\partial T)_p$ arising from the electronic and lattice degrees of freedom. This quantity is shown in Fig. \[fig:Cp\], further decomposed into the electronic and element specific vibrational contributions, $C^{\rm el}_p$ and $C^{\rm vib}_p$, respectively. We see, that from $T=40\,$K upwards the FM phase exhibits a significantly larger $C^{\rm vib+el}_p$ than the other two phases. Below $T=200\,$K this is caused by the larger lattice specific heat of Rh, $C^{\rm vib}_p($Rh$)$. Since the motion of the lighter element Fe is, as expected, represented by the higher phonon frequencies, we find $C^{\rm vib}_p($Fe$)<C^{\rm vib}_p($Rh$)$ for all $T$. The contribution of Fe is approximately the same for all three phases. Above room temperature, where the vibrational specific heat at constant $V$ approaches the Dulong-Petit limit, the difference between the phases in $C^{\rm vib+el}_p$ is dominated by the difference between the electronic contributions, which is largest for the FM phase according to the larger electronic DOS at $E_{\rm Fermi}$. This corroborates that the electronic degrees of freedom deliver an important contribution to the thermodynamic stability at elevated temperatures, as was suggested earlier based on experimental work[@tu:69] and confirmed later from DFT calculations [@szajek:92; @szajek:94; @gu:05; @deak:14; @polesya:16]. Below $T=40\,$K, the lattice specific heat of the B2(AF) phase exceeds the contribution of the B2(FM) phase (inset of Fig. \[fig:Cp\]). The inversion at low temperatures was predicted in the early phenomenological analysis of Ricodeau and Melville [@ricodeau:72] and later observed in the thin film experiments of Cooke and coworkers [@cooke:12]. Such a crossover can be inferred from the linear coefficient of the specific heat $\gamma$ which is significantly larger for the FM phase according to the larger electronic density of states (cf. Fig. \[fig:DOS\]). From a fit to our electronic entropy data below 100K, we obtain $\gamma_{\rm B2(AF)}=3.84\times10^{-5}\,k_{\rm B}{\rm K}^{-1}{\rm f.u.}^{-1}=2.01\,$mJkg$^{-1}$K$^{-2}$, $\gamma_{\rm B2(FM)}=1.17\times10^{-4}\,k_{\rm B}{\rm K}^{-1}{\rm f.u.}^{-1}=6.10\,$mJkg$^{-1}$K$^{-2}$ and $\gamma_{Pmm{\rm 2(AF)}}=8.36\times10^{-5}\,k_{\rm B}{\rm K}^{-1}{\rm f.u.}^{-1}=4.38\,$mJkg$^{-1}$K$^{-2}$, for the B2(AF), the B2(FM) and the $Pmm$2 configurations, respectively. These values are in good agreement with previous theoretical and experimental estimates [@tu:69; @ivarsson:71; @fogarassy:72; @cooke:12], but too small to account for the magnitude of the effect shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:Cp\], which we rather relate to the excitation of the low-lying soft phonon branches of the B2(AF) phase.
![ Electronic and element-resolved contributions from the lattice degrees of freedom to the entropy $S(T,p)$ at zero pressure for B2-FeRh (AF and FM) and the $Pmm$2 structure. Colors and line patterns correspond to Fig. . Around room temperature the sum of the lattice and electronic entropy $S^{\rm vib+el}$ of the FM phase exceeds the entropy of the AF B2-phase. This difference is mainly related to the electronic entropy $S^{\rm el}$ (thin solid lines, enlarged by a factor of 5) and the contribution from the lattice entropy associated with Rh (dahes lines), originating from the excess specific heat of the FM phase around 100K visible in Fig. \[fig:Cp\]. The inset diplays the low temperature behavior of the total and lattice entropy. The vibrational entropy of Fe nearly coincides for B2(AF) and B2(FM). []{data-label="fig:Entropy"}](Figure_11){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The larger $C^{\rm vib+el}_p$ of B2(FM) in a wide temperature range corresponds to a larger entropy $S^{\rm vib+el}$ for $T>70\,$K. Keeping in mind the discussion of $C_p$, this originates from the larger vibrational contribution of Rh in combination with the electronic entropy, which steadily increases with temperature. At low temperatures, $S^{\rm vib+el}$ is dominated by the low lying phononic modes in the B2(AF) phase and exceeds the entropy in the FM phase below 70K, as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:Entropy\].
At $T=350$K, which corresponds to the metamagnetic transition, we obtain a considerable difference in entropy of $\Delta S^{\rm vib+el}=S^{\rm vib+el}_{\rm B2(FM)}-S^{\rm vib+el}_{\rm B2(AF)}=0.268\,k_{\rm B}$/f.u.$\,=\,$11.7Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$, which is close to the experimentally reported values of the total entropy change obtained in field-, pressure- and temperature-induced transitions, ranging from 12Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ to 19Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ [@zakharov:64; @kouvel:66; @richardson:73; @ponomarev:72; @annaorazov:92; @stern-taulats:14; @chirkova:16]. Our $\Delta S^{\rm vib+el}$ is a sum of nearly equal parts of the electronic entropy and the lattice contribution of Rh. The vibrational degrees of freedom of Fe apparently do not contribute to the difference in entropy between B2(FM) and B2(AF) in the relevant temperature range. Their contribution might even be slightly negative, since the quasiharmonic calculations overestimate the volume change at the phase transition by 0.5%. Our computational results are thus not conflicting with our experimental measurements, which clearly show $S^{\rm vib}_{\rm AF}($Fe$)>S^{\rm vib}_{\rm FM}($Fe$)$ at RT, as this can be traced back to the tetragonal distortion of the films in combination with a smaller volume difference (cf. Sec. \[sec:experiment\]), which is about half of the reported value for bulk FeRh.
Comparing $\Delta S^{\rm vib+el}$ with the earlier theoretical estimates for $\Delta S^{\rm mag}$ ranging between 6Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$, 8Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ (Refs. and , from empirical spin-model calculations) and 14Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ (Ref. , from the magnon density of states), we conclude that lattice, electronic, and magnetic degrees of freedom contribute in roughly equal magnitude to the metamagnetic transition.
![Left axis: Contributions to the calculated Gibbs free energy difference $\Delta G^{\rm calc}$ of the orthorhombic $Pmm$2 structure (upper panel) and the cubic B2(FM) phase (lower panel) relative to the B2(AF) phase as a function of temperature. Thick lines refer to the quasiharmonic contribution $\Delta G^{\rm qha}$ according to Eq. (\[eq:fqha\]), thin solid lines to the electronic part $\Delta G^{\rm el}$ and dashed lines to the pure vibrational contribution $\Delta G^{\rm vib}$. The dotted line in the lower panel denotes the sum of $\Delta G^{\rm qha}$ and the estimate of the magnetic Gibbs free energy difference $\Delta G^{\rm mag}$ calculated by Gu and Antropov[@gu:05] from the magnon density of states. The open circles show the experimental Gibbs free energy differences $\Delta G^{\rm exp}$ and refer to the right axis. The scales of both axes are matched by an appropriate offset $\Delta G^{\rm exp}(0)-\Delta G^{\rm vib}(0)=7.97\,$meV/f.u. such that experimental and theoretical datasets may be directly compared. []{data-label="fig:Free"}](Figure_12){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The observation that the $Pmm$2 structure has the lowest specific heat for $T<250$K is reflected in a significantly lower entropy compared to the B2 phases in the entire temperature range (cf. Fig. \[fig:Entropy\]). In relation to the B2(AF) phase the $Pmm$2(AF) phase, at $T=350$K, has a rather large $\Delta S^{\rm vib+el}=-0.434\,k_{\rm B}/{\rm f.u.}=-22.7\,$Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$. Once again, this difference is dominated by the lattice contribution of Rh ($\Delta S^{\rm vib}($Rh$)=-0.313\,k_{\rm B}$).
Fig. \[fig:Free\] shows the different contributions to the Gibbs free energy difference of the $Pmm$2(AF) and B2(FM) phases with respect to the B2(AF) phase. In addition to the electronic and lattice part, we also show the quasiharmonic Gibbs free energy $G^{\rm qha}(T)$, which includes all contributions, except for the magnetic part which has not been calculated in this work and the DFT ground state total energy $E(V(0))$, which turns out to be particularly sensitive to methodological details: $$G^{\rm qha}(T) = G^{\rm vib}(T) + G^{\rm el}(T) + E(V(T)) - E(V(0))
\label{eq:fqha}$$ According to the large $\Delta S^{\rm vib}$, the difference in the lattice contributions $\Delta G^{\rm vib}(T)$ between $Pmm$2(AF) and B2(AF) is steeply increasing with temperature. Thus, the hypothetical low temperature structure is suppressed with respect to the B2(AF) phase by lattice entropy, providing a further reason for the absence of experimental indications for a new ground state, including our NRIXS $^{57}$Fe-VDOS in Fig. \[fig:ExpVDOS\]a.
Concerning the isostructural metamagnetic transition, we observe a clear preference for the FM phase, which at ambient conditions, still arises in large parts from the difference in the zero-point energies and the free energy of the electronic system. The magnitude of $\Delta G^{\rm el}$ at room temperature corresponds well to the estimate of Déak et al. [@deak:14], which takes into account the changes to the electronic structure around $E_{\rm Fermi}$ at finite temperatures through magnetic excitation in the framework of the disordered local moment (DLM) approach. Combining $\Delta G^{\rm qha}$ with the ground state energy difference $\Delta E^{\rm DFT}$ from Table \[tab:Energies\], this quantity turns out to be almost one order of magnitude too small to account for the experimental phase transition temperature. This mismatch does not disappear if we take into account the magnetic Gibbs free energy difference $\Delta G^{\rm mag}$ calculated by Gu and Antropov [@gu:05] from the magnon dispersion relations obtained with DFT calculations. Keeping in mind the good agreement of the magnitude of $\Delta S^{\rm vib+el}$ with the experimental entropy change, it is clear that the ground state energy differences between B2(AF) and B2(FM) from our semi-local DFT calculations, grossly overestimate the $T=0$ free energy difference between the two phases. This applies as well to the vast majority of DFT investigations although a recent comparison of the electronic density of states obtained from DFT calculations and HAXPES measurements[@gray:12] confirms a proper description of the electronic structure within the standard semi-local GGA used in our approach. [^4]
Also the early experiment of Ponomarev [@ponomarev:72] yields a much smaller estimate for the Gibbs free energy difference at $T=0$ of $\Delta G^{\rm exp}(0)=3.23\times 10^{-10}\,{\rm J/kg}=5.38\,$meV/f.u. for a Fe$_{0.96}$Rh$_{1.04}$ alloy, which was confirmed in its magnitude from the specific heat measurements of Cooke and coworkers [@cooke:12]. In contrast to $\Delta E^{\rm DFT}$, $\Delta G^{\rm exp}(0)$ already includes the zero point energies of the phonons of both phases as well as a possible zero point contribution of the antiferromagnetic magnons predicted from spin-wave theory [@yosida:96; @anderson:52; @kubo:52]. As pointed out recently by Polesya et al. by means of DLM calculations, the energy difference between the FM and AF structure depends decisively on the magnetic order and changes its sign when the magnetic order parameter drops below a critical value of 0.8 [@polesya:16]. On the other hand, in their thermodynamic analysis of magnetic and electronic free energies, which includes spin disorder but neglects lattice contributions, Déak et al. [@deak:14] did not encounter a transition for a volume below 30.08Å$^3$/f.u., which exceeds the experimental volume range.
The data points from Ref. coincide well with the sum of $\Delta G^{\rm qha}(T)$ and the magnetic contribution $\Delta G^{\rm mag}(T)$, as calculated by Gu and Antropov from the magnon density of states [@gu:05]. Combining $\Delta G^{\rm qha}(T)$ with $\Delta G^{\rm exp}(0)$ taken from Ref. , we obtain a transition temperature of $T_{\rm M}^{\rm qha}=410\,$K. From the sum $\Delta G^{\rm qha}(T)+\Delta G^{\rm mag}(T)$ a value of $T_{\rm M}^{\rm qha+mag}=300\,$K is found, which should be compared to $T_{\rm M}^{\rm exp}=331\,$K, as reported by Ponomarev. Keeping in mind that we neglect anharmonic contributions and cross-coupling between the magnetic, electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom, we can rate this an excellent agreement, which corroborates our present decomposition of the thermodynamic quantities.
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
With our combined ab-initio and experimental approach we provide a comprehensive survey on the lattice dynamical properties of the AF and FM phases of B2 ordered FeRh and their relation to the metamagnetic transition. Our experimental NRIXS investigation of the partial Fe VDOS in the FM and AF phase is the first of its kind for FeRh and allows an independent experimental assessment of the element-resolved vibrational contributions to specific heat and entropy. The comparison with the element-resolved VDOS obtained from first principles calculations yields a very good agreement for both phases. For the FM phase, the agreement is substantially improved with respect to a Rh-dominated peak around 15meV by considering the tiny tetragonal distortion of the thin film in the calculations. This reveals an unexpected strong sensitivity of the FM phonons on uniaxial strain, which is not present at all in the AF phase. Thus, strain conditions must be considered explicitly in the comparison of the thermodynamic properties of the bulk material and epitaxial thin films. In particular, a Debye model fitted to bulk elastic parameters as used in Ref. does not allow a sufficiently accurate decomposition of the specific heat and entropy change measured in thin films. The combination with ab-initio work as presented in this and other recent studies [@deak:14; @polesya:16; @zverev:16] could in turn lead to a precise estimate for the magnetic specific heat.
In the AF phase, we encounter soft phonon branches along \[110\] which become imaginary in a small fraction of reciprocal space around the $X$-point, which is in agreement with another recent investigation.[@aschauer:16] The instability acts as a precursor for a competing monoclinic AF structure with lower energy. A possible origin of this instability are symmetry related changes in the electronic structure, which however, are most prominent far below the Fermi energy. Accordingly, the Fermi surface of B2-ordered FeRh in the AF phase is comparably small and shows no signs of apparent nesting. This is in contrast to the case of L2$_1$ Heusler compounds like Ni$_2$MnGa, which are similar in structure and exhibit also a pronounced phonon instability along \[110\] as martensitic precursor.
For B2 FeRh the energy gain on the calculated barrier free transformation pathway is only , so even small thermal fluctuations may suppress the transition to the monoclinic phase, although the fully distorted structure would be clearly favored in energy compared to the B2 phase. This could explain why we do not find any trace of the new phase down to a temperature of $59\,$K in our NRIXS VDOS measurements. This is in accordance with our first-principles estimate of the vibrational and electronic Gibbs free energy in the quasiharmonic approximation, which also suggests a strong entropic suppression of the new phase with increasing temperature.
On the other hand, the FM B2 structure is favored by lattice and electronic entropy. Together with the magnetic free energy calculated from the magnon dispersion relations taken from Ref. we obtain an excellent agreement with the early measurement of Ponomarev,[@ponomarev:72] which is up to now the only experimental benchmark for the free energy. From the close agreement between theory and experiment for specific heat, entropy and Gibbs free energy, we conclude that our decomposition provides a realistic estimate of the impact of the different degrees of freedom on the metamagnetic transition: We propose a cooperative and essentially equal contribution of the magnetic and the combined electronic and vibrational contributions of the Rh-atoms, whereas the lattice contribution associated with Fe is small. The availability of detailed information on the thermodynamic contributions of the lattice and the electrons opens a new route to benchmark the different magnetic models and — once specific heat, entropy, and free energy data are made available — may settle the long-standing dispute about the origin of the metamagnetic transition.
The authors would like to thank Sergii Khmelevskyi, Martijn Marsman and Sebastian Fähler for fruitful discussions. We would also like to thank Ulrich von Hörsten (Duisburg-Essen) for his outstanding technical assistence. W. Keune is grateful to S. D. Bader (Argonne) for enlightening discussions. M. Wolloch, P. Mohn, J. Redinger, and D. Suess acknowledge the support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) \[SFB ViCoM F4109-N28 and F4112-N28\]. M. E. Gruner, O. Gutfleisch, P. Entel and H. Wende acknowledge the support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the priority program SPP 1599. This work was supported by the DFG SPP 1681 (WE2623/7-1), FOR 1509 (WE2623/13-2) and by Stiftung Mercator (MERCUR). The authors also appreciate the ample support of computer resources by the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC) and the use of the Cray XT6/m supercomputer of Center for Computational Sciences and Simulation (CCSS) at University of Duisburg-Essen. This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. Figs. \[fig:Cells\], \[fig:frozen\_phonon\], and \[fig:monoclinic\_cell\] in this paper were created with help of the VESTA code [@vesta:11]. The FINDSYM utility of the ISOTROPY Software Suite [@findsym:05] was used for structure identification.
[126]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.131.183) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.134.A1547) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.18), [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.04.002) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/49/i=32/a=323002) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2010.90) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, (), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3681297](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3681297) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1571232) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat2024) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nmat3870) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4862467) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat3861) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1347-4065/54/i=7/a=073002) [****, (), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4931567](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4931567) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.117201) [****, (), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4953464](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4953464) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0011-2275(92)90352-B) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.matsci.30.1.387), [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3727/41/i=19/a=192004) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nmat3334) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.11.054) [****, (), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4949355](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4949355) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.89.214105) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.89.054427) [**** ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11614), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.120.335) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1708424) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1658300) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3719/3/i=1S/a=306) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.360955) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1657670) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(71)90128-9) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.288) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.064415) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.255901) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.197403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/01411590412331316591) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.174431) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.094402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.174408) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.014435) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.89.224401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.024423) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.012403) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(73)90071-6) [****, ()](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/e/index/e/36/1/p105?a=list), [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4363(77)90344-8) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.184408) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.014109) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.7413) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.79.155107) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.16533) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.195131) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.23.5048) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.40.3616) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.16223) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.03.010) @noop @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1023/A:1012681503686) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1023/A:1012621317798) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(94)90355-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4196) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.92.064410) [****, ()](\doibase 10.2320/matertrans.47.456) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(92)91652-A) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/JPSJ.63.3129), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1143/JPSJ.64.4906) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.10.238) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.104416) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.170.523) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.2220780136) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2004.04.139) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.13599) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.184432) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/71/i=4/a=046501) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.78.085104) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/24/i=9/a=096003) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1709570) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1051/jphyscol:1988836) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-4526(94)90055-8) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.035702) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/adem.201200058) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.201350397) [****, (), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4820583](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4820583) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.057202) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.05.002) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/24/i=5/a=053202) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.88.104107) @noop [****, ()]{}, @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(92)90049-T) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4608/2/i=2/a=024) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.257208) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.446) [**** (), 10.3379/msjmag.1605L011](\doibase
10.3379/msjmag.1605L011) @noop [**]{}, , Vol. (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.86.694) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.87.568) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1107/S0021889811038970) @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: In contrast to Ref. we find this distorted structure to be slightly lower in energy by than the bcc phase using the PBE functional. This result did not change after increasing the plane wave cutoff to as used in Ref. . For the pure fcc phase the energy is higher than bcc by at zero pressure.
[^2]: It is to be noted that the energy landscape of FeRh is rather flat with respect to these atomic displacements and lattice distortions, thus finding the minimum for the monoclinc phase proved to be a rather difficult endeavor, requiring a lot of different relaxation steps and combination of algorithms.
[^3]: The unit $k_{\rm B}$/Fe multiplied by the factor 8.480 (for Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$, 95% enriched in $^{57}$Fe) yields the unit JK$^{-1}$(mole Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$)$^{-1}$. The unit $k_{\rm B}$/Fe multiplied by the factor 7.982 (for Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$, 95% enriched in $^{57}$Fe) yields the unit JK$^{-1}$(mole Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$)$^{-1}$. The unit $k_{\rm B}$/Fe multiplied by the factor 53.356 (for Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$, 95% enriched in $^{57}$Fe) yields the unit JK$^{-1}$kg$^{-1}$, and the unit $k_{\rm B}$/Fe multiplied or by the factor 49.369 (for Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$, 95% enriched in $^{57}$Fe) yields the unit JK$^{-1}$kg$^{-1}$. 1mol of $^{57}$Fe-enriched Fe$_{51}$Rh$_{49}$ (Fe$_{48}$Rh$_{52}$) corresponds to 158.93g (161.69g). For comparison, the conversion factor between $k_{\rm B}$/f.u. (1f.u.=2 atoms) or $k_{\rm B}$/element and JK$^{-1}$kg$^{-1}$ of natural stoichiometric FeRh amounts to 52.371.
[^4]: However, we note that there exist a few exceptions reporting a significantly smaller energy difference, as the aforementioned work of Gu and Antropov,[@gu:05] which is based on the the less common Langreth-Mehl functional[@langreth:81] and likewise a recent GGA+U approach[@takahashi:16] accounting for additional correlation on Fe-d-sites.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present multi-frequency multi-epoch Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations of J11584+2450. These observations clearly show this source, previously classified as a core-jet, to be a compact symmetric object (CSO). Comparisons between these new data and data taken over the last 9 years shows the edge brightened hot spots retreating towards the core (and slightly to the west) at approximately 0.3c. Whether this motion is strictly apparent or actually physical in nature is discussed, as well as possible explanations, and what implications a physical contraction of J11584+2450 would have for current CSO models.'
author:
- 'S. E. Tremblay, G. B. Taylor, J. F. Helmboldt, C. D. Fassnacht, and T. J. Pearson'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
nocite:
- '[@1998AJ....115.1693C]'
- '[@2007ApJS..172..634A]'
- '[@1999ASPC..180..301F]'
- '[@2005MNRAS.359.1007H]'
- '[@2000MNRAS.311..649S]'
title: |
\
\
A shrinking Compact Symmetric Object: J11584+2450?
---
Introduction
============
Compact symmetric objects (CSOs) are now a well established class of radio sources loosely defined as sources with emission on both sides of the core (which itself is not always detected) on a size scale of 1 kpc or less [@1994ApJ...432L..87W]. The generally accepted explanation for the small size of these objects is that they are young radio sources which could grow into larger FR II objects [@1996ApJ...460..612R; @1998PASP..110..493O]. Alternately, it has been proposed that the small size of these structures is due to their growth being frustrated by a dense environment [@1984AJ.....89....5V; @1998PASP..110..493O].
Due to their rapid growth, age estimates for the emission from these objects can be obtained kinematically yielding ages ranging from tens to thousands of years. Less accurate spectroscopic models place CSOs at a few thousands of years old. This generally supports the theory that these are young AGN in the early stages of evolution. However, since the age distribution of currently known CSOs is heavily weighted on the younger side [@2005ApJ...622..136G], this indicates the evolution might not be straightforward. This distribution should not be taken as definitive though, since Gugliucci et al. concede it may be influenced by selection effects. One theory suggests CSOs could be generally short-lived objects with only a small fraction of them surviving to become larger-scale objects while the remaining galaxies become permanently radio quiet . In a competing theory there exists a cyclic process where unsuccessful CSOs have multiple opportunities to grow into larger objects [@1997AJ....113..148O]. Alternatively, the current distribution could be an artifact of the small statistical sample from which it is derived combined with selection effects.
The picture presented in the above models might be overly simplistic. For example, all of these models predict continuous radial expansion of the lobes, but CSOs such as 1031+567 [@2000ApJ...541..112T] have been observed with non-radial motion. Here we present observations of J11584+2450 (PKS 1155+251, SDSS J115825.79+245018.0), a galaxy with a redshift of $0.20160 \pm 0.00040$ [@2002AJ....124..662Z] that appears to be contracting towards its core on both sides.
Throughout this discussion, we assume H$_{0}$=73 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m$ = 0.27, $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.73, so 1 mas = 3.213 pc.
Observations and Data Reduction {#observations}
===============================
Multi-frequency observations of J11584+2450 were performed on September 19, 2006 with the VLBA. A summary of these and other observations referred to in this paper is presented in Table \[Observations\]. These observations consisted of four 8 MHz wide IFs in the C, X and U bands with full polarization centered at: 4605.5 , 4675.5, 4990.5, 5091.5, 8106.0, 8176.0, 8491.0, 8590.0, 14902.5, 14910.5, 15356.5 and 15364.5 MHz at an aggregate bit rate of 256 Mbps to maximize (u,v) coverage and sensitivity. When the data in each band were combined, the three central frequencies were: 4844.7, 8344.7, and 15137.5 MHz. The integrations were performed in blocks ($\sim$2 minutes for 5 and 8 GHz, $\sim$7.5 minutes for 15 GHz) and these blocks were spread out over a 9.5 hour period to maximize (u,v) coverage of the source.
Most of the calibration and initial imaging of the new data were carried out by automated AIPS [@2003ASSL..285..109G] and DIFMAP [@1997ASPC..125...77S] scripts similar to those used in reducing the VIPS 5 GHz survey data [@2007ApJ...658..203H; @2005ApJS..159...27T]. To summarize, flagging of bad data and calibration were performed using the VLBA data calibration pipeline [@2005ASPC..340..613S], while imaging was performed using DIFMAP scripts described in @2005ApJS..159...27T. Final imaging was performed manually using the DIFMAP program, with beam sizes of $1.906\times3.16$ in position angle -6.89$^\circ$, $1.195\times1.788$ in position angle -3.58$^\circ$ and $0.6876\times0.9794$ in position angle -2.717$^\circ$ for 5, 8 and 15 GHz respectively.
Results
=======
Images
------
@2004ApJ...609..539K observed J11584+2450 (B1155+251) as part of the VLBA 2cm Survey. Since these observations were only at 15 GHz, they typically identified the brightest component in an image to be the core, and consequently classified this source as a core-jet with the core being the southern, bright component.
Figure \[VLBA\] shows the 5, 8, and 15 GHz VLBA images made from the September 2006 observations of J11584+2450. The 15 GHz map shows the clearest structure so is used to label components of the source. The 15 GHz image shows a compact unresolved component (C) with resolved emission both to the north (N1) and the south (S1). The southern emission then seems to have another component that expands out towards the west (W2). There also exists some weak emission on the western edge of the image (W1; with a peak flux density of 0.55 mJy/beam). S1 is the brightest component in the image (52.3 mJy/beam peak), and is what was previously identified as the core. In the 8 GHz image the edges of C, N1, S1, and W2 become indistinguishable, but these components can still be identified by local peaks within the image. Interestingly, an eastern spur develops from the southern edge of N1, extending in the opposite direction from the majority of the diffuse emission. Overall the emission appears more extended, and W1 has a more significant detection. The 5 GHz map further smears the interior components together until only N1 and S1 are clearly visible as local maxima of the map. The spur mentioned above becomes brighter, and the western emission stretches out farther towards a very well detected W1 (3.83 mJy/beam peak flux density) . There is emission from the eastern spur towards the south in this image (hereafter referred to as the 5 GHz southeastern clump), which has an integrated flux density of 3.78 mJy.
The geometry between N1, C, and S1 was measured using the 2006 15 GHz data, since those components are most distinguishable. The axial ratio $N1/S1=1.59$, and the angle subtended between the arms, N1-C-S1, is 166.9$^\circ$.
We used the VLA in the D-Configuration to investigate what appeared to be an extension of the western emission to kilo-parsec scale from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS; Condon et al. 1998), but found no indication of any western emission from J11584+2450 (Fig. \[VLA\]) and the previous extension to be a result of the higher RMS (0.45 mJy/beam) of the NVSS compared to our image with RMS = 0.085 mJy/beam.
Additionally, we acquired a visual image (Fig. \[SDSS\]) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 5 (SDSS DR5; Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2007 ). This shows the source to have a galaxy 4 arcseconds to the south east, which is uncatalogued outside of the SDSS. Two different algorithms have been used to determine a mulit-color photometric redshift for this object from the SDSS image. The first algorithm utilized the template fitting method and yields $z=0.0008\pm0.0226$ [@2003AJ....125..580C] , while the second algorithm used a Neural Network method and yields $z=0.065\pm0.123$ [@2007arXiv0708.0030O], placing an upper limit of $z~0.19$ which is comparable to J11584+2450’s redshift.
Spectral Index Distribution {#spectral_index}
---------------------------
The 2006 VLBA images at 8 and 15 GHz were matched in resolution in order to obtain a spectral index distribution across the source that was overlaid onto a 5 GHz image to show overall source structure (Figure \[SpIndex\]). This distribution clearly shows a compact flat-spectrum component ($\alpha \approx - 0.276$, where $F_\nu \propto \nu ^ \alpha$ ) situated between two steeper spectrum lobes ($\alpha \approx -1.03$). More steep spectrum emission is found to the west of these lobes ($\alpha \approx -$1.36 to $-$1.54), where it then fades below the detection threshold at high frequencies. Looking at the 5 GHz southeastern clump and using its peak, the spectral index would have to be steeper than $-$4.35 for the emission to fall below the RMS of the 8 GHz image. Alternatively, the absence of this feature could be due to having fewer short spacings at 8 GHz, or it could merely be an imaging artifact at 5 GHz.
Discussion
==========
Reclassification of J11584+2450
-------------------------------
The compact flat spectrum component seen in Figure \[SpIndex\] is compatible with emission from the nucleus, or core, of a galaxy [@1984RvMP...56..255B]. The steeper spectrum components extending north and south from the core are accordant with the spectral signature of jets or hot spots. This overall structure is clearly consistent with J11584+2450 being a CSO.
Component Motions {#component_motions}
-----------------
To characterize intrinsic motions within the source, a multi-component elliptical gaussian model was made of the 1999 data and then applied to the 1995, 2001 and 2006 15 GHz data varying the flux and position parameters of each gaussian component (Table \[U\_Gaussian\]). The extended dual-lobed structure in the 1995 data (but notably missing from the 1999, 2001 and 2006 images) of what is now considered the core was modeled using a single component, since it is likely this extension is only an artifact.
Each of the four IFs of the 2006 data were then individually modelled and and compared to each other to determine the systematic error ($\sigma_{sys}$) associated with modelling each component. The total position error ($\sigma_{tot}$) was then calculated for individual components using $\sigma_{tot}^2=\sigma_{stat}^2+\sigma_{sys}^2$, where $\sigma_{stat}$ is the expected statistical error associated with modeling gaussian components in two dimensional polar coordinates (Table \[U\_IFs\]) (adapted from 1-dimension case per Fomalont 1999). Since all model positions are referenced to C, $\sigma_{sys}$ for the core is accounted for by the other component uncertainties. Since the calibrated data sets from the VLBA 2cm Survery are each averaged to one frequency, the $\sigma_{sys}$ attained from the 2006 data was applied to them as well. Similarly, a multi-component gaussian model was made of the 2000 data and then applied to the 2006 8 GHz data varying the flux and position parameters of each gaussian component (Table \[X\_Gaussian\]). $\sigma_{sys}$ values were obtained for each component using the four IFs as above in the 2006 data, and using the four IFs closest to those same frequencies in the 2000 data (Table \[X\_IFs\]).
These models were used to calculate component velocities relative to the core for each band, which are plotted in Fig. \[motions\] with the tail of each vector located at the earliest data position in the band. The components representing the hot spots at the working surface of the jets which were modeled (N1 and S1) appear to have contracted towards the core as well as traveled westward, and this motion is consistent between the two bands. Additionally, the W2 component moves towards the northwest in both bands. Performing a least-squares fit to solve for the velocities in each band separately, and then using these independent values to reduce the error yields a radial contraction velocity (normalized to the speed of light) of $0.42 \pm 0.03$ c for S1 and $0.20 \pm 0.07$ c for N1. Overlaying the contour maps of different epochs (see Fig. \[U9506O\] for one example) is also supportive of contraction, since the 1995 contours are interior to the 2006 contours suggesting that the component motion is not an artifact of the modeling.
This motion was not detected by the VLBA 2 cm Survey over the six year interval between 1995 and 2001 since the velocities involved ($\sim0.03$ mas/year) are well within most of their stated velocity errors for this source [@2004ApJ...609..539K]. The total flux density of the source has been decreasing steadily since at least 1995, the models show that this drop can be attributed to S1 decreasing steadily (40% decrease at 15 GHz over this 11 year period), while the other components exhibit small fluctuations.
Apparent Motion Interpretation
------------------------------
Since actual contraction of the source towards the core is something that has not been previously observed, we first examine reasons behind an effect that would merely cause apparent motion in the system. One possible explanation for seeing the contraction of this source is that if hotspots are advancing out away from the core and expanding and younger hotspots are brightening due to interactions at the end of the jet, then the models might not be fit to the same components. The largest problems with this hypothesis are its lack of explanation of both the western emission and the western component to the hotspot velocities, which means these properties require a separate unrelated explanation if the contraction is to be explained by hot spot dimming and advance.
Physical Motion Interpretations
-------------------------------
Leaving open the possibility that the data represent physical motions in the system, we include discussion along those lines. One interpretation is that we are viewing a projection effect caused by rotation of the source. While solid body rotation is an unphysical scenario, it gives us an idea about what fluid rotation would look like for this system so we consider it as a first approximation of rotational motion. The angular velocity of the rotation is dependent upon the initial orientation. Assuming the axis of rotation lies in the plane of the sky, and the inclination angle is less than 45$^\circ$ since larger values would yield Doppler boosting, the jets would have a rotational period between just 260 and 1880 years.
Since the system is a fluid and not a rigid body it would actually have differential rotation. The core would therefore be spinning even faster than the observed jet components and we would expect the core to appear highly variable since the base of the jet would frequently be pointed towards us. A second physical interpretation of the motion is precession. The westward component to the velocities of both jets strongly argues against precession. If the jets were precessing and thus appearing shorter, they would move in opposite directions (i.e. one moves east while the other moves west) as well as inward. Additionally, these hypotheses fail to explain the older western emission.
Another physical elucidation of the motion is that there exists some reason for the pressure of the environment to increase, then this could leave the jets under-pressured and lead to contraction of J11584+2450. Such a pressure change could result from a relative motion between a clumpy environment and the CSO. The 1.59 $N1/S1$ axial ratio is also indicative of the jets encountering a dense environment. If the departure of the ratio from 1 was due to Doppler boosting then the brighter hotspot would be further from the core (S1 in the case of J11584+2450). This would yield a ratio smaller than 1, therefore the ratio is likely due to the jet running into difficulty as it tunnels through the environment causing it to be both shorter and brighter. Both the angle N1-C-S1 and the western deviation of the emission is consistent with the source moving eastward and being influenced by ram pressure similar to what has been observed in wide-angle tailed radio sources (e.g. 3C465, Hardcastle et al. 2005; Sakelliou & Merrifield 2000), but on a smaller spacial scale. Relative motion could exist between J11584+2450 and its host galaxy causing the interstellar medium to produce ram pressure against the radio jet. If the companion galaxy to the south east (Fig. \[SDSS\]) is at a similar redshift and these two galaxies are members of a cluster then J11584+2450 might be moving towards the center of the gravitational potential. However, this is highly speculative and more observations are needed to determine the cluster environment.
Conclusions
===========
After analyzing multifrequency (5, 8, and 15 GHz) VLBA data from radio source J11584+2450 we reclassify it as a CSO. Fitting the data with multi-component gaussian models and overlaying images of different epochs on each other not only show that this source is not growing at the usual rate of $\sim$ 0.1 to 0.3 c, but each jet is apparently shrinking in size at $\sim$ 0.3 c and each is additionally moving westward at $\sim$ 0.2 c. Confirmation of other CSOs having either recessive behavior or non-radial motion like 1031+567 [@2000ApJ...541..112T] would mean the current models need to be modified to allow for possible non-linear growth periods during the evolution of AGN. The prospect of non-linear growth for CSOs would further bring in to question the validity of kinematic ages. @2005ApJ...622..136G found 7 out of the 13 CSO they dated to be under 500 yr old and commented that the expectation for a steady-state population of CSOs would have a uniform distribution of ages. While this is a small statistical sample it is also what one would expect to see if CSOs spend a greater fraction of time as small sources. However, in kinematic observations of $\sim$ 10 CSOs we have seen contraction in just 1 source.
Future VLBA observations of this source are planned to follow the motion of the components and to see whether they continue to recede towards the core, and what time-scale this occurs over. Lower frequency (1.4 GHz) observations should be carried out to confirm the existence of the 5 GHz southeastern clump. If the emission from both jets is actually flowing towards the west, lower frequency observations might also show W1 merging with the diffuse western emission, and could reveal larger scale structures.
We thank an anonymous referee for constructive suggestions. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
[*Facilities:*]{} ,
[lccccccc]{}
1.3649 & 2007 Mar 08 & 24.7 & 100 & 4 & 2 & 1073.7 & 0.1\
4.8447 & 2006 Sep 19 & 24.9 & 32 &4 & 4 & 193.38 & 0.11\
8.3447 & 2006 Sep 19 & 26.9 & 32 & 4 & 4 & 118.38 & 0.17\
8.3541 & 2000 May 06 & 20.6 & 64 & 1 & 8 & 133.1 & 0.2\
15.138 & 2006 Sep 19 & 90.8 & 32 & 4 & 4 & 52.27 & 0.11\
15.335 & 2001 Mar 04 & 57.0 & 56 & 1 & 1 & 74.85 & 0.31\
15.335 & 1999 May 21 & 37.6 & 56 &1 &1 & 82.73 & 0.33\
15.350 & 1995 Apr 07 & 44.9 & 32 &1 &1 & 110.0 & 0.3\
[lccccccccc]{} C... & 1995 & 0.0167 & 0.000 & 0.007 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.283 & 1.00 & -18.57\
& 1999 & 0.0331 & 0.000 & 0.003 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.283 & 1.00 & -18.57\
& 2001 & 0.0170 & 0.000 & 0.007 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.283 & 1.00 & -18.57\
& 2006 & 0.0120 & 0.000 & 0.003 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.283 & 1.00 & -18.57\
S1...&1995 & 0.1267 & 3.647 & 0.014 & -161.28 & 0.15 & 0.272 & 0.86 & 50.59\
&1999 & 0.0945 & 3.514 & 0.014 & -159.79 & 0.15 & 0.272 & 0.86 & 50.59\
& 2001 & 0.0798 & 3.400 & 0.014 & -159.03 & 0.15 & 0.272 & 0.86 & 50.59\
&2006 & 0.0765 & 3.360 & 0.014 & -160.12 & 0.15 & 0.272 & 0.86 & 50.59\
N1...&1995 & 0.0327 & 5.610 & 0.052 & 9.55 & 1.12 & 3.02 & 0.345 & 29.62\
&1999 & 0.0288 & 5.801 & 0.049 & 8.37 & 0.95 & 3.02 & 0.345 & 29.62\
& 2001 & 0.0257 & 5.497 & 0.045 & 9.52 & 1.78 & 3.02 & 0.345 & 29.62\
&2006 & 0.0399 & 5.325 & 0.038 & 6.82 & 0.50 & 3.02 & 0.345 & 29.62\
W2...&1995 & 0.0637 & 3.226 & 0.034 & -127.77 & 0.46 & 2.72 & 0.32 & -81.22\
&1999 & 0.0541 & 3.775 & 0.033 & -115.06 & 0.46 & 2.72 & 0.32 & -81.22\
& 2001 & 0.0369 & 3.746 & 0.033 & -115.65 & 2.65 & 2.72 & 0.32 & -81.22\
&2006 & 0.0630 & 3.435 & 0.030 & -116.83 & 0.34 & 2.72 & 0.32 & -81.22\
[lccccccccccc]{} S1...&2006 & 3.368 & 3.353 & 3.341 & 3.377 & 0.014 & -159.93 & -160.10 & -160.36 & -160.13 & 0.15\
N1...&2006 & 5.276 & 5.343 & 5.376 & 5.318 & 0.037 & 7.20 & 6.19 & 6.75 & 7.19 & 0.41\
W2...&2006 & 3.473 & 3.430 & 3.390 & 3.440 & 0.030 & -116.45 & -116.63 & -117.06 & -117.30 & 0.34\
[lccccccccc]{} C... & 2000 & 0.0273 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.214 & 1.00 & 63.74\
& 2006 & 0.0115 & 0.000 & 0.003 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.214 & 1.00 & 63.74\
S1...& 2000 & 0.1581 & 3.240 & 0.017 & -157.29 & 0.15 & 0.4875& 0.71 & -23.38\
& 2006 & 0.1507 & 3.082 & 0.022 & -155.45 & 0.19 & 0.4875 & 0.71 & -23.38\
N1...& 2000 & 0.1005 & 5.597 & 0.055 & 6.75 & 0.31 & 2.195 & 0.76 & -38.51\
& 2006 & 0.1098 & 5.508 & 0.049 & 5.27 & 0.10 & 2.195 & 0.76 & -38.51\
W2...& 2000 & 0.1505 & 3.653 & 0.028 & -109.43 & 0.32 & 1.57 & 0.80 & 40.08\
& 2006 & 0.1489 & 3.703 & 0.011 & -105.95 & 0.47 & 1.57 & 0.80 & 40.08\
[lccccccccccc]{} S1...&2000 & 3.225 & 3.270 & 3.250 & 3.237 & 0.017 & -157.64 & -157.48 & -157.26 & -157.29 & 0.15\
&2006 & 3.106 & 3.079 & 3.051 & 3.101 & 0.022 & -155.60 & -155.27 & -155.24 & -155.67 & 0.19\
N1...&2000 & 5.573 & 5.675 & 5.535 & 5.551 & 0.055 & 7.31 & 6.65 & 7.05 & 6.54 & 0.31\
&2006 & 5.467 & 5.501 & 5.586 & 5.467 & 0.049 & 5.17 & 5.34 & 5.19 & 5.39 & 0.09\
W2...&2000 & 3.607 & 3.673 & 3.675 & 3.642 & 0.028 & -109.24 & -109.98 & -110.07 & -109.45 & 0.32\
&2006 & 3.692 & 3.721 & 3.696 & 3.707 & 0.011 & -106.46 & -105.96 & -105.23 & -106.29 & 0.47\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Public blockchains provide a decentralized method for storing transaction data and have many applications in different sectors. In order for users to track transactions, a simple method is to let them keep a local copy of the entire public ledger. Since the size of the ledger keeps growing, this method becomes increasingly less practical, especially for lightweight users such as IoT devices and smartphones. In order to cope with the problem, several solutions have been proposed to reduce the storage burden. However, existing solutions either achieve a limited storage reduction (e.g., simple payment verification), or rely on some strong security assumption (e.g., the use of trusted server). In this paper, we propose a new approach to solving the problem. Specifically, we propose an fficient verification protocol for ublic lockhains, or EPBC for short. EPBC is particularly suitable for lightweight users, who only need to store a small amount of data that is [*independent of*]{} the size of the blockchain. We analyze EPBC’s performance and security, and discuss its integration with existing public ledger systems. Experimental results confirm that EPBC is practical for lightweight users.'
author:
- |
Lei Xu, Lin Chen, Zhimin Gao, Shouhuai Xu, Weidong Shi\
xuleimath@gmail.com, chenlin198662@gmail.com, mtion@msn.com, shouhuai.xu@utsa.edu, wshi3@central.uh.edu
title: 'Efficient Public Blockchain Client for Lightweight Users [^1] '
---
Introduction
============
A public blockchain or ledger consists of a set of blocks that are linked together, where each block contains a set of transactions. A public blockchain is maintained by a group of users, who run a consensus protocol (e.g., proof-of-work with longest-chain) to resolve disagreements regarding the blockchain. In a simple realization of public blockchain, each user keeps a [*local*]{} copy of the entire blockchain, meaning that each user has access to all historic activities and can easily test whether a new transaction is consistent with the existing transactions. This explains why a public ledger does not have to rely on any centralized party. This technique is central to many popular applications, such as Bitcoin [@nakamoto2008bitcoin].
Although keeping a local copy of the blockchain in question simplifies many operations (e.g., transaction searching and balance calculation), this imposes a substantial storage overhead because the blockchain keeps growing. For example, the Bitcoin blockchain includes 472,483 blocks in June 2017, or 120 GB in volume. This overhead may not be a problem for modern servers and PCs, but are prohibitive for lightweight users such as mobile devices and IoT devices. In general, this would hinder the development of applications that aim are meant to be built on top of blockchains (e.g., smart contract system [@wood2014ethereum]). At the same time, smart phones are the major way to get online in some areas, especially in underdeveloped countries, and there is a big need for mobile and lightweight users to use blockchains [@christidis2016blockchains]. Therefore, it is urgent to reduce the storage overhead, especially for those lightweight users.
Indeed, Nakamoto proposes the simplified payment verification (SPV) protocol in the very first Bitcoin paper [@nakamoto2008bitcoin], which requires a client to store [*some*]{}, instead of all, blocks while being able to check the validity of transactions recorded in the blockchain. This technique is also widely used in many blockchain-based applications, such as smart contract system [@wood2014ethereum]. The basic idea underlying the SPV protocol is that each user only needs to keep the headers of blocks, rather than the blocks themselves. This means that the local storage overhead still increases linearly with the number of blocks, which grows over time and can quickly become prohibitive for lightweight users. An alternate approach is that a lightweight user chooses to trust some nodes in a blockchain system. However, this practice sacrifice the most appealing feature of the blockchains, namely the absence of any trusted third party. Moreover, this approach can be vulnerable to, for example, Sybil attacks [@douceur2002sybil].
In this paper, we propose an [*efficient verification protocol for public blockchain*]{}, dubbed EPBC. The core of EPBC is a succinct blockchain verification protocol that “compresses” the whole chain to a constant-size summary, using a cryptography accumulator [@benaloh1993one]. A lightweight user only needs to store the most recent summary, which is sufficient for the user to verify the validity of transactions. EPBC can be incorporated into existing blockchains as a middle layer service, or can be seamlessly incorporated into new blockchain systems.
In summary, our contributions in this work include:
- We design a novel scheme for lightweight users to use public blockchains using cryptographic accumulator.
- We analyze the security and asymptotic performance of the scheme, including its storage cost.
- We report a prototype implementation of the core protocol of EPBC and measure its performance. Experimental results show that the scheme is practical for lightweight users.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec-background\] we briefly review the background of public blockchains and the simplified payment verification protocol. In Section \[sec-core-component\] we describe the design of the core component of EPBC, i.e., efficient block verification, and analyze its security. Section \[sec-convert-operations\] describes two common operations for blockchain based applications using the core component of EPBC, and we provide the architecture to integrate EPBC with existing blockchain systems in Section \[sec-integration\]. Experimental results are given in Section \[sec-imp-exp\] to demonstrate the practicability of EPBC, and Section \[sec-related\] discusses the related prior work. We conclude the paper in Section \[sec-conclusion\].
Background of Public Blockchain {#sec-background}
===============================
A blockchain is a distributed ledger that has been used by Bitcoin and other applications to store their transaction data, where a transaction can be a payment operation, smart contract submission, or smart contract execution result submission. There are different approaches to construct blockchains. In this work, we focus on the class of blockchains that are built on the principle of proof-of-work (PoW) [@vukolic2015quest]. This class of blockchains have a low throughput and a high latency, but have the desirable properties of fairness and expensive-to-attack. Furthermore, there are many efforts at improving their performance [@croman2016scaling; @luu2015scp] and characterizing their security properties [@gervais2016security].
![In the SVP scheme, a user stores the headers of the blocks, rather than the blocks themselves. A header contains the relevant meta data (e.g., the root of the Merkle tree whose leaves are the transactions contained in a block). This allows a user to verify whether a given block is valid or not.[]{data-label="fig-svp"}](fig-svp){width="3.5in"}
Since a blockchain is immutable and append-only, its size keeps growing. There are proposals for coping with this issue. A straightforward approach is to trust some user, who can check the validity of transactions on the user’s behalf. This approach assumes that the lightweight user always knows who can be trusted. Another approach is to use the SPV protocol mentioned above [@nakamoto2008bitcoin]. In this scheme, as highlighted in \[fig-svp\], a user only needs to store the block headers, which contain the root of the Merkle tree of the transactions in the corresponding block. When a user needs to verify a transaction, it sends a request to the system asking for the corresponding block, whose validity can be verified by using the root of the Merkle tree.
Design and Analysis of EPBC {#sec-core-component}
===========================
Design Objective and Assumption
-------------------------------
The objective of EPBC is to allow lightweight users to participate in applications that use public blockchains. By “lightweight users” we mean the users who use devices that have limited computation/storage capacities, such as IoT devices and smartphones. Specifically, EPBC aims to allow lightweight users to achieve the following:
- [*Efficient storage*]{}: A user does not have to store or download the entire blockchain. Instead, a user only needs to consume a storage that is ideally independent of the size of the blockchain.
- [*Verifiability of transactions*]{}: A user can verify whether a transaction has been accepted by the blockchain or not.
Like any public blockchain constructed according to proof-of-work, we assume that the majority of the users are honest.
In what follows, we first describe the block verification protocol, which is the core component of EPBC. Then, we describe how to use this protocol to construct the EPBC scheme.
The Block Verification Protocol
-------------------------------
\[fig-overview\] gives an overview of the verification protocol. Basically, a lightweight user can verify the validity of transactions by interacting with the blockchain system.
The blockchain verification protocol of EPBC consists of the following four algorithms:
- [*Setup*]{}: This algorithm is executed once by the creator of the blockchain. The algorithm generates the public parameters that are needed by the other algorithms.
- [*Block and summary construction*]{}: This algorithm generates blocks and a summary of the current blockchain. Anyone participating in the mining competition to build new blocks is responsible for calculating the summary of the current blockchain. The summary depends on the content of the current blockchain and the public parameters.
- [*Proof generation*]{}: This algorithm generates a proof for a given block. The proof may depend on, among other things, the entire blockchain.
- [*Proof verification*]{}: Given the summary of a blockchain and a proof for a single block, this algorithm verifies whether the proof is valid or not.
With this protocol, a lightweight user keeps the updated summary of the blockchain. When the user wants to verify a specific block, it can ask the parties that are involved in a transaction for a proof for the block, which is generated by running the [*proof generation*]{} algorithm. The user then executes the [*proof verification*]{} algorithm to determine whether to accept the block or not. In what follows we describe the details of these algorithms.
![Illustration of the blockchain verification protocol. The nodes in the blockchain system with bigger storage capacities can keep a full copy of the blockchain. These nodes will interact with the lightweight users to help the latter to verify the validity of blocks.[]{data-label="fig-overview"}](fig-overview){width="3in"}
#### Setup.
The creator of the blockchain selects two large prime numbers $p,q$, and calculates $N=pq$ as in the RSA accumulator system. $N$ is embedded into the first block and disclosed to the public; and then $p,q$ are discarded. The creator also selects a random value $g \in \mathbb{Z}_N^*$. Each block will be labelled with an integer, with the “genesis” block (i.e., the first block on the blockchain) has the label “1”.
#### Block and summary construction.
Each block contains, in addition to the standard attributes (e.g., transaction information and proof-of-work nonce), a new attribute $S$, which is the summary of the current blockchain. For the $i$-th block, which is denoted by $\mathit{blk}_i$, the attribute $S_i$ is calculated and stored with $\mathit{blk}_i$ as follows: $$S_i =
\begin{cases}
g^{\texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_i || i)} \mod N, &\text{if $i=1$},\\
S_{i-1}^{\texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_i || i)} \mod N, &\text{if $i>1$}.\\
\end{cases}$$ If the current blockchain contains $n$ blocks, $S_n$ is the summary of the current blockchain. The block position information $i$ is used in the computation for the purpose of preventing the attacker from manipulating the position of a block. After the newly generated block is broadcast to the blockchain system, the following two algorithms can be executed.
#### Proof generation.
To generate a proof that shows block $\textit{blk}_i$ is the $i$-th block on the blockchain with summary $S_n$, where $i \leq n$, the prover calculates $p_i = (p_i^{(1)},p_i^{(2)})$ as follows: $$p_i =
\begin{cases}
p_i^{(1)} &= \texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_i || i),\\
p_i^{(2)} &= g^{ (\prod_{k=1}^{n} \texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_k || k)) / \texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_i || i)} \mod N.
\end{cases}$$ Note that the proof is generated by a user who keeps the entire blockchain and therefore can compute $p_i^{(2)}$ without knowing $\phi(N)$, where $\phi$ is the Euler function.
#### Proof verification.
Given a block $\textit{blk}$, a claimed proof $p=(p^{(1)}, p^{(2)})$, and a blockchain summary $S_n$, a user can verify that block $\textit{blk}_i$ is indeed the $i$-th block on blockchain with summary $S_n$, where $i \leq n$, as follows: $$\begin{cases}
p^{(1)} \stackrel{?}{=} \texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}_i || i),\\
S_n \stackrel{?}{=} (p^{(2)} )^{p^{(1)}} \mod N.
\end{cases}$$ If both equations hold, the user accepts that $p$ is a valid proof for $\textit{blk}$; otherwise, the verifier rejects the block.
Parameter Initialization
------------------------
One of the key steps in the blockchain verification protocol is the parameter initialization, i.e., selecting $p$ and $q$ to generate the modulus $N$. If $p$ or $q$ is exposed, the protocol is clearly not secure. This issue can be addressed by generating $N$ using a multi-party protocol. There have been many protocols for this purpose. For example, the protocol proposed by Cocks [@cocks1997split] works as follows. Suppose at the beginning there are $\ell$ users who work together to generate the first block.
1. Each user $i$, $1\leq i \leq \ell$, selects his/her own prime numbers $p_i,q_i$.
2. Each user $i$, $1\leq i \leq \ell$, calculates $N=(p_1+p_2+\cdots + p_\ell) (q_1+q_2+\cdots + q_\ell)$. By leveraging the protocol given in [@cocks1997split], user $i$ can calculate $N$ without knowing the two factors of $N$.
3. Each user tests whether $N$ is a product of two prime numbers or not. Specifically, the system randomly selects a random number $x$ and each user calculates $x^{p_i+q_i} \mod N$. If $\prod x^{p_i+q_i} \mod N \equiv x^{N+1} \mod N$, $N$ passes the test. Carmichael numbers that can pass this test can be further eliminated by methods given in [@boneh1997efficient].
4. If the current $N$ passes all tests, users work together to embedded it in the genesis block. Otherwise they repeat the process again, until an appropriate $N$ is found.
Since $N$ only needs to be generated once, the cost of the parameter initialization is not a big concern.
Security and Performance of the Block Verification Protocol
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is straightforward to verify that the protocol is correct, meaning that any legitimate proof will be accepted as valid. The following theorem shows that for a given summary $S$ of blockchain $\mathit{BC}$, no attacker can generate a valid proof for a forged block $\mathit{blk}'$ that is not contained in $\mathit{BC}$ under strong RSA assumption.
Given a summary $S_n$ of blockchain $\mathit{BC}$, there is no probabilistic polynomial-time attacker $\mathcal{A}$ that can forge a block $\mathit{blk}'$ and an accompanying proof $P'$ that $\mathit{blk}'$ is a valid block on blockchain $\mathit{BC}$ in the random oracle model; otherwise, the Strong RSA assumption is broken.
Suppose $\texttt{hash}()$ behaves like a random oracle. Let $r_i = \texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}_i || i)$ where $\mathit{blk}_i$ is the $i$-th block on $\mathit{BC}$, and $S_n = g^{\prod_{k=1}^{n} r_k} \mod N$. We consider two scenarios of attacks:
- The attacker knows the summary $S_n$ but not the blockchain. Suppose the attacker chooses $\mathit{blk}'$ and position $i'$ for the block. Then, the attacker needs to compute $y \in \mathbb{Z}_n^*$ such that $$y ^ {\texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}' || i')} \mod N = S_n.$$ This immediately breaks the Strong RSA assumption.
- The attacker knows both blockchain and the summary $S_n$. In this case, the attacker knows all valid proofs for blocks in $\mathit{BC}$, i.e., $(r_i, S_n^{\frac{1}{r_i}} \mod N),~i=1, \ldots, n$. Suppose the attacker can generate a valid proof for a forged block $\mathit{blk}'$ for some position $i'$. Let $r' = \texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}' || i')$. If $r' | \prod_{i=1}^n r_i$, the attacker can successfully make a valid proof for $\mathit{blk}'$ at position $i'$ because the attacker can compute $(r', S_n^{\prod_{i=1}^n r_i / r'})$. Because the attacker cannot control the output of `hash()`, the probability that the attacker can succeed is equivalent to the probability that a random number $r'$ is a factor of another random number $R=\prod_{i=1}^n r_i$. According to Erdös-Kac theorem [@erdos1940gaussian] and its extension counting multiplicities [@billingsley1969central], the number of prime factors of $R$ counting multiplicity is $\mathcal{O}(\log \log R)$. With Binomial theorem, the total number of divisors of $R$ is $\mathcal{O}(2^{\log \log R}) = \mathcal{O}(\log R)$, and $\lim_{R \to \infty} \frac{\log R}{R} =0$. Therefore, the probability that an attacker can find $r'$ is negligible when $R$ is large enough. As long as the attacker cannot find such $r'$, a successful attack implies that the the Strong RSA assumption is broken.
In summary, there is no practical attack against the protocol in the random oracle model unless the Strong RSA assumption is broken.
Performance of the major algorithms is analyzed as follows.
- [Block construction.]{} When compared with the straightforward method by which each user keeps the entire blockchain, our method incurs some extra work in the block construction algorithm. The extra work consists of two parts: evaluating the hash value of the new block and calculating the new summary. The computation overhead is constant (i.e., one hash calculation and one modular exponentiation) and the storage overhead is also constant (i.e., an element in $\mathbb{Z}_N$ for the summary). The summary also incurs extra communication cost, which is however small (e.g., 2048 bits for a 2048-bit $N$).
- [Proof generation.]{} The proof generation algorithm does not incur extra storage. The computational cost is proportional to the length of the current blockchain (i.e., the number of blocks in the chain) and the position of the block. Suppose the length of the blockchain is $n$, and the proof of $i$-th block needs to be generated, where $i \leq n$. The prover needs to conduct one hash evaluation of the $i$th block, and calculates the product of hash values of blocks $1,\ldots,i-1,i+1,\ldots,n$. In summary, the prover calculates $n+1-i$ hashes, $n-1$ multiplications, and one modular exponentiation. Since the nodes with sufficient storage capacity (rather than the lightweight users) are supposed to generate proofs, the protocol is practical.
- [Proof verification.]{} The computational cost to verify the proof of a block includes one hash evaluation and one modular exponentiation, which is constant. This explains why the protocol is suitable for lightweight users who only keep the summary of the blockchain.
Reducing Cost of Proof Generation {#subsec-tree-structure}
---------------------------------
Although both the cost of updating the summary of a blockchain and the cost of verifying a block are constant, the computational complexity for the prover to generate a proof is $\mathcal{O}(n)$, where $n$ is the number of [*current*]{} blocks on the blockchain (i.e., $n$ keeps increasing). In the worst-case scenario, the prover needs to traverse all of the blocks on the blockchain to calculate the second part of the proof, namely $$g^{ (\prod_{k=1}^{n} \texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_k)) / \texttt{hash}(\textit{blk}_i)} \mod N.$$ In order to reduce the computational complexity incurred by this, we design a scheme that improves the computational efficiency at the price of a slight increase in storage.
#### Proof generation with a smaller computational complexty.
The basic idea underlying the scheme is to let the prover maintain a binary tree $\mathcal{T}$. As illustrated in \[fig-accelerate-tree\], the binary tree is used to store intermediate results that can be used to generate a proof for a given block. Specifically, each leaf stores the hash value of a corresponding block, and each internal node stores the product of its two direct children nodes. This way, the root node stores the product of the hash values of all of the blocks on the blockchain. The height of $\mathcal{T}$ is pre-determined. If a leaf is empty (i.e., currently there is no corresponding block on the blockchain), its value is set to 1 so that it does not contribute to the value stored at the root node.
![The storage structure that can be used by a prover to reduce its computational complexity when generating proofs. Each leaf $h_i$ stores the hash value of a block, and each internal node stores the product of the values stored at its two children.[]{data-label="fig-accelerate-tree"}](fig-accelerate-tree){width="3.5in"}
Suppose the height of tree $\mathcal{T}$ is $h$ and the number of currrent blocks on blockchain is $n$, where $n < 2^{h-1}$. To calculate a proof for block $\mathit{blk}_i$, where $1 \leq i \leq n$, the prover leverages the information stored in $\mathcal{T}$ as follows:
- Find the product of all of the values on the right-hand of $\mathit{blk}_i$ (the blockchain grows from left to right) $$\label{equ-right}
r \leftarrow \prod_{k=i+1}^{n} \texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}_k).$$ Instead of conducting the multiplication operation one-by-one, the prover utilizes different products information stored in $\mathcal{T}$ to accelerate the computation.
- Calculate $\mathit{LR} \leftarrow (S_i)^{r / \texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}_i)} \mod N$.
- Set the proof as $P \leftarrow (\texttt{hash}(\mathit{blk}_i), LR)$.
Note that the height of $\mathcal{T}$ determines the number of blocks it can accommodate, and is therefore a pre-determined public parameter. If the height of $\mathcal{T}$ is $h$, the total number of blocks it can accommodate is $2^{h-1}$. This is no significant constraint because a relatively small $h$ can accommodate a large number of blocks. For example, when $h=32$, the structure can accommodate 4,294,967,296 blocks, which are about 9,000 times larger than the number of blocks on the Bitcoin network as of April 2017.
#### Analysis of the improved scheme.
The improved scheme involves a binary tree $\mathcal{T}$ to store some information that can be used for generating proofs. Let $\texttt{height}(\mathcal{T})=h$, meaning that $n = 2^{h-1}$ is the number of leaves. Let $|\texttt{hash}()| = \ell$. At the leaf level (i.e., the first level), the size of each node is $\ell$. Each node at $i$-th level incurs $i \cdot \ell $ bits of storage, and the size of the root node is $h \cdot \ell$ bits. Therefore, the size of $\mathcal{T}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& \underbrace{n \cdot \ell \vphantom{(n/2^i) \cdot (2^i \ell)} }_{\text{first level}}
\hphantom{~}+ \cdots +\hphantom{~}
\underbrace{(n/2^i) \cdot (2^i \ell)}_{\text{$i$-th level}}
\hphantom{~}+ \cdots +\hphantom{~}
\underbrace{ (n/2^{h-1}) \cdot (2^{h-1} \ell)}_{\text{$h$-th level, root}} \\
=& \sum_{i=0}^{h-1} n \cdot \ell = h \cdot n \cdot \ell = (\log_2 n + 1) \cdot n \cdot \ell = \mathcal{O}(n\log n).\end{aligned}$$ With intermediate results stored in $\mathcal{T}$, the computation complexity for generating a proof is reduced to $h$ (or $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$) modular exponentiations.
More generally, if each internal node in \[fig-accelerate-tree\] has $m$ children, the height of $\mathcal{T}$ is reduced to $\log_m n + 1$. A similar analysis shows that the total size of $\mathcal{T}$ is $(\log_m n + 1) \cdot n \cdot \ell$, which is the size of storage a prover keeps locally. In order to calculate $r$, which is defined in Equation (\[equ-right\]), it requires about $\log_m n + m$ multiplication operations in the worst-case scenario, where $m$ is the number of multiplications incurred at an internal node at the second level of $\mathcal{T}$. In order to select the value of $m$ so as to minimize the overall computational complexity, we calculate the derivative as follows: $$(\log_m n + m)' = (\frac{\ln n}{\ln m} + m)' = 1- \frac{\ln n}{m \ln^2m},$$ which monotonically increases with respect to $m$. Therefore, we get the minimum value when $$1 = \frac{\ln n}{m \ln^2m},$$ and $m \approx \ln n$. In practice, we can set the number of branches to a small constant integer so as to reduce the computational complexity of the prover.
Using the Block Verification Protocol to Construct EPBC {#sec-convert-operations}
=======================================================
In this section, we discuss construction of high-layer operations based on the verification protocol described in Section \[sec-core-component\]. Specifically, we focus on two basic protocols: [*blockchain identification*]{} and [*transaction verification*]{}.
#### Blockchain identification.
When a lightweight user needs to join a blockchain based application, it needs to obtain the current summary of the blockchain. Protocol \[protocol-blockchain-iden\] is for this purpose.
The lightweight user randomly selects a group of $\ell$ users, denoted by $G_u$, from the blockchain network; The lightweight user queries $u$ to get the summary value $S^{(u)}$; The lightweight user interacts with $u$ to verify the validity of $S^{(u)}$ with respect to a random set of blocks chosen by the lightweight user; The lightweight user calculates $$S \leftarrow \texttt{SummaryDetermination}(S^{(1)}, \ldots S^{(\ell)}),$$ which returns the summary that is provided by majority of the users, where $S$ is the final summary of the blockchain;
Note that as long as the attacker does not control majority of the $\ell$ users, the protocol is secure. The lightweight user can also adopt other strategies to determine the summary, e.g., giving different weights to selected users and include this information when making the decision.
#### Transaction verification.
A transaction is valid if and only if the block it belongs to is accepted by the majority of users, i.e., on the longest branch of the blockchain. Therefore, verification of a transaction is reduced to checking the validity of a block and its position (i.e., block number). A lightweight user can use the block verification protocol to verify that the block in question indeed contains the transaction in question. Then, the lightweight user can check the number of blocks that have been added after the block that is verified. Similar to the Bitcoin system [@nakamoto2008bitcoin], if more than 6 blocks have been added to the blockchain after the block under consideration, the transaction in question can be accepted with high confidentiality.
If the transaction is a smart contract submission or one-time smart contract execution result submission, the above method is also sufficient. However, if the transaction is a payment operation or submission of multiple-time smart contract execution result, freshness becomes a concern. For example, the attacker can provide proof of an old block that contains previous payment of the same value. To prevent such attacks, the lightweight user can maintain a local counter and include the counter in its transactions.
Integration with Existing Blockchain Systems {#sec-integration}
============================================
Because a lot of public blockchain applications have been developed, it is useful to enable EPBC for these systems without modifying existing data structures and client. To achieve this goal, EPBC can work as a separate service layer on top of existing blockchain systems. \[fig-integration\] demonstrates the relationship between the existing blockchain system and the newly added EPBC service.
Specifically, a separate EPBC client with embedded parameters can be distributed to users who maintain the blockchain and play the role of a prover. Here parameters are values that used for blockchain summary construction. Summaries of the blockchain are not involved in mining, and users can use existing client to produce new blocks and achieve consensus on the blockchain. After the user decides to accept a new block, the EPBC client produces a new summary based on previous summary value and the new block, and stores the new summary locally. Note that summaries are determined by the blockchain itself so EPBC client does not need to run any consensus mechanism. If the user wants to reduce the time complexity of generating a proof, EPBC client can maintain the tree structure described in Section \[subsec-tree-structure\].
![Overview of the integration of EPBC with an existing blockchain systems. A dedicated client is used to support EPBC related operations.[]{data-label="fig-integration"}](fig-integration.pdf){width="3.5in"}
Experiments and Evaluation {#sec-imp-exp}
==========================
In this section, we describe the implementation and provide preliminary experimental results of EPBC. We focus on the block verification protocol because it is the core of EPBC.
#### Implementation and parameters.
We implemented a prototype of the block verification protocol based on the MIRACL crypto library [@miracl]. Since security of the protocol depends on the Strong RSA assumption, we chose a 1,024 bits $N$ in the implementation. SHA256 was used for $\texttt{hash}()$. We also set the height of $\mathcal{T}$ as 32. When a leaf is empty, its value is set to 1 and there is no need to store it.
#### Experimental results.
We conducted the experiments on a desktop with a low-end Intel Celeron 1017U processor, which has a similar Geekbench 4 score of Snapdragon 805 processor [@geekbenchmark4]. The experimental results are summarized in \[fig-perfm\], which shows that although the cost of proof generation depends on the size of the blockchain, the cost of proof verification is independent of the blockchain size.
![Preliminary experimental results of the block verification protocol using a low end Celeron CPU.[]{data-label="fig-perfm"}](fig-perfm.pdf){width="3.5in"}
As discussed in Section \[sec-convert-operations\], some high-level operations like balance checking require the lightweight client to verify more than one blocks. This is not a problem in practice for the user using lightweight client because it only takes about 0.02 second to verify one block.
Related Works {#sec-related}
=============
EPBC only provides the mechanism for checking the validity of a given block and the transactions contained in the block. It does not consider how to determine which block(s) should be checked. It is proposed in BIP 37 to use a bloom filter to select potentially related blocks for verification [@hearn2012connection]. The Bitcoin community proposes the UTXO (unspent transaction outputs) technology, which requires the user to store unspent transaction output information instead of transaction information. This reduces the storage cost but does not change the order of storage complexity [@bishop2015review].
Cryptographic accumulator was first developed by Benaloh and De Mare to achieve decentralized digital signature [@benaloh1993one]. Bari[ć]{} and Pfitzmann developed a collision-free accumulator and used it for fail-stop signatures without using any tree structure [@baric1997collision]. Cryptographic accumulators are useful (e.g., constructing group signatures [@tsudik2003accumulating]). Dynamic cryptographic accumulator can further support adding/removing members [@goodrich2002efficient]. These schemes do not consider features of blockchains, namely that every user has the privilege to construct blocks and generate proofs and lightweight users have very limited computational capability. Recently, e-cash systems such as ZeroCoin also utilizes cryptographic accumulators, but for a different purpose of information hiding [@miers2013zerocoin].
Another line of related research is storage verification in the cloud environment, and several related concepts were proposed, e.g., provable data possession [@AtenieseBurnsCurtmolaEtAl2007] and proof of retrievability [@zheng2011fair]. These schemes cannot be applied in our scenario because the lightweight users do not know the blockchain in advance and the blockchain keeps growing as new blocks are created and appended to it.
Both EPBC and SPV assume the records that are embedded into blocks are correct if the corresponding blocks are valid. Some techniques that are applicable to SPV, such as bloom filter [@gervais2014privacy], are also applicable to EPBC. Nevertheless, EPBC incurs only a constant amount of storage for the lightweight client, assuming the client cares about most recent transactions. This is significant because storing several block headers might be cheaper than storing the summary value.
Conclusion {#sec-conclusion}
==========
We have presented EPBC, a scheme for lightweight users to use blockchain-based applications without storing the entire blockchain while still able to verify the validity of blocks and transaction. The basic idea is to “compress” a blockchain to a constant-size summary, which is the only data item a lightweight client needs to keep. We analyzed the security of EPBC and preliminary experiments showed that it is practical. EPBC can be adopted for blockchain-based applications, such as e-cash and smart contract systems.
[^1]: A preliminary version of this paper was published in SERIAL’17
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the role of electrothermal feedback in the operation of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs). It is found that the desired mode of operation for SNSPDs is only achieved if this feedback is unstable, which happens naturally through the slow electrical response associated with their relatively large kinetic inductance. If this response is sped up in an effort to increase the device count rate, the electrothermal feedback becomes stable and results in an effect known as latching, where the device is locked in a resistive state and can no longer detect photons. We present a set of experiments which elucidate this effect, and a simple model which quantitatively explains the results.'
author:
- 'Andrew J. Kerman'
- 'Joel K.W. Yang'
- 'Richard J. Molnar'
- 'Eric A. Dauler'
- 'Karl K. Berggren'
title: 'Electrothermal feedback in superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors'
---
Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs) [@summary; @inductance; @cavity; @eric] have a combination of attributes found in no other photon counter, including high speed, high detection efficiency over a wide range of wavelengths, and low dark counts. Of particular importance is their high *single-photon* timing resolution of $\sim$30 ps [@eric], which permits extremely high data rates in communications applications [@comm; @QKD]. Full use of this electrical bandwidth is limited, however, by the fact that the maximum count rates of these devices are much smaller (a few hundred MHz for 10 $\mu$m$^2$ active area, and decreasing as the area is increased [@inductance]), limited by their large kinetic inductance and the input impedance of the readout circuit [@inductance; @parallel]. To increase the count rate, therefore, one must either reduce the kinetic inductance (by using a smaller active area or through the use of different materials or substrates) or increase the load impedance [@parallel]. However, either one of these approaches causes the wire to “latch" into a stable resistive state where it no longer detects photons [@joeltherm]. This effect arises when negative electrothermal feedback, which in normal operation allows the device to reset itself, is made fast enough that it becomes stable. We present experiments which probe the stability of this feedback, and we develop a model which quantitatively explains our observations.
The operation of an SNSPD is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:1\](a). A nanowire (typically $\sim$100nm wide, 5nm thick) is biased with a DC current $I_0$ near the critical current $I_c$. When a photon is absorbed, a short ($<$100 nm long) normal domain is nucleated, giving the wire a resistance $R_n(t)$; this results in Joule heating which causes the normal domain (and consequently, $R_n$) to expand in time exponentially. The expansion is counteracted by negative electrothermal feedback associated with the load $R_L$ (typically a $50\Omega$ transmission line), which forms a current divider with the nanowire and tends to divert current out of it, thereby reducing the heating (and producing a voltage across the load). In a correctly functioning device, this feedback is sufficiently slow so that it is unstable: that is, the inductive time constant is long enough so that before appreciable current is diverted out of the load, Joule heating has already caused the normal domain to grow large enough so that $R_n\gg R_L$ [@size]. The current in the device then drops nearly to zero, allowing it to quickly cool down and return to the superconducting state, after which the current recovers with a time constant $\tau_e\equiv L/R_L$ [@inductance]. If one attempts to shorten $\tau_e$, at some point the negative feedback becomes fast enough to counterbalance the fast Joule heating before it runs away, resulting in a stable resistive domain, known as a self-heating hotspot [@GM].
In a standard treatment of these hotspots [@GM], solutions to a one-dimensional heat equation are found in which a normal-superconducting (NS) boundary propagates at constant velocity $v_{ns}$, for fixed device current $I_d$ [@GM; @TC]. This results in a solution of the form:
$$\begin{aligned}
v_{ns}=v_0\frac{\alpha(I_d/I_c)^2-2}{\sqrt{\alpha(I_d/I_c)^2-1}}\approx\frac{1}{\gamma}(I_d^2-I_{ss}^2)\label{eq:vss}\end{aligned}$$
where $v_0\equiv\sqrt{A_{cs}\kappa h}/c$ is a characteristic velocity ($A_{cs}$ is the wire’s cross-sectional area, $\kappa$ is its thermal conductivity, and $c$ and $h$ are the heat capacity and heat transfer coefficient to the substrate, per unit length, respectively), $I_c$ is the critical current, and $\alpha\equiv\rho_nI_c^2/h(T_c-T_0)$ is known as the Stekly parameter ($\rho_n$ is the normal resistance of the wire per unit length, $T_0$ and $T_c$ are the substrate and superconducting critical temperatures) which characterizes the ratio of joule heating to conduction cooling in the normal state [@GM]. Equation \[eq:vss\] is valid when $T_0\ll T_c$, and the approximate equality holds for small deviations $\delta I\equiv
I-I_{ss}$, with $\gamma\equiv(T_c-T_0)(c/\rho_n)\sqrt{h/\kappa
A_{cs}}$ and $I_{ss}^2\equiv 2h(T_c-T_0)/\rho_n$. The physical meaning of eq. \[eq:vss\] is clear: the NS boundary is stationary only if the local power density is equal to a fixed value; if it is greater, the hotspot will expand ($v_{ns}>0$), if less it will contract ($v_{ns}<0$).
We can use eq. \[eq:vss\] to describe the electrothermal circuit in fig. \[fig:1\](a), by combining it with: $dR_n/dt=2\rho_nv_{ns}$ and $I_dR_n+LdI_d/dt=R_L(I_0-I_d)$. Assuming that the small-signal stability of the DC hotspot solution ($I_d=I_{ss}, R_{ss}=R_L(I_0/I_{ss}-1)$) determines whether it will latch, we linearize about this solution to obtain a second-order system, with damping coefficient $\zeta=\frac{I_0}{4I_{ss}}\sqrt{\tau_{th}/\tau_{e}}$, where $\tau_{th}\equiv R_L/2\rho_nv_0$ is a thermal time constant. This can be re-expressed as $\zeta=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\tau_{th,tot}/\tau_{e,tot}}$, with $\tau_{e,tot}\equiv L/R_{tot}$ and $\tau_{th,tot}\equiv
R_{tot}/2\rho_nv_0$, where $R_{tot}\equiv R_L+R_{ss}$. If the damping is less than some critical, minimum value $\zeta_{latch}$, the feedback cannot stabilize the hostpot during the initial photoresponse, as described above, and the device operates normally. However, since the steady-state solution gives $R_{ss}\propto I_0$ (as $I_0$ is increased, a larger hotspot is necessary for $I_d=I_{ss}$) the hotspot becomes more stable as $I_0$ is increased, until eventually $\zeta(I_{latch})=\zeta_{latch}$ and the device latches. For a correctly functioning device, $I_{latch}>I_c$, so that latching does not affect its operation. However, if $\tau_e$ is decreased, $I_\textrm{latch}$ decreases, and eventually it becomes less than $I_c$. This prevents the device from being biased near $I_c$ [@biastee], resulting in a drastic reduction in performance [@constriction; @jitter].
Devices used in this work were fabricated from $\sim$5 nm thick NbN films, deposited on R-plane sapphire substrates in a UHV DC magnetron sputtering system (base pressure $<10^{-10}$ mbar). Film deposition was performed at a wafer temperature of $\sim$800 C and a pressure of $\sim 10^{-8}$ mbar [@molnar]. Aligned photolithography and liftoff were used to pattern $\sim$100 nm thick Ti films for on-chip resistors [@joeltherm], and Ti:Au contact pads. Patterning of the NbN was then performed with e-beam lithography using HSQ resist [@cavity]. Devices were tested in a cryogenic probing station at temperatures of 1.8-12K using the techniques described in Refs. [@inductance; @cavity].
Figure \[fig:1\](c)-(f) show data for a set of (3$\mu$m$\times
3.3\mu$m active area) devices having various resistors $R_S$ in series with the 50$\Omega$ readout line [@joeltherm] \[fig. \[fig:1\](b)\] so that $R_L=50\Omega+R_S$. Panels (c) and (d) show averaged pulse shapes for devices with $R_S=0$ and $R_S=250\Omega$, respectively. Clearly, the reset time can be reduced; however, this comes at a price. Panels (e) and (f) show, for devices with different $R_S$, the current $I_\textrm{switch}\equiv\textrm{min}(I_c,I_{latch})$ above which each device no longer detects photons, and the measured detection efficiency (DE) at $I_0=0.975I_{switch}$ [@biastee]. The data are plotted vs. the speedup of the reset time $(R_S+50\Omega)/50\Omega$, and show that as this speedup is increased, $I_{switch}$ decreases (due to reduction of $I_{latch}$), resulting in a significantly reduced DE.
![Figure \[fig:1\]:(color online) Speedup and latching of nanowire detectors with increased load impedance. (a) electrical model of detector operation. A hotspot is nucleated by absorption of a photon, producing a resistance $R_n$ in series with the wire’s kinetic inductance $L$. (b) circuit describing experimental configuration for increasing load resistance using a series resistor $R_S$. (c) and (d) averaged pulse shapes from $3\mu$m$\times
3.3\mu$m detectors with $L\sim50$ nH for $R_S=0$ and $R_S=250\Omega$; red solid lines are predictions with no free parameters. (e) switching current $I_{switch}\equiv\textrm{min}(I_c,I_{latch})$ vs. speedup $50\Omega/(R_S+50\Omega)$. For small $R_S$, $I_\textrm{switch}=I_c$ but as $R_S$ is increased, $I_\textrm{latch}$ decreases, becoming less than $I_c$. (f) DE at $I_0=0.975I_\textrm{switch}$ vs. speedup (open squares). Also shown (crosses) are the expected DEs assuming that latching affects DE simply by limiting $I_0$ (obtained from DE vs. $I_0$ at $R_S=0$). \[fig:1\]](fig1){width="3.25in"}
![Figure \[fig:2\]: (color online) Hotspot stability measurements. (a) device schematic; two ground-signal-ground probes simultaneously perform a high-impedance 3-point measurement of the hotspot resistance, with $R_L$ determined by probe position. (b) equivalent electrical circuit. (c) and (d) example V-I curves, with $L=60$ nH and $L=605$ nH, respectively; (e) and (f) inferred $I_d$ and $R_n/R_L$ for the data shown in (d). In (e) the relaxation oscillations in the region $I_c<I_0<I_\textrm{latch}$ are shown schematically. Dashed lines show (e) $I_d=I_0$ and (f) $R_{ss}=R_L(I_0/I_{ss}-1).$\[fig:2\]](fig2){width="3.25in"}
To investigate the latched state, we fabricated devices designed to probe the stability of self-heating hotspots as a function of $I_0$, $L$, and $R_L$. Each device consisted of three sections in series, as shown in Fig. \[fig:2\] (a): a 3 $\mu$m-long, 100 nm-wide nanowire where the hotspot was nucleated [@size]; a wider (200 nm) meandered section acting as an inductance; and a series of nine contact pads interspersed with Ti-film resistors. Also shown are the two electrical probes, which result in the circuit of Fig. \[fig:2\](b): a high-impedance ($R_p=20\textrm{k}\Omega$) 3-point measurement of the nanowire resistance. We varied $R_L$ by touching the probes down to different pads along the line, and L by testing different devices (with different series inductors). We tested 66 devices on three chips, and selected from these only unconstricted [@constriction] wires with nearly identical linewidths (the observed $I_c$ of devices used here were within $\sim$10% of each other - typically 22-24 $\mu$A), spanning the range: $R_L=20-1000\Omega$ and $L=6-600$ nH.
For each $L$ and $R_L$, we acquired a DC I-V curve like those shown in Figs. \[fig:2\](c),(d), sweeping $I_0$ downward starting from high values where the hotspot was stable [@upward]. All curves exhibit a step in voltage which can be identified as $I_\textrm{latch}$. For smaller $R_L$, where $I_\textrm{latch}$ is large, $I_c$ can be identified as the point where an onset of resistance occurs common to several curves; this onset is more gradual with $I_0$ rather than sudden as at $I_\textrm{latch}$. These features can be understood by examining figs. \[fig:2\](e) and (f), which show $I_d$ and $R_n$ inferred from the data of fig. \[fig:2\](d). Above the discontinuous jump in current at $I_\textrm{latch}$, $I_d$ is fixed at $I_{ss}$ (independent of $I_0$ and $R_L$) indicating the latched state. For smaller $\tau_e$, $I_\textrm{latch}<I_c$, so only $I_\textrm{latch}$ is observed [@retrap]. When $\tau_e$ is large enough that $I_\textrm{latch}>I_c$, an intermediate region appears where the resistance increases continuously with $I_0$; this arises from relaxation oscillations [@hadfield; @GM], as indicated in the figure: the device cannot superconduct when $I_0>I_c$, but neither can a stable hotspot be formed when $I_0<I_\textrm{latch}$, so instead current oscillates back and forth between the device and the load, producing a periodic pulse train with a frequency that increases as $I_0$ is increased [@biastee]. The average resistance increases with this frequency, producing the observed continuous decrease in $I_d$.
Figure \[fig:3\] shows the measured $I_{latch}$ as a function of $R_L$ and $L$, which can be thought of as defining the boundary between stable and unstable hotspots. Our simple model described above predicts: $\tau_e/\tau_{th}\propto(I_\textrm{latch}/I_{ss})^2$, a line of slope 1 in the figure (indicated by the dashed line). The data do approach this line, though only in the $\tau_e\gg\tau_{th}$ limit. This is consistent with the assumption of constant (or slowly varying) $I_d$ under which eq. \[eq:vss\] was derived. As $\tau_e/\tau_{th}$ is decreased, the data trend downward, away from this line, and $I_\textrm{latch}/I_{ss}$ becomes *almost independent of* $\tau_e/\tau_{th}$; this implies a minimum $I_\textrm{latch}/I_{ss}$, or equivalently, a minimum $R_{ss}/R_L$, below which the hotpost is *always* unstable. This is shown in the inset: the measured minimum stable $R_{ss}$ is always greater than $\sim R_L$.
The crossover to this behavior can be explained in terms of a timescale $\tau_a$ over which the temperature profile of the hotspot stabilizes into the steady-state form which yields eq. \[eq:vss\]. For power density variations occuring faster than this, the NS boundaries do not have time to start moving, resulting instead in a temperature deviation $\Delta T$. Since the NS boundary occurs at $T\approx T_c$, where $\rho_n$ is temperature-dependent (defined by $d\rho/dT\equiv\beta >0$), this changes $R_n$, giving a second, parallel electrothermal feedback path which dominates for frequencies $\omega\gg\tau_a^{-1}$. We can describe this by replacing eq. \[eq:vss\] with:
$$\frac{\gamma\rho_n}{2}\left
(\tau_a\frac{d^2l}{dt^2}+\frac{dl}{dt}\right )=I_d^2\rho(\Delta
T)-I_{ss}^2\rho_n\label{eq:l}$$
$$c\frac{d\Delta
T}{dt}=\frac{\gamma\rho_n\tau_a}{2}\frac{d^2l}{dt^2}-h\Delta
T\label{eq:t}$$
Here, $l$ is the hotspot length, $\rho(\Delta T)$ is the resistance per unit length, and $R_n=\rho(\Delta T)l$. In eq. \[eq:l\], $\tau_a$ is the characteristic time over which $dl/dt=2v_{ns}$ adapts to changes in power density: for slow timescales $dt\gg\tau_a$, $\tau_ad^2l/dt^2\ll dl/dt$ and eq. \[eq:l\] reduces to eq. \[eq:vss\] (with $\rho=\rho_n$). For faster timescales, $\tau_ad^2l/dt^2$ becomes appreciable, and acts as a source term for temperature deviations in eq. \[eq:t\]. When $dt\ll\tau_a$, $\tau_ad^2l/dt^2\gg dl/dt$ and eqs. \[eq:l\] and \[eq:t\] can be combined to give: $cd\Delta T/dt\approx
I_d^2\rho-I_{ss}^2\rho_n-h\Delta T$ [@tes]. In this limit, if $R_L\sim R_{ss}$ the bias circuit including $R_L$ begins to look like a current source, which then results in positive feedback: a current change produces a temperature and resistance change of the same sign. Therefore, the hotspot is always unstable when $R_{ss}<~R_L$.
![Figure \[fig:3\]: (color online) Summary of hotspot stability results. Data are shown from 3 different chips (indicated by different colors). Circles, squares, and triangles are data for $L=$6-12, 15-60, and 120-600 nH, respectively. In the $\tau_e\gg\tau_a$ limit (where NS domain-wall motion dominates the electrothermal feedback), the data approach the dashed line, which is the prediction based on eq. \[eq:vss\], discussed in the text. For $\tau_e\ll\tau_{th}$ the NS domain walls are effectively fixed and the temperature feedback dominates. In this regime the feedback is always unstable when $R_{ss}\sim >R_L$ (or equivalently, $I_0\sim
<2I_{ss}$), as shown in the inset. The solid curves are obtained from eq. \[eq:aol\] assuming a phase margin of 30 degrees; each curve corresponds to a fixed $L$ in the set (6,15,30,60,600) nH and spans the range of $R_L$ in the data. The dotted lines extend these predictions over a wider range of $R_L$.\[fig:3\]](fig3){width="3.25in"}
Expressing eqs. \[eq:l\] and \[eq:t\] in dimensionless units ($i\equiv I_d/I_0$, $r\equiv R_n/R_L$, $\lambda\equiv l\beta
T_c/R_L$, $\theta\equiv T/T_c$), and expanding to first order in small deviations from steady state, we obtain:
$$\delta i^\prime=-\left (i_0\delta i+i_0^{-1}\delta r\right
)\label{eq:1}$$
$$\delta r=\eta \left(i_0-1\right)\delta\theta+\eta^{-1}\delta\lambda$$
$$\frac{\tau_a}{\tau_e}\delta\lambda^{\prime\prime}+\delta\lambda^\prime=2\eta^2
\frac{\tau_e}{\tau_{th}}\left ( \delta\theta+2i_0\eta^{-1}\delta
i\right )$$
$$\delta\theta^\prime=\frac{\Theta\tau_{th}\tau_a}{\eta
\tau_e\tau_c}\delta\lambda^{\prime\prime}-\frac{\tau_e}{\tau_c}\delta\theta\label{eq:4}$$
Here, the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $t/\tau_e$, $i_0\equiv I_0/I_{ss}$, $\Theta\equiv (T_c-T_0)/T_c$, $\eta\equiv\beta T_c/\rho_n$ characterizes the resistive transition slope, and $\tau_c\equiv c/h$ is a cooling time constant. When $\tau_e\gg\tau_{th},\tau_a$, the system reduces to: $\delta
i^{\prime\prime}+i_0\delta i^\prime-4\tau_e/\tau_{th}\approx 0$, which has damping coefficient $\zeta=i_0(4\sqrt{\tau_e/\tau_{th}})^{-1}$, as above. In the opposite limit, where $\tau_e\ll\tau_{th},\tau_a$, we obtain: $\delta i^{\prime\prime}+i_0\delta
i^\prime+(2\eta\Theta\tau_e/\tau_c)(i_0-2)\approx 0$. In agreement with our argument above, the oscillation frequency becomes negative for $R_{ss}<R_L$ ($I_0<2I_{ss}$).
We characterize the stability of the system of eqs. \[eq:1\]-\[eq:4\] using its “open loop" gain $A_{ol}$: we assume a small oscillatory perturbation by replacing $\delta r$ in eq. \[eq:1\] with $\Delta re^{j\omega t}$, and responses $(\delta
i, \delta\theta, \delta\lambda,\delta r)e^{j\omega t}$. Solving for $A_{ol}\equiv\delta r/\Delta r$, we obtain:
$$A_{ol}=\frac{4\frac{\tau_e}{\tau_{th}}(1+j\omega\frac{\tau_c}{\tau_e})-4\eta
\Theta\omega^2(i_0-1)\frac{\tau_a}{\tau_e}}{j\omega
i_0(1+\frac{j\omega}{i_0})
\left[2j\omega\eta\Theta\frac{\tau_a}{\tau_e}-(1+j\omega
\frac{\tau_c}{\tau_e})(1+j\omega\frac{\tau_a}{\tau_e})\right]}\label{eq:aol}$$
The stability of the system can then be quantified by the phase margin: $\pi$+arg\[$A_{ol}(\omega_0)$\], where $\omega_0$ is the unity gain ($|A_{ol}|=1$) frequency. In the extreme case, when the phase margin is zero (arg\[$A_{ol}(\omega_0)]=-\pi$), the feedback is positive. The solid lines in Fig. \[fig:3\] show our best fit to the data. Note that although the stability is determined only by $\tau_e/\tau_{th}$ and $i_0$ in the two extreme limits (not visible in the figure), in the intermediate region of interest here this is not the case, so several curves are shown. Each solid curve segment corresponds to a single $L$, over the range of $R_L$ tested; the dotted lines continue these curves for a wider range of $R_L$. The data are grouped into three inductance ranges: 6-12, 15-60, and 120-600 nH, indicated by circles, squares, and triangles, respectively. We used fixed values $\Theta=0.8$, $\eta=6.5$, which are based on independent measurements, and fitted $\tau_a=1.9$ ns, and $\tau_c=7.7$ ns to all data. Separate values of $\rho_nv_0$ were fitted to data from each of the three chips, differing at most by a factor of $\sim$2. These fitted values were $\rho_nv_0\sim 1\times
10^{11}\Omega$/s; since $\rho_n\sim 10^9\;\Omega$/m, this gives $v_0\sim 100$ m/s, a reasonable value.
A natural question to ask in light of this analysis is whether it suggests a method for speeding up these devices. The most obvious way would be to increase the heat transfer coefficient $h$, which increases both $I_{ss}$ and $v_0$, moving the wire further into the unstable region, and allowing its speed to be increased further without latching. However, at present it is unknown how much $h$ can be increased before the DE begins to suffer. At some point, the photon-generated hotspot will disappear too quickly for the wire to respond in the desired fashion. In any case, experiments like those described here will be a useful measurement tool in future work for understanding the impact of changes in the material and/or substrate on the thermal coupling and electrothermal feedback.
We acknowledge helpful discussions with Sae Woo Nam, Aaron Miller, Enectalí Figueroa-Feliciano, and Jeremy Sage.
This work is sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract \#FA8721-05-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations, recommendations and conclusions are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government.
\[sec:TeXbooks\]
G. Gol’tsman, O. Minaeva, A. Korneev, M. Tarkhov, I. Rubtsova, A. Divochiy, I. Milostnaya, G. Chulkova, N. Kaurova, B. Voronov, D. Pan, J. Kitaygorsky, A. Cross, A. Pearlman, I. Komissarov, W. Slysz, M. Wegrzecki, P. Grabiec, and R. Sobolewski, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. [**17**]{}, p.246 (2007); F. Marsili, D. Bitauld, A. Gaggero, R. Leoni, F. Mattioli, S. Hold, M. Benkahoul, F. Levy, A. Fiore, *European Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics and the International Quantum Electronics Conference*, 2007, p. 816; S. N. Dorenbos, E. M. Reiger, U. Perinetti, V. Zwiller, T. Zijlstra, and T. M. Klapwijk, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**93**]{}, p. 131101 (2008); A.D. Semenov, P. Haas, B. Günther, H.-W. Hübers, K. Il’in, M. Siegel, A. Kirste, J. Beyer, D. Drung, T. Schurig, and A. Smirnov, Supercond. Sci. Technol. [**20**]{} p. 919–924 (2007); S. Miki, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, B. Baek, A.J. Miller, R.H. Hadfield, S.W. Nam, and Z. Wang Appl. Phys. Lett., [**92**]{}, p. 061116 (2008); J.A. Stern and W.H. Farr, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., [**17**]{}, p. 306-9 (2007).
A.J. Kerman, E.A. Dauler, W.E. Keicher, J.K.W. Yang, K.K. Berggren, G.N. Gol’tsman, and B.M. Voronov, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**88**]{}, p. 111116 (2006).
K.M. Rosfjord, J.K.W. Yang, E.A. Dauler, A.J. Kerman, V. Anant, B.M. Voronov, G.N. Gol’tsman, and K.K. Berggren, Opt. Express. [**14**]{}, pp. 527-534 (2006).
E.A. Dauler, A.J. Kerman, B.S. Robinson, J.K.W. Yang, B. Voronov, G. Gol’tsman, S.A. Hamilton, and K.K. Berggren, e-print physics/0805.2397.
D. Rosenberg, S.W. Nam, P.A. Hiskett, C.G. Peterson, R.J. Hughes, J.E. Nordholt, A.E. Lita, A.J. Miller, Appl. Phys. Lett [**88**]{}, p. 21108, (2006); H. Takesue, S.W. Nam, Q. Zhang, R.H. Hadfield, T. Honjo, K. Tamaki, Y. Yamamoto, Nature Photonics [**1**]{}, p. 343 (2007).
B.S. Robinson, A.J. Kerman, E.A. Dauler, D.M. Boroson, S.A. Hamilton, J.K.W. Yang, V. Anant, and K.K. Berggren Proc. SPIE [**6709**]{}, p. 67090Z (2007).
An alternative has recently been demonstrated involving many parallel nanowires \[A. Korneev, A. Divochiy, M. Tarkhov, O. Minaeva, V. Seleznev, N. Kaurova, B. Voronov, O. Okunev, G. Chulkova, I. Milostnaya, K. Smirnov, and G. Gol’tsman, J. Phys. Conf. Series [**97**]{} p. 012307 (2008)\], however, it is as yet unknown whether this method can also achieve the high detection efficiency and low jitter of state-of-the art conventional devices.
J.K.W. Yang, A.J. Kerman, E.A. Dauler, V. Anant, K.M. Rosfjord, and K.K. Berggren IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. [**17**]{}, p. 581 (2007).
A.Vl. Gurevich and R.G. Mints, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, p.941 (1987), and references therein.
This description is further simplified by the fact that near the NS boundary all material properties can be approximated by their values at $T_c$.
The sheet resistance of the NbN is $R_\square\approx
500\Omega$, and that the longest hotspot measured in this work is $\sim$300 nm.
A.J. Kerman, E.A. Dauler, J.K.W. Yang, K.M. Rosfjord, V. Anant, K.K. Berggren, G.N. Gol’tsman, and B.M. Voronov, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, p. 101110 (2007).
We have focused on the impact of electrothermal feedback on reset time, but it may also influence the timing jitter since it opposes the fast, initial growth of the normal domain that produces the sharp leading-edge of the output pulses.
The results are almost identical when sweeping $I_0$ upward, since the dark counts of the device allow it to lock into the latched state if it is stable.
R.J. Molnar, E.A. Dauler, A.J. Kerman, and K.K. Berggren, to be published.
R.H. Hadfield, A.J. Miller, S.W. Nam, R.L. Kautz, and R.E. Schwall, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**87**]{}, p. 203505 (2005).
In typical experiments, the DC impedance to ground $R_{DC}$ is determined by the $I_0$ source behind a bias tee, \[Fig. \[fig:1\](b) with $R_S=0$\]. When $I_c$ is exceeded, the detector oscillates (if $I_\textrm{latch}>I_c$), for the time constant of the bias tee, after which it senses the larger $R_{DC}$ and latches. The absence of this burst of pulses is a signature for $I_\textrm{latch}<I_c$.
When $I_\textrm{latch}<I_c$, $I_{latch}$ is equivalent to what is often called the “retrapping" current in superconducting devices exhibiting self-heating.
This situation is identical to that encountered in superconducting transition-edge sensors (see, e.g.: K.D. Irwin, G.C. Hilton, D.A. Wollman, and J.M. Martinis, J. Appl. Phys. [**83**]{}, p.3978 (1998)).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
A standard fact about two incompressible surfaces in an irreducible $3$-manifold is that one can move one of them by isotopy so that their intersection becomes $\pi_1$-injective. By extending it on the maps of some $3$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifolds into $4$-manifolds, we prove that any homotopy equivalence of $4$-dimensional graph-manifolds with reduced graph-structures is homotopic to a diffeomorphism preserving the structures.
[*Keywords:*]{} graph-manifold, $\pi_1$-injective $\mathbb{Z}_n$-submanifold.
author:
- 'A.Mozgova'
title: '$\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifolds in $4$-dimensional graph-manifolds'
---
Laboratoire d’analyse non linéaire et géométrie, Université d’Avignon, 33, rue Louis Pasteur, 84000 Avignon, France.
`mozgova@univ-avignon.fr`
$\boldmath\mathbb{Z}_n$-submanifolds of $4$-manifolds
=====================================================
A [*$\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifold*]{} of dimension $k$ is an object $Z$ obtained from a compact oriented $k$-manifold with boundary by identifying (with respect of the orientation) $n$ isomorphic parts of boundary in such a way that if a point of the boundary component participate in the identification, then all the points of this component do. Every point of $Z$ has a neighborhood isomorphic either to a $k$-cell, or to a $k$-semi-cell, or to a $n$-page book of $k$-cells. The identified parts form [*the singular set*]{} of $Z$ denoted $Z_s$, and the closure of their complement is its [*regular set*]{} denoted $Z'$. Non-identified boundary components form the boundary $ \partial Z$.
For example, by identifying boundaries of three oriented surfaces each one having one boundary component, one obtain a $2$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_3$-manifold without boundary. Mapping cylinder of $n$-fold covering $S^1 \to S^1$ gives an example of $2$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifold with boundary; it appears in $3$-dimensional Seifert manifolds as the preimage of an arc in the base orbifold going from the projection of a singular fiber to the boundary.
A standard fact about two incompressible surfaces in an irreducible $3$-manifold is that one can move one of them by isotopy so that their intersection becomes $\pi_1$-injective. Under natural homotopic assumption, this remains true for the map of $3$-manifold and $3$-dimensional submanifold of $4$-manifold (Proposition 2.B.2 of [@Stallings-book] and Proposition 1 of [@Mozg]). The following lemma extends it on the maps of some $3$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifolds into $4$-manifolds.
To fix the notations, let $c : S^1 \to S^1$ be $n$-fold covering. Its mapping cylinder is a $2$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifolds $Map^n(S^1,S^1)=
(S^1 \times [0,1]) / \mbox{\footnotesize $(S^1 \times \{ 1 \} ) =
c(S^1 \times \{ 1 \}$)}.$\
Let $Z=S^1 \times Map^n(S^1, S^1)$, it is a $3$-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifold with boundary $\partial Z=S^1 \times
\partial Map^n (S^1,S^1)$, singular set $Z_s=S^1 \times
Map^n(S^1,S^1)_s$ and regular set $Z'= S^1 \times
(S^1 \times [0;1])$.
\[main-lemma\] Let $W$ be a compact smooth oriented 4-manifold with $\pi_2(W)=\pi_3(W)=0$ and $M$ be a compact oriented $\pi_1$-injective $3$-submanifold with $\pi_2(M)=0$. Let $f: (Z, \partial Z) \to (W, W \setminus M)$ be a $\pi_1$-injective map.
[$$\xymatrix{ & Z \ar[rd]^{f} & \\
\ \ \ \ F \ \ \ \ \ar[ru]^{\subset} & & \ \ \ \ W \ \ \ \ \\
& M \ar[ru]_{\subset} & }$$]{}
Then one can move $f$ by homotopy (that is constant on $\partial Z$) so that $f(Z_s) \cap M = \emptyset$ and each connected component of $F=f^{-1}(M)$ is a $\pi_1$-injective torus in $M$.
Move $f$ by a small homotopy to make it transverse to $M$. Then $F=f^{-1}(M)$ is a 2-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifold whose embedding $(F,F_s) \to (Z \setminus \partial Z, Z_s)$ induces an embedding of regular sets $F' \to Z'$. As $M$ is closed and $Z'$ is compact, $F'$ has a finite number of connected components ([@Abraham-Robbin], corollary 17.2(IV)).
In $Z = S^1 \times Map^n(S^1,S^1)$ consider the subspace $G= \{ 0 \} \times Map^n(S^1,S^1)$ where $0 \in S^1$. We have $(G, G_s) \subset (Z, Z_s)$ and $G' \subset Z'$. So $F'$ (which is union of surfaces with boundaries) and $G'$ (which is an annulus) are embedded in $Z' = S^1 \times S^1 \times I$. Denote the boundary component of $G'$ lying $\partial Z$ by $\partial_0 G'$ and the other one by $\partial_1 G'$.
[**Step 1: elimination of trivial circles of $\partial F'$.**]{} Denote the boundary component of $Z'$ giving $\partial Z$ by $\partial_0 Z'$ and the other one (participating in the identification) by $\partial_1 Z'$. Suppose that there is a circle of $\partial F'$ that is trivial in $\partial_1 Z'$. Then its projection on $Z_s$ is trivial, too. As its projection is embedded in $Z_s \simeq T^2$ (because $\partial F'$ is the preimage of $F_s$ which is embedded), it bounds an embedded disk there. Now we can proceed as in Proposition 1 of [@Mozg]: take a map of $2$-disk in $M$ bounding the same loop. As $\pi_2(W)=0$, the union of these two disks bounds a map of $3$-disk $\alpha : D^3 \to W$, which can be separated from $M$. Denote by $N$ a small book neighborhood of $D^2 \subset Z_s$ in $Z$. The map $f$ will not be changed on $\overline{Z \setminus N}$; on $D^2$ the homotopy of $f$ will be the pushing across $\alpha(D^3)$, and $N \setminus D$ will serve to rely the new map on $D^2$ and the old map on $\overline{Z \setminus N}$, doing it separately on each leaf of the book.
This homotopy of $f$ will eliminate the trivial circle from $F'$:
The closed manifold components of $F$ can be treated as in the manifold case.
[**Step 2: reduction of $F'$ to a union of closed surfaces and annuli.**]{} Now all the circles $\partial F' \subset \partial_1 Z'\simeq T^2$ are non-trivial and embedded, hence, parallel. They are either parallel to $\partial_1 G'$, or not, which corresponds respectively to $\partial F' \cap \partial_1 G' = \emptyset$ or $\partial F' \cap \partial_1 G' \ne \emptyset$. Take one connected component of $F'$, denote it still by $F'$.
We will separate two cases: $F' \cap G' = \emptyset$ or $F' \cap G' \ne \emptyset$.
It implies $F' \subset \overline{\big( Z' \setminus G' \big)} \simeq
S^1 \times I \times I$. Note that $\overline{ \big( Z' \setminus G'
\big)} \subset Z'$ is $\pi_1$-injective but $F' \subset Z'$ is not, so neither is $F' \subset \overline{ \big( Z'\setminus G' \big)}$.
In this case $(F',\partial F') \rightarrow (S^1\times I\times
I,\partial (S^1 \times I \times I))$, $\partial F'$ going to a curve parallel to the generator of $\pi_1(S^1\times I\times I)=H_1(S^1\times I\times I)$. We need to find an embedded disk in $S^1\times I\times I$ for the trivializing loop. As $\partial F'$ bounds $F' \subset S^1 \times I \times I$, $\partial F' \sim 0$ in $H^1(S^1 \times I \times I,\mathbb{Z}_2)$. As all the curves of $\partial F'$ are $\neq 0$ and parallel in $\partial (S^1 \times I \times I)$, they are in even number: say $m$ with one orientation, $m$ with the opposite one. $(F',\partial F') \rightarrow (S^1 \times I \times I,\partial (S^1 \times
I \times I ))$, so each $\partial F'$ is sent to a generator of $\pi_1(S^1 \times I
\times I)$. Take an embedded disk $D = \{ 0 \} \times I \times I \subset
(S^1 \times I \times I)$. We have then $(D , \partial D) \to
(S^1 \times I \times I, \partial (S^1 \times I \times I))$ and $D \cap F'$ is the union of circles and annuli. Take the innermost circle of $D \cap F'$; if it is $\sim 0$ in $F'$, we have a disk for the surgery, otherwise move $D$ by isotopy to eliminate it, and so on. After treating all the circles either we have a disk for the surgery, or there are only arcs in $D \cap F'$. Take two components of $\partial F$ corresponding to the arc whose ends are neighbouring in $\partial D$, denote them by $a$ and $a^{-1}$. Then $F'$ car be presented as $F'=A \, \raisebox{-1.6mm}{$\stackrel{\bigcup}{\mbox{\tiny $\gamma$}}$} \, F''$ where $A$ is an annulus with a hole, $\partial A=a \cup a^{-1} \cup \gamma$ and $F''$ is the remaining part.
Denote by $A'$ the annulus in $\partial (S^1 \times I \times I)$ lying between $a$ and $a^{-1}$. Note that $\gamma \sim aa^{-1} \sim 0$ in $\pi_1(S^1 \times I \times I)$ (but $\gamma \nsim 0$ in $F'$ as $F'\neq S^1\times I$). The arcs $A \cap D$ and $A' \cap D$ bound a disk in $D$, whose interior does not intersect $F'$.
Push $A \cup A'$ along its normal bundle toward the inside of this disk, living $\gamma$ unchanged, and do the surgery of the pushed part (which is a torus with a hole) on the interior disk. We obtain a disk $\tilde{D}$ embedded in $S^1 \times
I \times I$ such that $\partial \tilde{D} = \gamma$ and $\tilde{D} \cap F'=\gamma$. Hence we can move $f$ by homotopy in order to do the surgery of $F'$ on this disk; after this $F'$ becomes the disjoint union of an annulus and $F'' \, \raisebox{-1.6mm}{$\stackrel{\bigcup}{\mbox{\tiny $\gamma$}}$} \, D^2$. Doing this for every pair of components of $\partial F'$ corresponding to an arc with neighboring (in $\partial D$) ends, we will reduce $F'$ to a union of closed surfaces (which will be treated as in the closed manifold case) and annuli.
is a $1$-dim manifold (embedded in both $F'$ and $G'$); recall that $G'$ was chosen such that $\big( F_s \cap G_s = \emptyset \Leftrightarrow \partial F'
\cap \partial_1 G' = \emptyset \big)$.
Then $\partial F'$ is a union of circles parallel to $\partial_1 G'$ ; and $F' \cap G'$ is a closed $1$-manifold. Circles of $F' \cap G'$ that are trivial in $\pi_1(F')$, can be eliminated by moving $G'$ (without moving $\partial_1 G'$). So, if all the circles of $F' \cap G'$ are trivial in $\pi_1(F')$, we are back to the Case 1. If there is a circle of $F' \cap G'$ that is non-trivial in $\pi_1(F')$, it is either parallel to a component of $\partial F'$ or not.
$\bullet$ If there exists a circle not parallel to a component of $\partial F'$, then it is embedded in $G'$ and not parallel to its boundary, si it bounds a disk in $G'$. We can do the surgery on this disk (choosing the innermost one).
$\bullet$ If all circles of $F' \cap G'$ are parallel to a component of $\partial F'$, then cutting $Z'$ along $G'$, we’ll have some number of $\pi_1$-injective annuli embedded in $S^1 \times I \times I$, boundary going to boundary, hence isotopic to annuli in $\partial(S^1\times I \times I)$ by an isotopy that is trivial on the boundary. Use these isotopies in $Z'$ to move $G'$ in order to separate it from $F'$, and we are again in the settings of the Case 1.
If the components of $\partial F'$ are homotopic to $\partial_1 G'$, move $G'$ by isotopy to separate $\partial_1 G'$ from $\partial F'$, and we are in the previous case. If the curves of $\partial F'$ are not homotopic to $\partial_1 G'$, choose an embedded curve $\alpha \subset \partial_1 Z'$, parallel to the curves $\partial F'$ (different from them) and make $\alpha \times I \subset Z'$ be the new $G'$. Then, we are back to Case 2.1.
[**Step 3: the image of the singular set $\boldmath Z_s$ can be separated from $\boldmath M$.**]{} Now every connected component of $F'$ is a torus or an annulus. Let us show that all the annuli can be eliminated. To simplify the notations, $F$ will stand for $F$ without tori-components.
Fix a decomposition of $Map^n(S^1,S^1)$ by a wedge of intervals as follows:
After multiplying by $S^1$, it gives a wedge of annuli $\bigvee S_i$ (identified along one boundary component) embedded in $Z$ and decomposing $Z$ into sheets $I \times I \times S^1$, in which the corresponding parts of $F$ are manifolds. One generator of $\pi_1(Z_s)$ is given by the singular circle of $Map^n (S^1, S^1)$. The loop $ \big( \bigvee S_i \big) \cap Z_s$ corresponds to the second generator, and can be choosen not to be parallel to $F_s$. Then every connected component of $F$ intersects a decomposing annulus $S_i$ by arcs. Take an arc coming from a component $F_1 \subset F'$, and suppose it is the innermost one in $S_i$ (i.e. its union with an arc from $\partial S_i$ bounds a disk in $S_i$ that does not contain other arcs from $F \cap S_i$); denote it by $\alpha \subset F_1 \cap S_1$. Then the arcs $F_1 \cap S_j$ are the innermost ones in $S_j$ $\forall j \ne i$. The product of $I$ with the union of the corresponding disks in $S_1$ and $S_2$ (see Fig. \[sheet-disc\] below)
allows to change $f$ by homotopy so that the new image of the singular set $Z_s$ coincide with the image of $I \times (F_1 \cap S_1)$. Hence by pushing off along the normal bundle of $M$, $\alpha \times I$ can be eliminated from $F \cap \big( \bigvee S_i \big) $ (or, equivalently, the image of the sheet of $Z
\setminus Z_s$ that lies beetween $S_1$ and $S_2$ can be pushed away from $M$). Taking the product of the union of disks in $S_k$ and $S_{k+1}$ by $I$ and doing the same homotopy for the sheet lying beetween $S_k$ and $S_{k+1}$, one will eliminate all the annuli of $F$.
Application to $4$-dim graph-manifolds
======================================
Seifert manifolds
-----------------
Following [@Ue1; @Ue2], we say that an orientable $4$-manifold $S$ with boundary is a [*Seifert manifold*]{} if it has the structure of a fibered orbifold $\pi:S \rightarrow B$ over a $2$-orbifold with generic fiber $T^2$, and $S$ and $\partial S$ are non-singular as orbifolds. Note that $B$ as orbifold has no boundary, but the underlying surface of $B$ does.
[**Local picture.**]{}
Any point $b\in B$ has a neighborhood of type $D=D^2/G$ where $G$ is a finite subgroup of ${\cal O}(2)$ corresponding to the stabilizer of $p$. Then $\pi^{-1}(D)=(T^2\times D^2)/G$ where the action of $G$ is free and is a lifting of an action of $G$ on $D^2$ (that is $\pi_{|_{\pi^{-1}(D)}}:(T^2\times D^2)/G \rightarrow D^2/G$ is induced by the canonical projection $T^2\times D^2 \rightarrow D^2$).
: $G=\{1\}$.\
In that case $p$ is non-singular and $\pi^{-1}(p)=T^2$ is a regular fiber. The preimage of an arc in $B$ that joins $p$ with $\partial B$ is $T^2\times I$.
: $G=\mathbb{Z}_m= \langle \; g \; | \; g^m=1 \; \rangle$ and the action is given by $g (x,y,z)=\big(x-a/m,y-b/m,z{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}\big)$, where $(x,y)\in T^2$, $z\in D^2=\{z\in\mathbb{C} \; | \; |z| \le 1\}$, and $m,a,b$ being mutually relatively prime. Then $p$ is a cone point of angle $2\pi/m$ and $\pi^{-1}(p)=T^2$. The covering (regular fiber) $\rightarrow$ (singular fiber) corresponds to the subgroup $a\mathbb{Z}\oplus b\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}$. As $(a,b)=1$, we can choose a basis in the $\pi_1$ of the regular fiber such that the covering corresponds to the subgroup $\mathbb{Z}\oplus n \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}$. Then the covering $T^2\times D \rightarrow (T^2\times D^2)/G$ splits as $$\begin{array}{rcl}
S^1 & \times & (S^1 \times D^2) \\
\mbox{{\tiny id}} \downarrow \hspace*{1.9mm} & & \hspace*{7.1mm} \downarrow \mbox{{\tiny n-fold covering}} \\
S^1 & \tilde{\times} & (S^1 \times D^2) \\
\end{array}$$ (the bundle $S^1 \tilde{\times} (S^1\times D^2)$ beeing trivial because $(T^2\times D^2)/G$ is orientable). That means that $(T^2\times D^2)/G=S^1 \times (\mbox{{\small 3-dimensional model}})$. So in this case, the preimage of an arc in $B$ that joins $p$ with $\partial B$ is the $\mathbb{Z}_n$-manifold $S^1 \times Map^n(S^1,S^1)$.
: $G=\mathbb{Z}_2= \langle \; \tau \; | \; \tau^2=1 \; \rangle$ and the action is given by $\tau \cdot (x,y,z)=(x+1/2,-y,\bar{z})$. Then $\pi^{-1}(p)=K^2$, $p$ lies on a reflector circle and $\pi^{-1}(D)$ is a twisted $D^2$-bundle over $K^2$. The preimage of an arc in $B$ that joins the point $p$ with $\partial B$ is in this case a manifold $K^2 \tilde{\times} I$.
: $G=D_{2m}= \langle \; \tau , g \; | \; \tau^2=g^m=1 \, , \;
\tau g \tau^{-1}=g^{-1} \; \rangle$ and the action is given by $\tau \cdot (x,y,z)=(x+1/2,-y,\bar{z})$ and $g \cdot (x,y,z)=\big(x,y-b/m,z{\rm e}^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}\big)$. Then $p$ is a corner reflector of angle $\pi/m$ and $\pi^{-1}(p)=K^2$ which is $m$-fold covered by $K^2$ over a regular point of the reflector circle.
The preimage of an arc in $B$ that joins $p$ with $\partial B$ is the mapping cylinder of a covering $T^2 \to K^2$ which is a 2-fold covering over the loop reversing the orientation of $K^2$ and a $m$-fold covering over the other loop. This is not a $\mathbb{Z}_k$-manifold, but one can join $p$ with $\partial B$ by $2$ consecutive arcs $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the first one lying on the reflector circle and not containing another corner reflector, the second one joining the other end of $\alpha$ with $\partial B$. Then $\pi^{-1}(\alpha)=S^1 \tilde{\times} Map^n(S^1, S^1)$ and $\pi^{-1}(\beta)=I \tilde{\times} K^2$.
As in dim 3, on the fundamental group level the singular fibers create roots of the regular fiber.
[**Global picture of $S$ with boundary and hyperbolic base.**]{}
$S=M \cup M_S$, where $M$ is a $T^2$-bundle over a surface and $M_S$ is its Seifert-part. Note that $0 \rightarrow \pi_1(M) \rightarrow \pi_1(S)$.
[**Theorem**]{} ([@Zieschang], [@Vogt], [@Ue1], [@Ue2].) *Let $S,S'$ be 4-dimensional closed orientable Seifert bundles with hyperbolic bases. Then $\pi_1(S)=\pi_1(S')$ if and only if there is a fiber-preserving diffeomorphism between $S$ and $S'$.*
By taking the doubles, the previous theorem implies that if two Seifert manifolds with boundaries $(S, \partial S)$ and $(S', \partial S')$ over hyperbolic $2$-orbifolds are homotopy equivalent rel boundary then $S$ and $S'$ are diffeomorphic.
$4$-dimensional graph-manifolds
-------------------------------
A block is a Seifert bundle (with boundary) over a hyperbolic $2$-orbifold. A graph-manifold structure on a compact closed oriented $4$-manifold is a decomposition as a union of blocks, glued by diffeomorphisms of the boundary. Note that the boundary of a block has the structure of a $T^2$-bundle over a circle. A graph-manifold structure is [*reduced*]{} if none of the glueing maps are isotopic to fiber-preserving maps of $T^2$-bundles. Any graph-structure give rise to a reduced one by forming blocks glued by bundle maps into larger blocks. Like in the non-singular case, $4$-dimensional graph-manifolds are aspherical, their Euler characteristic is $0$ (because the blocks are finitely covered by $T^2$-bundles over hyperbolic surfaces, hence have $\chi=0$, and the glueings are made along 3-manifolds), and can be smoothed.
Any homotopy equivalence of closed oriented $4$-manifolds with reduced graph-structures is homotopic to a diffeomorphism preserving the structures.
We will say that a $\pi_1$-injective map between the blocks $f:S \to S'$ is [*fiber covering*]{} if in the fundamental groups it sends the (normal) fiber subgroup of $\pi_1(S)$ into the (normal) fiber subgroup of $\pi_1(S')$. To extend the proof of the non-singular case ([@Mozg]), one has to show that any $\pi_1$-injective map $f:W =\cup W_i \to W'=\cup W'_k$ of graph-manifolds with reduced graph-structures is homotopic to $\bigcup f_i$, where each $f_i : (W_i, \partial W_i) \to (W'_j,
\partial W'_j)$ is a fiber covering map. The missing step is the following
Let $S$ be a block and $W$ be a 4-dim graph-manifold with reduced graph-structure. Then any $\pi_1$-injective map $f: S \to W$ is homotopic to a map into one block of $W$.
In the base of $\pi: S \to B$, take the wedge of circle on which $B$ retracts. Join its core by arcs with every cone point and every reflector circle. As $S$ retracts on $$S'=\pi^{-1}\mbox{\small{(wedge of circles + wedge of arcs +
reflector circles)}},$$ we have to show that $f \arrowvert_{S'}$ is homotopic to a map into one bloc of $W$.
[**Step 1: $\boldmath f \arrowvert_{\pi^{-1}\mbox{\small{(wedge of circles)}}}$ is homotopic to a map in one block of $\boldmath W$.**]{} To make the reasonnings as in the singular case, one only needs to show that up to homotopy rel boundary, any $\pi_1$-injective map $g: (T^2
\times I, \partial (T^2 \times I)) \to (S, \partial S)$ is either fiber-covering or is a map into $\partial S$. Note that $S$ is finitely covered by $\tilde{S}$ which is a $T^2$-bundle over a hyperbolic surface (with boundary). As $g$ sends boundary to boundary, $Im \, g_{\ast} \subset
\pi_1(\tilde{S}) \subset \pi_1(S)$, hence $g$ lifts to a map $\tilde{g} :
(T^2 \times I, \partial ) \to (\tilde{S}, \partial \tilde{S})$, to which Lemma 2 ([@Mozg]) applies.
[**Step 2: $\boldmath f \arrowvert_{\pi^{-1}\mbox{\small{(wedge of arcs +
reflector circles)}}}$ is homotopic to a map in one block of $\boldmath W$.**]{} Denote by $M$ the block of $W$ in which $f \big( \pi^{-1}\mbox{(wedge of circles)} \big)$ lies and denote $p$ the point of $B$ which is the common core of wedge of circles and wedge of arcs. Then $f \arrowvert_{\pi^{-1}(p)} $ is a covering of the regular fiber of $M$.
[**Step 2.1: arcs to the cone points.**]{} The preimage of such an arc is $Z = S^1 \times Map^n(S^1, S^1)$, and $f \arrowvert_{Z}$ sends $\partial
Z$ into $M$, hence $f (\partial Z)$ does not intersect the decomposing submanifolds of $W$. Apply Lemma \[main-lemma\] to $f \arrowvert_{Z}$ and decomposing submanifolds $\bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i}$, we obtain $f
\arrowvert_{Z}(Z_s) \cap \big( \bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i} \big) = \emptyset$ and every component of $(f \arrowvert_{Z})^{-1} \big( \bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i}
\big)$ is a torus $\pi_1$-injectively embedded in $Z'=S^1 \times S^1 \times I$. Hence $(f \arrowvert_{Z})^{-1} \big( \bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i} \big)$ is $\bigsqcup T^2$ that are parallel to $\partial Z$ and hence are sent by $f$ on the covering of regular fiber of $M$. Take the first $T_1^2$ from $\bigsqcup T^2$ counting from $\partial Z$, say it comes from $M_{\varphi} \subset M \cap M'$. If it exists, denote the next torus from $\bigsqcup T^2$ by $T_2^2$. The restriction of $f$ on $T^2 \times I
\subset Z$ lying between $T^2_1$ and $T^2_2$ is a $\pi_1$-injective map $f_1: (T^2 \times I, \partial) \to (M', \partial M')$. As $f(T^2_i)$ is a covering of the regular fiber of $M$ and the graph-structure is reduced, $f(T^2_i)$ is not a covering of the regular fiber of the neighbouring block $M'$, hence $f(T^2_2) \subset M_{\varphi}$ and $f_1$ is homotopic rel boundary to a map into $M_{\varphi}$. Continuing like this, we change $f \arrowvert_Z$ so that $(f \arrowvert_{Z})^{-1} \big( \bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i} \big)$ containes at most one manifold component. If there are none, we are done. If there is one such component, we have a $\pi_1$-injective map $f:(Z, \partial Z, Z_s) \to (M \cup M', M, M')$.
As the torus $(f \arrowvert_Z)^{-1} (\bigsqcup M_{\varphi_i})$ is parallel to $\partial Z$, we have a $\pi_1$-injective map $f':(Z, \partial Z) \to (M', \partial M')$, such that $f' (\partial Z)$ is not fiber-covering.
. If the torus $\tilde{f'}(\partial Z)$ corresponds to a $(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z})$-subgroup $\langle \alpha^n, \beta \rangle $ in $\pi_1(W)$, then $\tilde{f'}(Z_s)$ corresponds to the $(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z})$-subgroup $\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle $. Denote $p'$ the projection of $\tilde{M'}$. If $p'_{\ast}(\alpha^n)=0$ then $p'_{\ast}(\alpha^n)=0$, too because $\pi_1(\tilde{B'})$ is free. Hence $\alpha$ is homotopic to a loop in the fiber of $\tilde{M'}$. If $p'_{\ast}(\alpha^n) \ne 0$ then $p'_{\ast}(\alpha) \ne 0$, and we can apply
> Let $B$ be a surface with boundary, $S$ a component of $\partial B$. Then the image $\pi_1(S) \to \pi_1(B)$ is root closed if and only if $B$ is not a Möbius band and roots are squared.
>
> First note that by [@LyndonSch] roots are unique in free groups. If $\partial B$ has more than one component, then $S$ corresponds to a primitive element of $\pi_1(B)$, and the statement comes from [@LyndonSch] ($a^k=s^r$ implies that $a,s$ are powers of a common element, and as $a$ is primitive, $s$ is a power of $a$).
>
> Now suppose $\partial B$ has one component. Denote $M=Map^k(S^1,S^1)$. Suppose there exists $a \in \pi_1(B)$ such that $a \notin
> \pi_1(\partial B)$ and $a^k \in \pi_1(\partial B)$. It gives a $\pi_1$-injective map $(M, \partial M) \to (B, \partial B)$ such that $\pi_1(M) \to a$ and $\pi_1(\partial M) \to a^k$. Attach disks to $M$ and $B$ to get a $\pi_1$-injective map $M \bigcup_{\partial M} D^2 \to
> B \bigcup_{\partial B} D^2$. As $a^k$ is a finite power of a generator of $\pi_1(B)$, $\pi_1 \big( M \bigcup_{\partial M} D^2 \big) \to
> \pi_1 \big( B \bigcup_{\partial B} D^2 \big)$ is of finite index. As $\pi_1 \big( M \bigcup_{\partial M} D^2 \big) = \mathbb{Z}_k$ and $\big( B \bigcup_{\partial B} D^2 \big)$ is closed, $\big( B \bigcup_{\partial B} D^2 \big) \sim \mathbb{RP}^2$, because $\mathbb{RP}^2$ is the only closed surface with finite non-trivial $\pi_1$. Hence $k=2$ and $B$ is the Möbius band.
Hence if $p'(\alpha^n)$ is homotopic to a loop in $\partial
\tilde{B'}$, then so is $p'(\alpha)$. Hence $\alpha$ is homotopic to a loop in $\partial \tilde{M'}$, and $f'$ is homotopic to a map into $\partial M'$.
Then $\alpha^n$ have roots on the singular fibers of $M'$, hence $\alpha^n$ is homotopic to a loop in the regular fiber of $M'$. Denote the Seifert projection of $M'$ by $\pi'$. As the graph-structure is reduced and $\langle \alpha^n, \beta \rangle$ corresponds to the regular fiber of $M$, ${\pi}'_{\ast}(\langle \alpha^n, b \rangle) \ne 0$, hence ${\pi}'_{\ast}(\beta) \ne 0$. Which means that $\alpha$ can not commute with $\beta$ because the roots of the regular fiber do not commute with the elements of the base.
[**Step 2.2: the image of a reflector circle without corner reflectors lies in one block**]{}. The preimage of the reflector circle is twisted $K^2$-bundle over $S^1$. Applying the previous step to the preimage of the arc between $\partial
B$ and the reflector circle, we see that $f$ restricted to the fiber of this bundle is homotopic to a map into the block $M$. Take in $B$ a loop $\gamma$ near the reflector circle which is homotopic to it. Then $\pi^{-1}(\gamma)$ is torus bundle $M_{\pm id}$. The image by $f$ of its fiber covers the regular fiber of the block $M$, hence the whole $f \big(
M_{\pm id} \big)$ can be shrinked by homotopy into $M$, in particular $f(\gamma)$ does. Hence the image of the whole $1$-skeleton of $\pi^{-1}\mbox{(reflector circle)}$ can be shrinked by homotopy into $M$, and the asphericity implies the statement.
[**Step 2.3 : case of reflector circles having corner reflectors.**]{} The preimage of an arc on a reflector circle between a corner reflector and a neighboring point is $\tilde{Z}=S^1 \tilde{\times} Map^n(S^1,S^1)$. Denote as before $\partial \tilde{Z}=S^1 \tilde{\times} \partial \big(
Map^n(S^1,S^1) \big)$ and $\tilde{Z}_s=S^1 \tilde{\times} \big(
Map^n(S^1,S^1) \big)_s$. The preimage of an arc in $B$ between the reflector circle and the boundary is $I \tilde{\times} K^2$, and by previous its image by $f$ can be shrinked into $M$.
Let us show that $f(\tilde{Z})$ such that $f(\partial \tilde{Z}) \subset M$ can be shrinked into $M$. The double covering $p: Z \to \tilde{Z}$ induces a $\pi_1$-injective map $fp:Z \to W$ which by previous can be shrinked into $M$ (by a homotopy which is constant on $\partial Z$). Let us show that the whole mapping cylinder of $p$, $Map_p(Z, \tilde{Z})$ can be shrinked into $M$. For this, note that the mapping cylinders of the $2$-fold coverings $p \arrowvert_{\partial Z}$ and $p \arrowvert_{Z_s}$ are $\big( I
\tilde{\times} K^2 \big)$’s with boundaries lying in $M$, hence both can be shrinked into $M$. It remains to remark that the union of these mapping cylinders with $Z$ contains a $1$-skeleton of $Map_p(Z, \tilde{Z})$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |